Madam, - In response to Kathryn Holmquist's column (September 23rd), I would like to make the following points:
1. If a child is described as "immature", this is in comparison to other children of a similar age and not to adults, as your correspondent would suggest.
2. Being immature can lead to a number of problems at school for a child and these problems are not necessarily of an academic nature. Indeed, many of their problems are social and, as such, are more difficult to quantify.
3. Immaturity, if manifested academically, is not the same as having a learning disability and to assume that such a child has something "wrong" with him (like "A.D.D. or other brain disorders", as Kathryn Holmquist suggests) is to do such a child a disservice. An immature child may need no more than time and of its nature, time cannot be rushed.
4. It is quite feasible that problems would not have manifested themselves before this stage of the child's education (First Class). There is a massive jump from the infant programme to the first class programme. A child, who may have been just about able to keep his head above water in infants, may now start to struggle. I'm sure that the people who know this child personally (his parents and the professional teacher and principal) will monitor him over a period of time and take whatever steps they deem necessary.
Of course some children have learning disabilities and the advantage of early intervention is well documented. However, speaking as a teacher, I cannot over-emphasise the importance of a child being mature enough to cope with the demands of school. I can vouch for the hugely positive effect of repeating a year, in cases where the child merely needs time to mature.
Perhaps Kathryn Holmquist is wrong about "starting campaigns" and "a struggle ahead" and maybe these parents merely need to give their son time to be a child. -Yours, etc.,
SIOBHAN KIRWAN-KEANE, B.Ed., B.A.,H.D.E. Castleknock,
Dublin 15