Do you remember my post about whether or not to split up twins? Well...

[T'smom]

Well, the twins I knew where one was held back, the more advanced one had a lot of contempt for her sister. The one that was held back seemed to have already been marked a 'failure'. It's one thing for a child to be held back- years later, they're able to simply answer "I'm in 5th grade" (or whatever grade) but with a twin who is ahead it will constantly be 'in their face'. The "I'm in 5th grade" will always be followed up with "yeah, she's my twin. Yeah, I was held back." The twins I went to school with? They moved to our town in Jr. High. If they hadn't been twins, no one would have ever known that the one had been held back in elementary. Now, obviously, the parents can work to try to keep that from happening, but they may or may not be successful.

Now I am not a twin, so I don't have intimate knowledge of what it is like to be one. Dh is a triplet, I'll ask him what he thinks when he gets home. One of his brothers struggled a lot more than he and the other brother in school. And it was hard on him. I think it would have been MUCH harder emotionally if he'd been 'left behind'

Also, I don't think academics are the most important thing. (And this is coming from someone who does think academics rate VERY highly) I will push my kids academically- but if I put them in school, I would start them as late as I could. Not because of academics, but because of the social pressures and stuff in high school.

I think I'm rambling and not really making any sense. I guess the most important aspect of this is that they're not really being "held back" yet. They're just not starting as early as they could. If one twin was failing 6th grade, I wouldn't suggest that both be held back. But with it being K, I don't see it as being 'held back' just not starting yet. I'm sorry if I'm not making sense....there's chaos in my house right now.

[Ester Maria]

You are making sense, T'smom - both you and Barb - I am just trying to wrap my mind about it, so I'm thinking out loud. Thanks for thinking it through with me. :)

[Granny_Weatherwax]

My first reaction to the thread title was 'what a great opportunity for a nature vs nurture study."

 

Helpful, I know! :D

[T'smom]

But I still have a problem with it. Even more so after reading this...

 

Is the girl's purpose to "serve" her brother's self-esteem? Or are we treating her as an individual with some of her own rights - to own her grade, to own her education? I do realize it's a very tricky situation, but I feel that not enough people are standing up for her - only for the boy's self-esteem. How will she feel on the long run for having been held back, isolated from her age group and a 'standard path' she would have taken, "not to offend"? So sad, to be prevented from learning and growing with your peers. :(

 

 

I understand where you are coming from. I think you are seeing it the way I would be seeing it if the kids were older. For example, if they were in the 3rd grade and one was failing, no one would think that they should both be held back. (Although in that case I would think that the failing child be given every possible opportunity to get caught up before holding them back). But they're so little. I don't think she's started on the 'standard path' yet, and lots of kids start K late. If I was sending my kids to school I would start them as late as possible. Not because they're behind academically. Not because of academics at all. But because having one more year of maturity can only help them in dealing with social situations, choosing a college, etc. I may be biased because my parents started me early and while I was always advanced academically, it was really hard on me to be the youngest in my class. Every one else was driving before me, etc. And I really could've used an extra year to try and figure out what I wanted to do college-wise.

[wapiti]

But I still have a problem with it. Even more so after reading this...

 

Is the girl's purpose to "serve" her brother's self-esteem? Or are we treating her as an individual with some of her own rights - to own her grade, to own her education? I do realize it's a very tricky situation, but I feel that not enough people are standing up for her - only for the boy's self-esteem. How will she feel on the long run for having been held back, isolated from her age group and a 'standard path' she would have taken, "not to offend"? So sad, to be prevented from learning and growing with your peers. :(

 

I know of cases where siblings of different ages ended up in the same grade due to acceleration / failure / having been held back. While I do agree those are not always "smooth" situations, I usually think it would have been worse to try to create an "artificially smooth" situation, if you get what I mean... Like the case with a one year apart girl and boy I talked about earlier, where parents vacillated so much whether to send them to school the same year or hold the girl back even if she didn't have to be held. In the end they opted to send them together, I don't think it hurt anyone on the long run.

 

In any case, Heather is right - this is like to be a lose-lose situation whatever of the three options she chooses. I don't know why, but I feel so strongly about the young girl :(, in spite of trying to keep the boy's perspective in mind too.

 

FWIW, I agree with you, Ester Maria, as a mom of twins who were in very different academic situations when they were in preschool. I could never hold back one because of his sibling. However, I am also of the opinion that both should be moved ahead.

 

To Heather, their different academic situations is also a reason I'd tend to want to put them in separate classes, though ultimately the parents should be consulted on that question.

 

I also wanted to add a few things to my earlier post about my own twins, since that was merely anecdotal. It's hard for me to compare public education norms in the US with a private school situation, where the decision is the perogative of the school and the school has its standards for K entry, however age-appropriate they may or may not be. However, as a professional educator, it might be worth your time to read research on holding back from K. I don't know how it all shakes out; there's plenty available on google. Here is a tiny sample:

http://www.ncld.org/at-school/general-topics/early-learning-aamp-literacy/redshirting-a-qmovingq-experience

http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/news/coverstories/pros_cons_holding_out.php

http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/eecearchive/digests/2000/katzred00.pdf

http://journal.naeyc.org/btj/200309/DelayingKEntry.pdf

 

I would also advise looking at the question through a couple of other perspectives: (1) through the eyes of a home educator - would your decision be different, and (2) suppose, hypothetically, the child had a documented LD - what would the normal approach be at your school (promote with supports or deny entry to K).

 

At a bare minimum, if the starting-K requirements are hard and fast, I'd at least give him the next six months to see if he can get there. Beyond that, I personally would give him the chance to see if he can pass K, but I don't run an entire school ;).

[FO4UR]

I think keeping them together is priority #1, given what I know of the situation.

 

Holding them back...this can be "blamed" on their preemie beginnings.

 

Moving forward...not without pain and suffering by the boy, it sounds.

 

 

I agree with the poster that recommended homeschooling them, but that probably isn't an option as their parents probably want good use made of the playground set with their NAME on it.;)

 

If the parents resemble the "Tiger Mom" (you remember that book/article on pushing academics), I would err on the side of holding them back b/c the pressure of being *top* of the class on top of promoting might just do that poor little boy in.:sad: Pushing for *top* of the class amongst peers a year (few months?) younger gives him a fighting chance...and will put the little girl in a more competitive position.

[ocelotmom]

I went to school with boy/girl twins. The girl was a year ahead, an excellent student, popular, involved in student government and so forth. The boy had been held back a year, not a good student, much rougher and more of a behavior problem (though I'm not sure he was ever in any sort of horrible trouble, either).

 

I'm not sure how many people were actually aware they were twins, or even related. I was only because I'd known them since preschool.

 

It's hard to say whether this was a case of chicken or the egg - was he held back because of existing academic and behavioral issues (obviously there was something that caused it, or were those exacerbated by being held back and comparison with his sister?

 

So, no answer there. Just my experience with a similar situation.

[Barb_]

But I still have a problem with it. Even more so after reading this...

 

Is the girl's purpose to "serve" her brother's self-esteem? Or are we treating her as an individual with some of her own rights - to own her grade, to own her education? I do realize it's a very tricky situation, but I feel that not enough people are standing up for her - only for the boy's self-esteem.

 

 

I agree with you, but I'm coming from a different angle. I don't think it is in *any* child's interest to be held back a year when it is obvious it has been done, such as in cases where a child is forced to repeat a year in the middle, or in a twin situation where one starts school earlier. I'm assuming this is ever more of an issue in Asia. It's not a boy vs. girl thing for me; I would feel the same if the situation were reversed and we were discussing the girl's being held back. I think the best situation would be to place both in the next grade, and the next best situation to be holding both out one more year.

 

Barb

[Spy Car]

Kindergarten programs are often very academic these days, and it sounds like that is the case at Heather's school. Last year when my son was in Kindergarten I worked in the class quite a bit and saw the benefits that came to the children who were "given the gift of another year for those children who started K a year later than they might have. And also saw what happened with children (including a pair of twins) who were not given this gift and struggled at the bottom of their classes (they had and have different teachers).

 

Schools no matter how hard they try to "differentiate" are not the same as a one-on-one teaching environment. A child struggling at the bottom of a class does not have an easy life. No one will confuse me with a "better late than early" advocate, but one needs to match a child on their level of development. If you can't do that it is cruel.

 

There is no perfect answer here, but given the circumstances wouldn't it be better to "enrich" the sister's additional Pre-k year while bringing her brother up to kindergarten readiness? She need not have a "wasted year." making sure that does not happen should be a vow of the school. There are plenty of ways to go deep and wide in preparation for Kindergarten. Heather knows how to tap those resources, and hopefully the Pre-k teacher has plenty of ideas as well.

 

The girl should not be sacrificed fro her brother. But she doesn't need to be. Her extra year could be (and should be) enriching for her, and the school should make that part of their commitment to the family if that is the decision that is made.

 

Bill

Edited March 10, 2011 by Spy Car

[wapiti]

She need not have a "wasted year." making sure that does not happen should be a vow of the school. There are plenty of ways to go deep and wide in preparation for Kindergarten. Heather knows how to tap those resources, and hopefully the Pre-k teacher has plenty of ideas as well.

 

The girl should not be sacrificed fro her brother. But she doesn't need to be. Her extra year could be (and should be) enriching for her, and the school should make that part of their commitment to the family if that is the decision that is made.

 

That's a nice idea, but ultimately, she'd graduate at 19. That's still wasting a year - a big year, at 18 y.o. - unless a school will allow future grade-skips, which are a lot harder to come by than retention. Is anyone going to let one or both of them skip K and go right into first grade from preschool? Probably not.

[SonshineLearner]

Put him in kindy, but allow a person to help with him to catch him up... Do it on the sly?? Hmmmm.... think about making it so that all the kids get extra enrichment. Seems like he'll catch up... if he doesn't realize he's behind?? ;( Sorry!!

[Paige]

I would hold them both back or ask the parents what they would want. I lean towards holding them back because they are young, were preemies (how preemie?) and small. There are many unknowns with preemies that may only show up later. I would err on the side of keeping them back to give both of them the best chance to succeed in the future. The girl may be doing well enough now, with easy stuff, but in a few years and issues she may have due to being preemie may show up and make keeping up with everyone a challenge. With them being so small, they wouldn't seem out of place. Or- you could institute a new, innovative class next year of combined preK and K! :tongue_smilie:

[Spy Car]

That's a nice idea, but ultimately, she'd graduate at 19. That's still wasting a year - a big year, at 18 y.o. - unless a school will allow future grade-skips, which are a lot harder to come by than retention. Is anyone going to let one or both of them skip K and go right into first grade from preschool? Probably not.

 

They could be 18, do we know when they were born? Many children start Kindergarten late these days. Good private schools around here will not even consider summer babies (especially boys) no matter how developed they are.

 

My son is a summer baby. When he was young we had to at least consider the options. As it was, he was ready. But he has a number of students in his classes who are a full year ahead, and each of those children is well served by the extra year. In every case I would call it a god-send. And there are a few children who I wish had been given the same gift.

 

Bill

[Lolly]

But why? I really am trying, genuinely, to understand what I am missing here. Asian culture aside, of course.

 

What about a case (and I know one such!) where a boy and his sister that's one year younger start school the same year, because he was held back one year? Does it also "offend" the child, create tensions or provokes low self-esteem? But, how else can you do it and be "fair" - you cannot keep the girl one year behind too for no reason just so she may start the school exactly a year after her brother? :confused:

 

Or what about other cases in family where one kid skips a year and "catches up" with an older sibling? I've been struggling with the younger one working just as fine as the older one in most areas from the beginning, it drove the older one NUTS at times, but that's a good thing about homeschooling that I can separate them - but in a school context, would I not harm my younger child by NOT allowing her to be accelerated to her sister's grade, if the school were to suggest it and if she was socially mature to do so (not only intellectually)?

 

What's so special about the situation with twins? Those are things which are happening all the time in families - one kid fails a year (should the boy be immune to failing a year in the future, just so they don't get separated?), one kid gets accelerated, kids of different ages "meet" in the same grade, etc.

 

Maybe I'm too individualistic, but you know, to each his path, and sometimes even twins' paths separate at young ages... right?

 

Or I am still missing something here (other than the Asian culture thing)?

 

Yes, you are missing the knowledge of twin relationship. It is not like any other. They are not just siblings. The older they get, the less the twinship matters, but at 4 or 5 they are still usually closely joined. They are a single unit that has two individual pieces. You cannot think of them as totally separate or totally joined. It is complicated. I had no idea until I had twins myself. You are saying the girl is being sacrificed. How much harm would be coming to her by repeating a year? Mostly likely none. How much harm would be coming to the boy by having his sister a grade ahead? Most likely a lot.

[Dmmetler]

I've taught two twin-pairs who faced a similar situation-but I don't know if either solution would be applicable in Malaysia.

 

The first was twin boys, adopted internationally. One had a cleft lip/palate at birth, and when the boys were adopted at 3, was significantly behind developmentally, probably due to feeding issues and to difficulties with speech. The other twin had been his brother's caregiver, and was mature for his age. Honestly, they didn't look like twins-the smaller of the two looked and sounded about 2 years younger when I started teaching them in my music classes soon after their adoption.

 

When the boys started school, one was ready for K, but the other really needed a year of preschool, so the parents handled this by putting them in a school that had both Reggio-Emilia and Montessori classes. Being in a 3-4-5 yr old PK/K montessori class gave the less developed twin the chance to develop the skills he needed, and being in the Reggio Emilia, child-led, K class with 5-6 yr olds gave the little boy who had gotten himself and his brother through a difficult toddlerhood a chance to be a leader. The boys did end up a grade apart, but because of the structure of the school, where only some of the kids in Montessori move up each year, it wasn't a big deal-simply that brother's class is different.

 

Another family had boy-girl twins where, again, the girl was much more ready than the boy. They handled it by putting the children in two different schools, both single gender, and the boy's school had a later cutoff than the girl's school. Problem solved-both children were in a school class with children their age, and fit the norm for their peers.

 

I don't know how it played out when the kids were older, but I thought both solutions were masterful in meeting the needs of both children, without explicitly labeling one as "behind" on starting K.

[Lolly]

Btdt with mine. Dd16a the preschool said was ready to go ahead to K. Dd16b was nowhere near ready. 16a recognized her letters, could write them all, counted to ????. 16b recognized a few, wrote a few, couldn't count past 12. The difference was that I knew I wasn't sending either of them. I never planned to send them to K on time because if they had been born anywhere near their due date, they would not be starting K until the next year.

 

Premature babies should typically start school with their due date, not their birthdate. In fact, if they were very premature, you should even add a couple of months onto their due date. You might want to check their birthdate and see if you could fall back on this to hold both back.

 

Then, you will need to make some choices. Is there anyway the boy can succeed in K? If so, moving them both up is a possibility. If not, holding them both back is possible. Personally, I think you should decide what is acceptable to the school and allow the parents to make the decision. Give them all options (together up or down/separate) and let them choose.

 

In my twins' case, it turns out that 16b is the one who would have been able to succeed if she had gone ahead. 16a has ld's that we didn't know about until she started doing "real school" types of activities. She was much better served by waiting. While the school didn't know it, 16b not only knew and could write all her letters, but could read easy readers at 4. She spent most evenings copying words and their definitions out of a children's dictionary for fun. And, she could count until you got sick of hearing it. She simply wouldn't do it at school on command. 16a was a teacher pleaser. She would do anything they wanted when they wanted. I laughed a bit when they suggested holding B back. Poor dear absolutely hated school.:lol: ;) It hasn't hurt either to start a year later.

[Ester Maria]

They handled it by putting the children in two different schools, both single gender, and the boy's school had a later cutoff than the girl's school. Problem solved-both children were in a school class with children their age, and fit the norm for their peers.

 

That seems like a neat solution.

Do you know, however, how they explained to the kids the fact that the girl started school a year earlier? Just by the cutoff date?

[Dmmetler]

That seems like a neat solution.

Do you know, however, how they explained to the kids the fact that the girl started school a year earlier? Just by the cutoff date?

 

They both started the same year-only one in K and one in JK, and I think the parents tended to downplay the label at first-and the cutoff date makes a good excuse for the kids to use down the road.

 

This is also a family where, if they wanted to, they could EASILY send the girl for a gap year overseas or something later on.

[RoundAbout]

They could be 18, do we know when they were born? Many children start Kindergarten late these days. Good private schools around here will not even consider summer babies (especially boys) no matter how developed they are.

 

My son is a summer baby. When he was young we had to at least consider the options. As it was, he was ready. But he has a number of students in his classes who are a full year ahead, and each of those children is well served by the extra year. In every case I would call it a god-send. And there are a few children who I wish had been given the same gift.

 

 

:iagree:

 

My son misses the CA Kindergarten cutoff by a few days so I always find this issue interesting even though we plan to homeschool. The difference between him starting K at 5.75 vs. 4.75 if he were born only a few days earlier is HUGE. In the case of my son I think being tall (>95th percentile) and very articulate is actually a disadvantage because people assume he's older and expect more in terms of behavior.

 

I'm actually surprised by the number of people urging to push the boy forward in K. From the polls I've read here, most who held their boys back are glad they did and many who didn't regret starting them in K or K-level work too early. I'm also surprised at the number of people who think some intensive tutoring over the summer is enough to catch him up. I think it would be much easier to enrich the girl's experience in preschool than try to force physical, academic, and emotional readiness in the boy in the course of a few months.

 

Obviously cultural issues can't be ignored but I assume the parents would rather have an older son doing well in school than deal with the "shame" of him performing poorly for the next decade.

[Spy Car]

:iagree:

 

My son misses the CA Kindergarten cutoff by a few days so I always find this issue interesting even though we plan to homeschool. The difference between him starting K at 5.75 vs. 4.75 if he were born only a few days earlier is HUGE. In the case of my son I think being tall (>95th percentile) and very articulate is actually a disadvantage because people assume he's older and expect more in terms of behavior.

 

I'm actually surprised by the number of people urging to push the boy forward in K. From the polls I've read here, most who held their boys back are glad they did and many who didn't regret starting them in K or K-level work too early. I'm also surprised at the number of people who think some intensive tutoring over the summer is enough to catch him up. I think it would be much easier to enrich the girl's experience in preschool than try to force physical, academic, and emotional readiness in the boy in the course of a few months.

 

Obviously cultural issues can't be ignored but I assume the parents would rather have an older son doing well in school than deal with the "shame" of him performing poorly for the next decade.

 

I'm with you all the way!

 

Bill

[littleWMN]

Goodness, it's kindergarten! Isn't it mostly all play anyway? Water tables, sandboxes, gluesticks, music corner, storytime, naps on little carpets?

 

Not here. My dd5 is in public preK and her teacher said in preK (all day) there is 3.5 hours of play - including recess. They have two 30 minute recesses and a nap, as well as indoor play.

 

In K, it transitions to 15 MINUTES of recess. No indoor play. Centers are academic. NO nap.

 

So they go from 3.5 hours of play to 15 minutes of play.

 

My daughter should be held back in preK but she will lose her therapies halfway through school next year if we hold her back. :(

[melmichigan]

Can you give the parents the 2 options? Because the children are sick so often they've missed a lot of school and aren't quite ready for kindergarten. You could also add in the fact that they're premies and would developmentally be starting preschool if they were full-term.

 

Option 1: Start the children in kindergarten next year with the parents' understanding the children will need extra time and tutoring to keep up. You could also give them a list of what is expected in Kindergarten so the parents would be able to begin the extra work immediately.

 

Option 2: Let the children repeat preschool since that is actually where they would be developmentally, and the children would likely excell if placed with their full-term agemates. :001_smile:

 

Personally I would not mention that the daughter is ahead of her brother and ready to promote. From the little I understand of the culture, it would make for a tense situation in the family.

 

:iagree: If them being premies isn't enough reason to hold them back then definately have a plan for help for the boy.

 

I had this situation with my twins, it is one of the reasons we homeschool. I couldn't imagine having the fact that your sister is a grade ahead hung over you for the rest of her life, how would that effect your self-esteem? If my twins had gone to PS they would have entered at the level of the lower child.

[tex-mex]

You know the parents best and can best judge whether holding him back will create a difficult family situation (which I believe should be taken seriously, just as much as his skills).

But maybe the parents will surprise you, after being told that devolpment differences are VERY common between boys and girls, that you want to give him the best shot at being an "excellent" student, etc., etc.

Also, the best thing might be to just let the parents decide, after having layed down the facts for them. You could still let them know what YOU would do if he was YOUR son...

 

At least, with them on board, you could assume that the decision is supported by the home environment...which, again, I believe is the most essential

 

Good luck!

:iagree: Arrange for a meeting with the teacher, parents, and yourself. Lay the cards on the table in your professional manner as a Prinicipal. Allow the parents to make the final decision. Years from now, regardless of what happens, they will be at peace knowing they made the decision as they know the children best. Honestly, as a former Elementary Schoolteacher, the boy may have the same situation in the next grade level, kwim? Both you and I know by the time 3rd grade hits, it is very evident of a learning disability or true need for retaining. (But obviously more of a social stigma with peers to be "held back" by then with students... I personally think it is better to retain NOW than later in primary grades.) I'm sure the wealthy donors will appreciate your efforts. They may need to hire a tutor for the boy as he gets older or get officially assessed for LD? Hang in there.

[tex-mex]

Goodness, it's kindergarten! Isn't it mostly all play anyway? Water tables, sandboxes, gluesticks, music corner, storytime, naps on little carpets?

Back when I taught K grades (in the stone age) in the late 80's to 1991, it was that with a nap and music at the end. Fast forward to today's Kindergarten and you'd be SHOCKED to see how it is now similar to 1st grade with students doing worksheets, sitting at desks, and no more centers or playhouse. No naps, water table, etc. Nowadays the kiddos have to know how to write their name, ABCs, shapes, colors, etc before entering K. Wowzers. When I taught K, that was our whole YEAR's curriculum!!! HAAAAAA. Things have changed thanks to No Child Left Behind. ;)

Edited March 11, 2011 by tex-mex

[Harriet Vane]

I would let them go into K together, but make sure the parents know that they (and the boy) are going to have to work doubly hard. This would flow into the culture, wouldn't it? If they have money and are very involved, he'll have the support he needs.

 

You can't have them in different grades and the shame might be insurmountable for the boy in the future.

 

:iagree: I also like the suggestion for summer tutoring for the boy.

[Tree House Academy]

I would hire a one-on-one assistant for the boy to help catch him up (since the parents give so much money anyway) and move them both ahead to kindy. However, if the boy is not showing marked improvement and readiness to move forward, I would not hesitate to revisit this "holding back" thing in the future.

[zaichiki]

I would pass them on and assume the boy would catch up. No way in that culture and even with the parents being financial backers would I hold the boy back. I might suggest remediation over the summer (but call it enrichment). Not a battle worth fighting. That said, perhaps not having them in the same classroom might be more effective in order to avoid competition and for the parents to not note the difference as much...

 

I agree with Nadia. This is very culturally sensitive.

 

Sometimes cultural needs and family values (the whole first-born son thing) trump individual needs. Those cultural and family values will be looming over his head for his whole life. If you hold him back you are taking a huge risk.

 

How much longer until K starts? Does he have time to develop naturally and catch up? Will he need more attention to help him catch up (like tutoring)?

 

His parents are wealthy and he's that first-born son, so he's got lots of opportunities that most kids probably don't have. He'll have a good chance of catching up, I think.

 

Anyway, I agree with Nadia.

[zaichiki]

That is a really good question. I'm not entirely sure but I believe it is something he will catch up on eventually. I am going to explore this more....

 

Oh, Heather, it just occurred to me. Why not ask the parents?

ETA: Just read through the thread. Obviously it occured to others, too. :)

Edited March 11, 2011 by zaichiki

[Spy Car]

The financial backers are going to want to see their child struggling at the bottom of the class? Really???

 

Most important are the children. It is very difficult to take a child who is not developmentally ready and try to push them. Not in a hyper-competitive environment. And at what cost?

 

I am the opposite of a delayed education type person, but one needs to honor it if professionals know a child is not ready. If there is some one-on-one help available spend half of it on the girl to make sure her extra year is productive and let the boy be developed at his pace.

 

Bill

[zaichiki]

But I still have a problem with it. Even more so after reading this...

 

Is the girl's purpose to "serve" her brother's self-esteem? Or are we treating her as an individual with some of her own rights - to own her grade, to own her education? I do realize it's a very tricky situation, but I feel that not enough people are standing up for her - only for the boy's self-esteem. How will she feel on the long run for having been held back, isolated from her age group and a 'standard path' she would have taken, "not to offend"? So sad, to be prevented from learning and growing with your peers. :(

 

I know of cases where siblings of different ages ended up in the same grade due to acceleration / failure / having been held back. While I do agree those are not always "smooth" situations, I usually think it would have been worse to try to create an "artificially smooth" situation, if you get what I mean... Like the case with a one year apart girl and boy I talked about earlier, where parents vacillated so much whether to send them to school the same year or hold the girl back even if she didn't have to be held. In the end they opted to send them together, I don't think it hurt anyone on the long run.

 

In any case, Heather is right - this is like to be a lose-lose situation whatever of the three options she chooses. I don't know why, but I feel so strongly about the young girl :(, in spite of trying to keep the boy's perspective in mind too.

 

Ester,

 

Because of the culture (very unfortunately) the girl's needs are not as important as the boy's. I hate to say it, but it is true. If the girl is moved ahead and he is not, it will ruin his life. There's probably no saving that. If the boy *needs* to be held back and the girl is held back with her brother it will probably not ruin her life. Lesser of two evils.

Edited March 11, 2011 by zaichiki

[zaichiki]

If the parents resemble the "Tiger Mom" (you remember that book/article on pushing academics), I would err on the side of holding them back b/c the pressure of being *top* of the class on top of promoting might just do that poor little boy in.:sad: Pushing for *top* of the class amongst peers a year (few months?) younger gives him a fighting chance...and will put the little girl in a more competitive position.

 

Oooh. Good point.

[RoundAbout]

Most important are the children. It is very difficult to take a child who is not developmentally ready and try to push them. Not in a hyper-competitive environment. And at what cost?

 

 

 

This is what I was wondering. I mean, if all it takes is a few months of intensive tutoring to bring a child up to the next level, wouldn't all of our kids be advanced by several grades? I know that's not exactly what people are suggesting, but to commit to Kindergarten in the hopes that it will all work out seems risky at a crucial stage of a child's development.

 

I appreciate the concern about the girl being held back, but honestly even with my son being a late starting Kindergartner because of his age there are more things I would like to do during preschool than I have time for. If she were reading several grade levels ahead or something it might be a different story but I get the impression she's barely on level herself.

[Cindyz]

I think it's a decision to be made with the parents.

 

Also, the parents should already know this is coming. I'm sure if a child needs to be held back, teachers have already discussed issues with the parents so it shouldn't be a shock.

[Heather in Neverland]

Thank you all SO MUCH for your input. I have read every comment about three times. There are so many factors in this decision. Holding a child back a grade is always a big decision but I have never had a situation like this before and add to it the OTHER dimension of time urgency (we are in the height of admissions season, all the grades are full or nearly full so I HAVE to make a decision now rather than waiting a few more months) and the pressure is heavy.

 

After reading all the posts I think I am going to try this:

 

1. Be honest in a VERY culturally-sensitive way about their children's progress. I have to be careful here not to make things worse for the boy (or for the girl for that matter).

 

2. Give them the two options of moving both ahead or keeping both back and the pros and cons that go with each.

 

3. Explain my preference on the matter is to hold them both back (even though she is ready for kindy...she is still quite young...they are October babies and the youngest in their class and really should have waited a year before starting anyway but that is another story).

 

4. Let them choose.

 

If they choose to move them both ahead then it will be with the condition that the boy receive additional instruction outside of preschool to get him ready.

 

I hope they choose to keep them both back but I don't think they will. And at that point I hope that the little boy is able to catch up developmentally and that I am not faced with this same issue this time next year. :glare:

 

Because I am a homeschooler at heart I always want parents to be the ones making decisions that they feel are best for their children. That's one of the things that always bugged me about PS. I just hope this all works out.

[Spy Car]

October premies?

 

Oh come on Heather this is not even a close call. They stay back. End of discussion :D

 

Bill

[Heather in Neverland]

October premies?

 

Bill

 

Yeah. They were accepted about a month before I arrived in Malaysia. I would never have accepted them in the first place. Now I have to clean up the mess the last principal left. :glare:

[Spy Car]

Yeah. They were accepted about a month before I arrived in Malaysia. I would never have accepted them in the first place. Now I have to clean up the mess the last principal left. :glare:

 

If you'd said they were premature AND born in October we could have saved...how long is this thread?

 

They will still be 18 when they graduate. It would be crazy to advance them. Let sanity prevail.

 

Bill

[Heather in Neverland]

If you'd said they were premature AND born in October we could have saved...how long is this thread?

 

 

Sounds like an easy fix, right? Try telling that to the parents.

 

I may think it sounds logical but they will only hear "our kids are being held back" and then there is the whole saving face/shame thing and it will cause them to push hard for the children to NOT be held back. It has taken me nearly 2 years to truly get a a handle on how real this is for them in their culture. They will have to face their extended family, members of their community, other parents of children in the same class and explain that their children are being held back which is the height of shame.

 

It is a mindset I am only barely able to comprehend but it is very real.

[Melinda in VT]

Yeah. They were accepted about a month before I arrived in Malaysia. I would never have accepted them in the first place. Now I have to clean up the mess the last principal left. :glare:

 

Ugh. Someone should go beat the previous principal with a wet noodle. What was he or she thinking?!?

 

It's funny, because until this thread I had completely forgotten that I delayed kindergarten for my oldest son (also an October birthday, although the opposite of preemie).

 

We moved to Rhode Island when he was 4.5 and I was shocked to find out that he would be eligible for K in the fall. The RI cutoff was that kids had to be 5 by December 31. We had just moved, we had new twins in the family, we hadn't been planning on K, so I just put him in a private preschool and started him in K when he was 5 almost 6.

 

Then we moved here to Vermont, which has a Sept 1 cutoff, and he was right in line with the rest of the kids.

 

If only the previous principal had had a back bone.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Sounds like an easy fix, right? Try telling that to the parents.

 

I may think it sounds logical but they will only hear "our kids are being held back" and then there is the whole saving face/shame thing and it will cause them to push hard for the children to NOT be held back. It has taken me nearly 2 years to truly get a a handle on how real this is for them in their culture. They will have to face their extended family, members of their community, other parents of children in the same class and explain that their children are being held back which is the height of shame.

 

It is a mindset I am only barely able to comprehend but it is very real.

 

It sounds like the question is how can you make the situation one in which you are giving the family the special treatment or privilege of an extra year. Give them the terms and framework that they can use as a shield with their friends and family.

[chiguirre]

I think it may be time for you to institute an age cutoff (if you don't already have one) and advise ALL parents of preemies to use their dc's due date to determine grade placement. That would solve the problem without it being about these twins. If the parents want to discuss this, I'd explain the requirements for K and why their kids would do much better waiting. Really, wouldn't they rather have their kids be successful next year and graduate at 18 rather than have them both struggle for the next 12 years and have a tough time getting into university. The momentary shame of not being "the youngest Ker!" is a lot less that the long-term shame of being the worst students for their entire school career.

[kiana]

Could it be presented as a) a mistake because of preemies in the first place, b) a chance for the little boy to take his place as a leader rather than always being a follower behind the girls? (as you mentioned the family issues with the firstborn son in your op)

[Spy Car]

I think it may be time for you to institute an age cutoff (if you don't already have one) and advise ALL parents of preemies to use their dc's due date to determine grade placement. That would solve the problem without it being about these twins. If the parents want to discuss this, I'd explain the requirements for K and why their kids would do much better waiting. Really, wouldn't they rather have their kids be successful next year and graduate at 18 rather than have them both struggle for the next 12 years and have a tough time getting into university. The momentary shame of not being "the youngest Ker!" is a lot less that the long-term shame of being the worst students for their entire school career.

 

:iagree:

[angela in ohio]

Back when I taught K grades (in the stone age) in the late 80's to 1991, it was that with a nap and music at the end. Fast forward to today's Kindergarten and you'd be SHOCKED to see how it is now similar to 1st grade with students doing worksheets, sitting at desks, and no more centers or playhouse. No naps, water table, etc. Nowadays the kiddos have to know how to write their name, ABCs, shapes, colors, etc before entering K. Wowzers. When I taught K, that was our whole YEAR's curriculum!!! HAAAAAA. Things have changed thanks to No Child Left Behind. ;)

 

I went to K in the early 80s in an average small town public school, and we learned to read and add and subtract. Kiddos who weren't reading near the end of the year had "special help time" (I remember that because the rest of us got to have music time in the other room during that time, and that was the best part of the day!) I think it goes in cycles.

[Paige]

I think it may be time for you to institute an age cutoff (if you don't already have one) and advise ALL parents of preemies to use their dc's due date to determine grade placement. That would solve the problem without it being about these twins. If the parents want to discuss this, I'd explain the requirements for K and why their kids would do much better waiting. Really, wouldn't they rather have their kids be successful next year and graduate at 18 rather than have them both struggle for the next 12 years and have a tough time getting into university. The momentary shame of not being "the youngest Ker!" is a lot less that the long-term shame of being the worst students for their entire school career.

 

I agree too. As the mom of preemie twins, and having several close friends with preemie twins, I do not see this going well for the children at all. It would be much better for them to be held back now rather than struggle forever. If they are sick a lot now, then they will probably always get sick and be out of school for longer than the average student and that alone would cause them to have to work extra hard. Add in their delays, unknowns, size, age, and the pressure from their culture and family to excel....it will be a long rough, road for them. My preemies were not all that super preemie, and were relatively healthy, but they do have medical issues, and they always stay sick longer and get sick quicker than the other kids in the family. When other kids get the sniffles, they need breathing treatments.

[Merry]

"I think it may be time for you to institute an age cutoff (if you don't already have one) and advise ALL parents of preemies to use their dc's due date to determine grade placement. That would solve the problem without it being about these twins. If the parents want to discuss this, I'd explain the requirements for K and why their kids would do much better waiting. Really, wouldn't they rather have their kids be successful next year and graduate at 18 rather than have them both struggle for the next 12 years and have a tough time getting into university. The momentary shame of not being "the youngest Ker!" is a lot less that the long-term shame of being the worst students for their entire school career.

__________________

Julianna"

 

 

Then the parents would have this as a perfect cover for the reason their babies are being held back.

[justamouse]

Wow. I would hate to be you. That is a sucktacular situation.

 

ETA, the Preemie cutoff age sounds like a good thing.

 

But I agree with Ester Maria about how sad it is to hold the girl back just because culture dictates the boy should. If you end up holding her back, can you sneak in some extra stuff for her?

Edited March 11, 2011 by justamouse

[wapiti]

Personally, I'd rather see a normal age cutoff based on birthday rather than something to do with prematurity. Many premies are unaffected by prematurity when they're 5, and doctors do not use adjusted age past 1 or 2 y.o. Moreover, for those who are experiencing delays related to prematurity still at 5 y.o., two more months isn't going to solve the problem. Two months doesn't make a difference except when it just happens to bridge over the arbitrary cutoff date.

 

I guess I was lucky - my twins were born in Feb. and due in April. (FWIW, one of them was "severely developmentally delayed" at 3 y.o., according to the school psych. He was not held back from K but has done beautifully in a Montessori school with appropriate supports. He's a second grader inching toward 5th grade math; such a gap would be worse if he were only in 1st right now - I can't even imagine that.)

 

As far as the October birthday goes, it seems to me that's much too late considering the school's skill standards for K entry. My advice would be to have an age cutoff appropriate to the standards rather than dashing the hopes of applicants who then feel bad because they're not "above average" for their age.