RedDragon2008

Probably state run kinder then?

smartyworld

I'm still very confused by all this. So I live in VIC and have a December birthday, a May birthday and soon a June birthday kid, none of which are at school yet, only playgroup. As a general rule I think my kids would be better off going to school at the earlier opportunity as opposed to holding them back. Assuming I do this, are my kids likely to be the older ones in their grade or the younger ones? Or middle? I thought it would be:

Dec birthday kid: Starts Prep in Jan after he only JUST turns 5. One of the younger ones in the grade
May/June birthday kids: Starts prep in Jan when they are 5.5yrs. About 'middle' aged ones.

Is that right?

Buzzy--Bee

This would be the opposite to what Australians would think. Most wish to hold their children back so that they are among the achievers in their year.

Yes. If you were a native Australian you might hold the Dec birthday kid back a year. My children were born on May 15th, so they started school the following February when they were 5 years 8 months. Some of the kids in their class were already 6 at that stage.

Interestingly, the holding back thing may be changing as some parents want to get back to work and therefore wish to send their kids to school as soon as possible.

BB

Mummy3

My kids have kids with wide ranging age spans in their classes. A couple of my sons friends are like yours, the youngest in the year group but my neighbours son is older than them and in the grade below... All parents choice as to when they started school.
Sorry, not much help but a lot of classes have a wide age span...

Mummy3

Yes, that would be right.

quoll

Sort of. December birthday will be about average age for grade.
May/June birthday will be amongst the oldest in the cohort

Buzzy--Bee

.....assuming no parents have held their kids back.

BB

quoll

The majority of parents don't hold their kids back. For the most part it is often due to economics because it reduces their child care commitments if their little sweeties are in school all day. More often than not you see parents clamouring to get their kids into full time education early (they are only x days after the cut off, they are so ready for school, blah, blah). I can't find it now but I did see somewhere that the average age of kids starting HS in states with an April cut off was 12 yrs and 2 months at the beginning of their HS career.

SusieG

This is exactly what I want to avoid. If we decide he is "ready" for school aged almost 5 then there's no problem but I have a feeling he would be better off being a bit more mature. I can see some of his friends at preschool would clearly be ready aged 4, but at this stage I don't feel he will be.

But I don't want to be unfair by starting/stopping/starting school. However from various replies it seems this may not be such an issue.

Obviously this is all bad timing on our part

smartyworld

So assuming prep in VIC starts Feb 1st 2015, according to wikipedia kids must be minimum age 4.8yrs (4 years, 9 months, 18 days) meaning they must have been born on or before April 12th 2010. My son was born Dec 2009 so I'll guess he'll qualify and be 5 yrs in Dec 2014, be 5 yrs 2 months-ish in Feb 2015 and be 'middle-ish to older' in age - as you say assuming no kids are held back. However the more kids that are held back the younger he'll be relative to his grade.
MY other two kids (one real one virtual at the moment) born just after this April cut off will thus just miss out on being 4.8 before Feb so will have to wait, making them the eldest in their grade (again assuming lots of other kids are not held back).

Finally I understand it. I still maintain the "minimum 4.8 yrs on Feb 1st" is a slightly confusing rule. Why don't they just say "kids turning 4 on or before April 12th 20XX" start prep Feb 20XX+1? Miles easier to work out (in my brain) - you just have know your child's birthday and compare it to April 12th.

From my memory in UK, the rule was 'start school on your 5th birthday and stay there for the rest of that school year plus the whole of the following one'. I'm no teacher but I'd imagine that was kinda nice cos kids dripped in during the year and you could watch each one individually as they settled in to their new environment and each one gets practice at 'being the new kid'. If they all join as new together somewhere no-one ever gets practice at doing that, nor do they get the opportunity to step up to help out the new kid. I guess there'd be pros and cons to whatever method you choose though...

On the 'holding kids back' thing I can see why some cases might prefer it but my general attitude is that I think kids learn better if they're surrounded by more capable peers as opposed to less capable peers. Thus I'd rather they were less developed than their peers at that early stage in their schooling career cos I believe it would drive them to learn more, learn faster and not become lazy or complacent. I also think it'd make them more observant as opposed to dictatorial. Leadership skills can come later once you actually know what you're doing. You (I) only really want them to be the higher achievers in the class when they're significantly older and when test results relative to everyone else actually matter most. Kids learn from their peers as much as their teacher at those young ages I think but if they're the most capable peer then they lose that extra learning opportunity. That's the way I see it. That said I can imagine being the eldest is probably less stressful. But then life is stressful, its something you need to learn to live with eventually... Just read this post and you'll see plenty of evidence of that!

Buzzy--Bee

I've never heard that rule. I understood it was if you were 5 before April 30th of a year, you could start school in the Jan/Feb of that same year, otherwise you would start school the following year. My twins were born May 15th 2005, so they started prep in Feb 2011.

There are other reasons to hold kids back too. For instance, where competition for school places is high, older kids get preference for their first choice of school.

BB

RedDragon2008

Its more damaging to hold children back when they are older and have more established social network.

The reason for holding back should always be in the interests of the childs learning. Plenty of parents have unrealistic views of their pets (I mean childrens abilities).

smartyworld

There are other reasons to hold kids back too. For instance, where competition for school places is high, older kids get preference for their first choice of school.

BB[/QUOTE]

Hmm I didn't know that one. I'm not sure I like it. Mind you the world is full of things I don't like. That's why I was put here I think - to fight them all ;o)

smartyworld

yes thats true. but then again plenty of parents have realisitic ones, decide they don't like it and try to game the system at the expense of everyone else.

quoll

Hmm I didn't know that one. I'm not sure I like it. Mind you the world is full of things I don't like. That's why I was put here I think - to fight them all ;o)[/QUOTE]

I didn't know that one either! Usual priorities are residence, sibling attendance, other family connections with the school community - I've never heard the age argument before at all.