<p>This strategy has been around a long time. When I was in high school, our private school had several PGs every year. </p>
<p>Seemed to me, back when he was a 4 yo entering kindergarten that he would probably repeat somewhere along the line, but I wasn't holding back a boy who was so ready for kindergarten. We have had the PG option in our back pocket for the past 12 years ... way before we knew he was going to be an All-American and recruited athlete.</p>
<p>And every coach we talked to liked this option. It gives the kids a year to grow up before jumping in as a student athlete in a high pressure collegiate and athletic environment. Not just the college coaches, but also the high school coaches ... former public high school coach, current high school coach and assistant coaches, other respected people that knew our son, including the superintendent of schools in our district (who is a personal friend).</p>
<p>I don't think it's right to denigrate this option as something just for the wealthy -- what about the people who are holding back a July child for K in a district with a December 31 cutoff. They are getting that <em>free</em> extra year at the beginning at taxpayer expense. </p>
<p>Yeah a PG year costs a few bucks. So does college.</p>
<p>I think that a PG year should be a last resort. For many, it seems to be a good decision but for others it just amonts to another year with the same issues for a child with problems.</p>
<p>I know the idea originated in the east but Texas parents have been doing this for years for athletic reasons and receive much criticism for it from other parts of the country.</p>
<p>I think that there is a big difference between having a kid with a July birthday repeat kindergarten and having a student who is clearly ready for college attend an elite boarding school for a PG year. I also don't think that pointing out this discrepancy is "denigrating the option" -- it's just a fact. It IS really an option that is only available to wealthy families and strong athletic recruits, and the cost of an extra year of kindergarten is not the same as a PG year at a Prep school. For the record, I don't see anything wrong with using one's knowledge of how admissions works to place a child in the best situation one can -- isn't that why we post on CC?</p>
<p>I think it's interesting that it is so often used for athletic recruits -- at my sons' private HS (where 99% go on to 4 year colleges), the only students who go the PG route seem to be strong athletic recruits who may have struggled with academics. That's fine, but it seems disingenous to say that they need the time to mature -- the coaches need them to have the time to improve their skills and academic profile so that they can be more effective in their sport, and meet the standards of an elite college. Most 18 year olds, and many younger kids, manage to do very well in college without the extra time spent in a PG year. The other issue is that at the Kindergarten level, there are many unknown factors. A child may have an undiagnosed learning issue or whatever -- by senior year of HS the reason for the PG year seems fairly transparent.</p>
<p>Interesting discussion. I was very, very young for my class. It didn't work well for me. My son was born one day before my late December birthday. When he was eligible for kindergarden we kept him in daycare for the year and he entered school the next year. This proved to be a wise decision, and I'm glad we did it. I would do it again.</p>
<p>I don't think there's anything wrong with parents making decisions that they think are best for their child, including doing a PG year or repeating kindergarten or first grade. In some cases, though, I think it's part of the "Ivy mania" that has taken over this country</p>
<p>ITA
As I have mentioned , my oldest who was 10 weeks early- had gross motor delay and was physically very small and quiet of disposition, attended a 5's program- as the local kindergarten was not appropriate & it gave us another year to decide what to do.
While some of the other kids were boys- that just needed a year to mature, others were frankly being red-shirted and began school in the "gifted" program- taking advantage of their mature status.
I see this happening more often- academics being pushed down into preschool- students in K- being 6 as often as 5 years old, but then there is even more disparity for the child who turns 5 in August or Sept, and then has to keep up with older kids. When the intention of the class is to be one grade- but the kids range in age from turned 5 in Aug or Sept to turned 6- it affects the "middle" that the teacher aims at.
I prefer classes which deliberately aim at 2 or 3 class levels- and where the students stay for 2 or 3 years. Less transisiton time- more opportunity for students to learn from a range of peers and an opportunity to strengthen their skills by teaching younger ones.
I disagree with keeping students out just so they can be the "big dog" in the classroom.</p>
<p>I think the thrust of this article was that the purpose of the repeat year described therein was not to overcome a difficulty, but instead, to give otherwise very high performers an even greater edge. I guess if the kid can stand it, and the parents can afford it, its all part of the game. As I stated earlier, I am uncomfortable with the title change for this thread, which did not originally mention the wealthy.</p>
<p>In our public district there is an accelerated program kids test into. It is not unusual for parents to hold back entrance into 1st grade a year in order to make passing the test more likely, and to prep for it. It is governed by the same concerns at the other end.</p>
<p>I think I've read through all these posts, but may have missed something. I don't think I've read one post where a girl has done this. Do only boys repeat these grades? </p>
<p>Catherine: Regarding your post #17, I'd like to respond that public high schools across this country vary tremendously, as do private schools. And I can tell you, from our experience, our public magnet system here, and most especially the high school, is far superior to any private school our daughter ever attended (and that includes one "highly selective" private school in Manhattan). So I found your comment, that "the private schools push kids really hard. They start languages younger, algebra is always 8th grade not 9th, etc," a bit misleading. That may be true for some (your?) public schools, but our public magnet schools here offer a multitude of languages, starting in elementary school, but beginning seriously in 6th grade, and typically taught by native speakers. And I'm not just talking about the usual--French and Spanish--but also including Japanese, Chinese, Italian, and German. Also, our algebra is taught in the 8th grade as well, and on that particular track, ending with calculus in the 12th grade. And that is not the most advanced track a student in our public system can follow. The most advanced would be algebra starting in the 7th grade.</p>
<p>Again, public high schools vary (as do private schools), but do know there are many public high schools across the country that offer a rigorous and varied curriculum--and in our experience, much more rigorous that the private schools we ever encountered. </p>
<p>I think if one looks back at the thread (was it PapaChicken's thread?) listing the private/boarding schools that feed into the Ivy's and other "highly selective" schools, this is-- no doubt-- (just one) of the reasons a parent might choose to send an academically mediocre student for an extra year at an elite boarding school/private school--one that, unlike his public school, feeds into a particular Ivy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I guess if the kid can stand it, and the parents can afford it, its all part of the game.
[/quote]
Agreed. But let's not pretend that this option is available to very many students, and I still have concerns about how a bright student from a so-so high school can compete against the students using this strategy for the very limited spots available at the top colleges in the country. I see an issue of fairness, but also recognize that very little is fair when it comes to college admissions. So, although you may not have come up with this title, I actually feel that it applies.</p>
<p>I want to point out that the PG kids at my son's school and many of the prep boarding schools are FAR from "academically mediocre". They are taking the same classes the other kids are taking, and admission to the PG programs is selective. If they are not academically strong, they are not going to get into many of the PG programs at schools which send a lot of kids to highly selective colleges. Some of the PG athletes are developing some academic skills and athletic skills, some are just taking the year to physically mature. In the case of the Ivies and DIII, there is no red-shirting, so the PG year is needed by some athletes to grow and develop strength so they can compete for 4 straight years. There was a PG kid at my son's school last year who graduated from the top prep school in Dallas. He was recruited for football out of high school and offered several full-rides (the Dad and older brother were/are pro players). He really wanted to play basketball and wanted a different path from his brothers. He did a PG year and played both sports. He ultimately signed with NC for football last spring. Not sure if he will also play basketball. Awesome kid, by the way.</p>
<p>*I don't think I've read one post where a girl has done this. Do only boys repeat these grades?........</p>
<p>my oldest who was 10 weeks early- had gross motor delay and was physically very small and quiet of disposition, attended a 5's program- as the local kindergarten was not appropriate & it gave us another year to decide what to do.
While some of the other kids were boys- *</p>
<p>Yes my daughter attended a 5s program when the local K teacher told me her class would not be appropriate.</p>
<p>Some of the students in the class then went on to a reg K- then to the gifted programs in the school- academically- that wouldnt have been appropriate for my daughter- we luckily found a mixed age program ( K-2) where her physical age was not as important- I assumed she was in with the K students- but was surprised to learn at teacher conferences she was in with the 1st gd students and her 5's class had taken the place of K.</p>
<p>It didn't really matter as long as she attended this school- it was preschool- 5th, but when it was time to look at 6th grade programs- they were all divided by grade- & it was a huge transition for her.</p>
<p>Now the public schools are going toward the K-8 model, not so much transition, where my younger daughter went to public school, 6th is in with the elementary, and the 7th & 8th grades are taught as a core group- staying with same core teacher for two years.</p>
<p>However- now she is attending a traditional public high school, where some of her best friends are nearly a year older, even though in same grade. It could really benefit her to not be a younger student- but she is looking at taking a year off- before college, assuming she graduates on time- unless there are big problems pretty hard to take time off during school. even if she changed schools- the schools would not have her repeat a grade- if the student is that immature- I have a feeling that they just wouldn't admit, rather than have them be so much older- unless there were unusual reasons for the time out. Severe illness etc.</p>
<p>pesumably b/c sports are more of a big deal to boys (and their parents). Boys are also more likely to repeat (or advised to repeat) and early grade.</p>
<p>MomofWC: I'm curious. If these prep schools are so selective, and the PG's are, as you say, academically strong students, then what "academic skills" are they honing for yet another year of high school? Most kids I know who are "academically strong" and who have taken a rigorous curriculum and done well, would simply be forced to take college courses in an extra year of high school. Many academically strong students do that already, as 12th graders. And some boys need yet another year to "physically mature?" Into what? And the kid you speak of who graduated, was offered full rides to play football, but chose to spend an extra year to play basketball (and football), and then was offered a scholarship to NC-- to play football--- hmm... wasn't he offered full rides a full year before to play football? I don't know. Seems odd to me. And I'm sure he is an "awesome kid." No doubt. That's neither here nor there.</p>
<p>emeraldkity: Your daughter's experience is slightly different, I think.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If these prep schools are so selective, and the PG's are, as you say, academically strong students, then what "academic skills" are they honing for yet another year of high school?
[/quote]
My guess is that these kids are either trying to boost SAT scores or GPA. If they are targeting an Ivy, then they must reach a particular AI score for admission. It may be the case that their HS GPA is just the PG year when they apply -- I seem to remember something about this in "A is for Admission." Does anyone remember the details?</p>
<p>Jack- yes, the boy was offered full-rides for football the year before (U of Texas,for one) but, at the time, he wanted to try for basketball.
The PGs are quite sound academically, but might need to do some damage control for a weak year, or, as was suggested, beef up SATs if they are trying for a highly selective school. As far as physical maturity, what is the mystery there? An extra year of high school, especially at a school strong in that particular sport, allows the athlete to grow, strengthen and gain an extra year of expertise.<br>
Jack, you have been on these boards long enough to know the difference between an academically strong student and one who is poised to get into the most selective colleges.</p>
<p>yes I agree that my daughters experience was different- not many kids are 10 weeks early- thank goodness- although I was young as well- started K when I was 4- and I never did catch up.</p>
<p>As a parent of girls- and as one who used to think the the main difference was "environmental" yes go ahead and laugh.
( my daughter put dresses on and made houses for matchbox cars, while her friend ( boy) next door, raced Barbies )
I do admit that there are boys who aren't ready for K- and could easily benefit from another year doing something else.
But I worry that K is getting away from being developmentally appropriate for many kids- except for those who color within the lines- and are quiet and neat.
I think school has way too much desk work, the 5s program I found for my daughter- had little desk work- instead lots of hands on learning- field trips etc.
It is disappointing that in some areas- even though we give lip service to "different styles of learning" , the education time in a school is measured by "seat time" and test scores.
Some schools don't even have PE weekly for elementary school kids and keep kids who need extra help in at recess.
[quote]
School districts in Atlanta, New York, Chicago, New Jersey, and Connecticut are opting to eliminate recess, even to the point of building new schools in their districts without playgrounds.
[/quote]
THESE ARE THE KIDS WHO MOST NEED TO RUN AROUND!</p>
<p>one family I know just wanted another year in the elite boarding environment. They were much more concerned about that than any particular college admission strategy. The top boarding schools are truly amazing places.</p>
<p>Only one of the PGs I know was struggling at his uber-compet private shigh school. He still managed to secure merit aid at at least a a couple of colleges (both known for offering $ to boys in an effort to achieve a balanced class), but none of the schools was of the caliber of school either he or his parents wanted - -so he's doing a PG year and hoping to do better the second time around. He's also an athlete.</p>
<p>MomofWC: Yes, I have been on these boards long enough to know "the difference between an academically srong student and one who is poised to get into the most selective colleges." Hence, the last paragraph on my post #27. And your comment that the PG's you know who are "academically strong," but might need to do "some damage control for a weak year . . . or beef up SAT's if trying for a highly selective school," simply supports what I've stated earlier. </p>
<p>And, I'm sorry, but I do have to wonder how much more physically mature a football player, recruited to play football, right out of high school--with a full ride, at U of Texas--needs to get.</p>
<p>nyc: Yes, and I suspect that was also the case with the boy MomofWC describes. Offered full rides/athletic scholarships, but none of the schools was of the caliber he nor his parents wanted. An extra year helps him "beef up" his resume, GPA, and SAT scores.</p>
<p>I have no problem with people doing this. It's their money, after all. I just wish people would be honest about why they're doing it. Wouldn't that be refreshing?</p>