Although I will say, when we had no insurance, a couple doctors *did* adjust fees based on what they would have been paid by most insurance. So it doesn't hurt to ask

Yes--especially for doctors that you've been to before, go look at your insurance statements--it'll tell you what actually got paid. You can then say to the doctor "look, I will pay $X right now, because that's what my insurance paid you" or "because my insurance paid you $X+$20, and it's easier when I pay right now as opposed to you having to do insurance paperwork" or whatever.

I did that with my chiropractor--I had a certain number of allowed sessions, and knew his 'no insurance' rate was supposedly $60/visit. But my insurance was only paying him $30, so I told him I'd keep coming and pay up front...

But academically, she is fine and holds her own with most things. She's just so little.

I think the most important thing is involved and caring parents who are encouraging, really. And Em's got two of those.

My mom moved a lot and lost ground and wound up being the largest child in class, and never wanted me to suffer that embarrassment. So she bribed somebody who pulled some strings, had me tested and sent me to school a year early. Man, big mistake. But that's hindsight talking.

Jesse, we freeze our food refuse and then put it in the trash on trash day. Of course we don't use our freezer much, so there's room. But we don't have to put up with smelly trash between collection days.

The clinics here have a self-pay rate, and if you can pay everything up front, you get a discount--anywhere from 10-20% reduction.

Jesse, we freeze our food refuse and then put it in the trash on trash day. Of course we don't use our freezer much, so there's room. But we don't have to put up with smelly trash between collection days.

Oh, at least I have a disposal. And mostly cook meat on the weekends, and trash day is Sunday, so it all works out OK.

I assume they look seriously at birthdates and cutoff dates and allow leeway for close to the mark kids?

No leeway in California. It's a hard date, and they're moving it back one month every year until it's at September. Which means Matilda barely made it ahead of their impending (and stupid!) cutoff.

With both soccer and baseball we've noticed that even a 6 month difference is HUGE in terms of behavior.

It's definitely a big deal in LL baseball. I know the Alameda LL focused heavily on May/June birthdays for their all-star teams, which paid off for them when they were 12.

However, latest data indicates that holding kids back for sports only has a short-term positive effect relative to their peers, but over the long haul is actually detrimental. A study that just came out this year shows that kids that are held back to 18 y.o. high school seniors don't develop as well.

Also, there's new data indicating that holding kids back is detrimental on the academic side as well. (The short summary: the earlier you get into a school/academic setting the better it is for stimulating your li'l puddin' brains.)

David - is the cutoff in California Sept 30? I think it was at least down in LA, because we weren't as worried about it when it looked like we were going to be there when she started school.

Thank you, Amy. We try really hard to be good parents.

y'all, have you seen this?

[link]

I've spent the past 2 days trying to convince my 16 y/o she is not a "slut"

Is it wrong that I don't really believe that story about a 16 year old?

Also, there's new data indicating that holding kids back is detrimental on the academic side as well. (The short summary: the earlier you get into a school/academic setting the better it is for stimulating your li'l puddin' brains.)

A recent study in Australia found that being redshirted helps in early primary, but that reverses by high school, and it's the younger kids who do better (and study better, apparently). Another study I've seen found a small positive effect in Norwegian military IQ tests from starting early, and a persistent advantage in future earnings. However, IIRC none of these studies found any effects that outweighed the impact of just whatever age you are now, regardless of when you started school. i.e. starting early or late might have some small impact on average, but overall kids develop how they develop.

Of course, there'll be individual cases that do notably better one way or another. I basically skipped kinder, and was the youngest in my class throughout primary and much of high school (and got put up another grade for maths for one term). I did fine academically, was somewhat immature for my class at the start but caught up by school end, and was always ill-favoured sportswise. My youngest brother was held back. He wasn't ready, developmentally (having three pretty strong-willed older brothers close to him in age had hampered his interpersonal skills). He now holds a PhD. Our disparate schooling tempos worked well for each of us.

Ryan was born bang on the Victorian cutoff date, so this is something Wallybe and I are considering carefully. In effect, he could start school in the year he turns five or the year he turns six, and he wouldn't be out of place. (I favour an earlier start; he's bright, inquisitive, emotionally grounded and big for his age. I think he'll do well even if he's relatively young.)