Monday, 21 January 2008

Back to School Special

It seems these days that kids grow up way too fast. Gone are the days when children cry to leave their mum on the first day of school, now they shrug off their mother's hugs and brush off their kisses, and skip off to the big scary world. The cause of this is perhaps children are already accustomed to not seeing their working mums, so going into another strange place without maternal comfort is not that much of a challenge. I wasn't a crier cos my mother was also a working mum, but still i think it's kinda sad to see that loss of innocence in kids.

There is something I have always wondered, and maybe one of my blog visitors will be able to give me the answer. Why is it that kids born after June have to go to school the next year? It doesn't make any sense to me. Hamza told me that he read somewhere that the kids who go to school 'late' (the after June born kids), usually end up doing better, because they are better developed. Being an early-born(April), I was naturally aggrieved by this, but I don't know any way of disproving it. I offered to have kids either side of the year to guinea pig this theory, but Hamza says my survey would be flawed due to my damned superior academic genes.

Sometimes it sucks to be smart ... just kidding :).

Till next time in Waseem world


The Organ Harvester said...

it has to with the dates of application and the age of the kid at the time of application. nowadays, age of school going kids is monitored with 7 being the ideal age. academic development does not always correlate with social and mental maturity.

SingleGuy said...

Bullshit theory. I was born in january, was in Sub A aged 6, and I'm a Fucking Genius. Granted, we had gutter education back then, but still, fucking genius.

queen_Lestat said...

it's got to do with emotional intelligence, put a kid in school at too young an age and they bomb out in high school cos they're younger than everyone else and find stuff more difficult/emotionally aren't too well equipped to deal with the challenges ahead. By evening out the age gap in classes, they thought they were evening out the emotional divide and therefore equalising the playing field so to speak.

We had a girl in our class, who was sent to grade 1 aged 5. O yes she was the lil bright spark back in pre school or so they said, but come standard 8 and we're all 15/16 she was 13/14. Not only was she seen as the "irritating,small twit" of the class, but she was always lagging behind in grasping concepts. Dunno if that links in with the theory or what though?

However when she used to brag about going to school 'early' someone always had the smartass comment of "Well, you only went to school early cos your mother didn't love you" or "your mother couldn't handle you at home any longer so dumped you at school".

Needless to say, that chick's got maaaaaaaaaaajor issues now.

M Junaid said...

i was a late baby (then again - werent we all?)

and im dumb as hell, so i disagree with that theory -
mjs mum says that september babies go to school one year later because God knows that their parents love them more hence they give them one more year to be with their mums before they have to let go.

that didnt explain why she had me in creche and pre primary from the age of 3!
must go back to my dumbness me thinks :)

saaleha. bamjee. hyphen. said...

I'm mid-june, so apparently just made it for the intake that year. Always tended to be the youngest in class.
No real issues.

singleguy said...

Queen....I think I know that chick!

The Organ Harvester said...

ja boet, she has a blog. hahaha

oh wait i have a blog too.

i think kids should be tested before they go to school. fuck we were all tested for school readiness. i might not have set the world alight academically, but teachers always believed i was hitting under my average. and i was a well mannered kid. which explains alot about why my school yard scrapes went on so long.

Zahera said...

Tis true- children are just not innocent anymore :-( All the things that pleased us and entertained us for hours on end are just not appealing to them; they lack imagination man. They need expensive toys and action figures. They grow up too fast and they know way too much.
I think there is something in what you said about working mothers. My mum didnt work for the first 5 years of my life- after that shes been a working mum but there has always been one parent around. When my mum was working, my dad would be around and vice versa.

I think its important for a mother to be around in the early years of her childs development. A child needs constant stimulation and these are the years where the building blocks so to speak are put into place. The differences in a childs behaviour and temperament between those who have that care and attention to those who dont is clearly evident in my opinion.

As for the date thing youre on about- when does the acadmeic year start in SA? Here it starts in August. So babies born in September miss out on a whole year and are the eldest when they do start school. I was talking to some people abouy this last week and i really dont think it makes any difference whatsoever.
Im a July baby which means ive alwasy beemn the youngest (or one of the youngest) in my year. Never made a slight bit of difference. I was more than able to handle the work that classmates nearly a whole year older were carrying out. Neither were they cleverer than us younguns and neither did we feel that we couldnt live up to the challenege.
Had a friend who was the youngest in the entire year (late August baby) she was the cleverest shit in our class- shes now a pharmacist. So all in all: i think the theory is crap :-D

The Organ Harvester said...

Look I dont think it's quantity but rather quality of time spent with kids. Nowadays most families have both parents working and I dont think it's an excuse to not brong up your kids properly. Also I think stay at home mothers in my experience invest the bank on being a stay at home and as such dont leave their kids to grow up and learn to be kids. In other words I think they interfere too much. yes we would like our kids to be more clingy, but honestly who has the time. And before someone jumps down my throat, I am thinking in particular of those parents who have to work and travel long distances to work, it's the parent at the end of the day not the amount of time spent with a kid.

There is alot of empirical and anecdotal evidence to support either depending on which side of the fence you are.

But kids do grow up too quickly. A kid in school should not have a cellphone. A kid should be a kid. And with our wise government relaxing the age of majority to 18 instead of 21, one wonders how soon it will be before your new born sues you for choosing the wrong birthing method or giving them a crappy name.

At some point parents need to be parents. That means guide your kids, give them a tanning when it is needed and protect them from themselves when they need it. Kids dont play anymore, and I dont think cognitive development has benefitted in the least. Parents that leave their kids in front of the Tv as if it were a child minder should be dragged into the middle of the street and shot, close range in the head and heart. Zombie, vampire style.

Maybe most of our folks grew up too poor and realised how hard things were and now want to give their kids everything they didnt have. But I often wonder which generation was more happier. I mean what are later generations going to tell their kids about their childhood? I got the highest score in Mario Bros? I scored three goals in a minute in Fifa? I could play outside because I was allergic to grass?

Bring back corporal punishment. Bring back no TV till 5 and bring back bedtimes before 8!

I sound like strict father already. man I feel sorry for my kids.

KimyaShafinaaz said...

hmm.. i was youngest in my class.. biggest mouth though. went thru the nerdy quiet phase between nine and twelve maybe. loved my books. then and now. then the confidence emerged again. i wonder.. major issues? not likely. just enough to keep me sane in an insane world :P

and i always thought that being a high-achiever was a gifted thing. a good thing. now i see how it might be related to splatterings of OCD. lol.. whatever works hey! its all about attitude. and hugs and kisses. and persisting on dreams. believing in them. and making them happen.

r said...

The year i started school, they allowed anyone turning 6 in. So september baby me spend much of grade one at age 5. I don't think i was emotionally stunted or anything. But then again, im biased. I think (and don't all jump down my throat here) that it applies more to boys than girls. A preschool teacher i know said that she'd rather hold back boys a year than girls, because girls generally mature faster and are able to cope with the pressures of high school better than boys