An argument for not rushing into Kindergarten, or preschool, or pre-preschool...

(This is not intended to be a judgment on what anyone else has done in the past. God leads each family on different paths, I know. But, if anyone is trying to decide what to do with their young children in the future, here are some thoughts that would hopefully alleviate some of the pressure parents are feeling these days to get their kids into school-type activities as early as possible. It seems our society is pushing "school" for earlier and earlier ages, and parents sometimes feel their kids will be "behind" if they do not conform to this pattern. Au contraire, I say!)

Strider and Rayna are both old for their grade. In both cases, we did not start them in Kindergarten until they were already 6. Strider has been known to complain about this (pretty much on a weekly basis), since it means that most of his friends are in a grade above him, but we still stand by our decision to start kids late.

Over the years I've heard many compelling studies, statistics and reasons for why it's better not to rush kids into school, even if they are mentally and socially capable of doing so. Better Late Than Early by Raymond S. Moore and Dorothy N. Moore is a key book of this philosophy, and I highly recommend taking a look at it, if anyone is trying to decide about what to do with a young child. It seems counter-intuitive to our overly-ambitious culture, but it turns out that oftentimes starting a child in academics too early can actually be the opposite of beneficial.

According to what I've heard from several sources, the push to get every child reading at an earlier and earlier age has stemmed, at least in part, from the fact that parents want their kids in school at an earlier and earlier age (as opposed to having to pay for daycare). So, the teachers, faced with large classrooms of young children, find it easiest to keep them all calm by having them sitting at their desk reading or writing. Hence the need for early readers. BUT, studies have shown that the stronger readers later in life are often the ones who were not introduced to reading until they were older. There are various physiological facts about brain make-up, eyesight, etc., that indicate that we humans are probably not suited to this kind of work, on average, until later in life.

Besides these arguments, Pete and I also decided on a personal basis that we wanted our children to have options when they are in the high school years. Since our kids are on the smaller side of the spectrum (physically), they may end up benefitting from an extra year's worth of growth by that point (especially the boys). So, in a few years, we may choose to keep Strider in his current grade, or he may end up skipping a grade, depending on the goals for that part of life. It seemed wise to us to let that be the option -- as opposed to deciding later that he should repeat a year, or be held back at a later point when it's harder to handle that socially.

Pete was an older kid for his grade, too, by the time he was in high school. (He graduated when he was just 2 months shy of turning 19.) When I asked him if this was hard for him or if he felt like it was a negative aspect to his social life, he remarked that it was quite the opposite. He loved being one of the bigger kids (for a year or 2 anyway :) ), and being one of the first to get to drive, etc. So we're hoping our kids feel the same way!

When my kids were very young, I remember just chomping at the bit to get started on schooling them! It all looked so fascinating and I just wanted to dive in. And, in a few areas, we did do things early (such as reading aloud history books when Strider was 5 and 6), but for the most part I tried to restrain myself and let them play as long as possible.

From what I've read, there can be just as much, if not more, benefit in PLAYING in those younger years. Exploring, discovering, creating, analyzing..... all good abilities that I wanted, and still want, them to develop. Academics can wait!