What's the deal with holding boys back in school to gain a competitive advantage in sports?

[Anonymous]

to 10:28, I think your friends are out of date with more current information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:to 10:28, I think your friends are out of date with more current information.

Then backup your arguments...which school(s) have many 6 year old pre-schoolers that actually turn 6 during the school year? This is an anonymous board so go ahead and post!

[Anonymous]

NP here. I am confused about the argument that seems to have broken out. Even if, as one heated PP keeps arguing, the redshirted kids are turning 6 at the end of the PreK year (and in DC's K class, literally half the class had already turned six over the summer before the school year had even started; our October-born DC, was in the middle of the pack for age, rather than being among the oldest as would have been expected from a September cutoff) , isn't that still kids being a year older than they are "supposed" to be?

[Anonymous]

if you want an interesting nonparenting perspective on this discussion outside of the forum - check out malcom gladwell's book "outliers" and read his canadian hockey league example. (you may recognize his name from his topselling books tipping point, blink). . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I am confused about the argument that seems to have broken out. Even if, as one heated PP keeps arguing, the redshirted kids are turning 6 at the end of the PreK year (and in DC's K class, literally half the class had already turned six over the summer before the school year had even started; our October-born DC, was in the middle of the pack for age, rather than being among the oldest as would have been expected from a September cutoff) , isn't that still kids being a year older than they are "supposed" to be?

I want to answer your confusion without expressing any judgment on one side of the argument or the other. I am not trying to advocate a position.

My impression is that most people who have participated in these discussions on other DCUM threads seem to accept that parents can legitimately hold their children back one year. There may be fears that some parents will hold back for "wrong" reasons, but there are many who do it for "right" reasons. Inevitably, however, one or more posters will claim that they know of many children that are being held back two years (e.g., starting pre-K at age 6). Holding a child back for two years seems to concern many people greatly, even some who would not object to holding a child back for one year. However, many people do not believe that there are any significant number of children being held back for two years. So, the challenge gets issued to identify a school by name with any meaningful number of kids that have been held back for two years. As far as I can tell, no one has accepted the challenge.

(Just to be clear, when I say that many people seem to accept children being held back for one year, I am not saying everyone agrees with this. There definitely are some posters who feel very strongly that no parent should ever be allowed to hold her child back. However, I've read all these threads, and it seems clear to me that's a minority view.)

[Anonymous]

Let me just add to the PP's complete, measured explanation that many private schools encourage or even insist that summer birthday children be held back. Believe me, I was the last convert to the holding-back idea, but if we hadn't done it, we'd have nowhere to send DC. Even the public school teachers at the orientation questioned DC's readiness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:if you want an interesting nonparenting perspective on this discussion outside of the forum - check out malcom gladwell's book "outliers" and read his canadian hockey league example. (you may recognize his name from his topselling books tipping point, blink). . . .

I agree that's a very interesting, and compelling, parallel. (Makes me wish my January-born son was playing hockey in Canada!) I believe some anti-redshirting people have cited Outliers as evidence that their own "traditional aged" children are being disadvantaged by older children that have been held back. However, other anti-redshirting people cite studies that (they claim) prove no benefit for children being held back. To me at least, those two arguments seem inconsistent.

BTW, I though Outliers was his best book, and I'd highly recommend it to anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I am confused about the argument that seems to have broken out. Even if, as one heated PP keeps arguing, the redshirted kids are turning 6 at the end of the PreK year (and in DC's K class, literally half the class had already turned six over the summer before the school year had even started; our October-born DC, was in the middle of the pack for age, rather than being among the oldest as would have been expected from a September cutoff) , isn't that still kids being a year older than they are "supposed" to be?

I want to answer your confusion without expressing any judgment on one side of the argument or the other. I am not trying to advocate a position.

My impression is that most people who have participated in these discussions on other DCUM threads seem to accept that parents can legitimately hold their children back one year. There may be fears that some parents will hold back for "wrong" reasons, but there are many who do it for "right" reasons. Inevitably, however, one or more posters will claim that they know of many children that are being held back two years (e.g., starting pre-K at age 6). Holding a child back for two years seems to concern many people greatly, even some who would not object to holding a child back for one year. However, many people do not believe that there are any significant number of children being held back for two years. So, the challenge gets issued to identify a school by name with any meaningful number of kids that have been held back for two years. As far as I can tell, no one has accepted the challenge.

(Just to be clear, when I say that many people seem to accept children being held back for one year, I am not saying everyone agrees with this. There definitely are some posters who feel very strongly that no parent should ever be allowed to hold her child back. However, I've read all these threads, and it seems clear to me that's a minority view.)

Very good post PP. I think you summarized the views on DCUM very nicely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: isn't that still kids being a year older than they are "supposed" to be?

Isn't that part of the problem here... defining what "supposed to be" is? Who is best suited to dictate when a child is "supposed" to be ready to start a rigorous curriculum? The government? The public school system? Private school admissions officers and teachers? Parents?

Remember, our school calendar system is basically based on a old agrarian calendar because kids needed the summers off to go farm in the fields. I'd say we've progressed a little bit since then... and perhaps we should be evolving to a point where we understand that different children develop at different paces in the early years, and so it should be left to parents and teachers to make a decision, within a reasonable window of time, as to when a child is ready to start a rigorous curriculum (as has been pointed out before, independent school K curriculum are the old 1st grade curriculum of past).

If one argues that everyone must only abide by an arbitrary calendar age cut-off date set by a governmental body (school system)... say Sept 1... then you are effectively making an argument that all kids who turn 5 on Aug 31 are ready to begin K, and all kids who are born on Sept 2 are not. 2 days difference. Does that seem reasonable to you? I would prefer a range that says Sept 1 is the cut off but any kids within say 4 months of that date could be held back if the parents and teachers agree it is in the best interest of the child.

This is what is effectively happening now. It's just that some parents (particularly those with fall birthday kids) don't like it b/c it serves to somewhat mitigate the age advantage their kid would have.

[Anonymous]

Thanks to the PP who explained above. I am the PP who wrote that I was confused by the argument, and now I get it. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: isn't that still kids being a year older than they are "supposed" to be?

Isn't that part of the problem here... defining what "supposed to be" is? Who is best suited to dictate when a child is "supposed" to be ready to start a rigorous curriculum? The government? The public school system? Private school admissions officers and teachers? Parents?

Remember, our school calendar system is basically based on a old agrarian calendar because kids needed the summers off to go farm in the fields. I'd say we've progressed a little bit since then... and perhaps we should be evolving to a point where we understand that different children develop at different paces in the early years, and so it should be left to parents and teachers to make a decision, within a reasonable window of time, as to when a child is ready to start a rigorous curriculum (as has been pointed out before, independent school K curriculum are the old 1st grade curriculum of past).

If one argues that everyone must only abide by an arbitrary calendar age cut-off date set by a governmental body (school system)... say Sept 1... then you are effectively making an argument that all kids who turn 5 on Aug 31 are ready to begin K, and all kids who are born on Sept 2 are not. 2 days difference. Does that seem reasonable to you? I would prefer a range that says Sept 1 is the cut off but any kids within say 4 months of that date could be held back if the parents and teachers agree it is in the best interest of the child.

This is what is effectively happening now. It's just that some parents (particularly those with fall birthday kids) don't like it b/c it serves to somewhat mitigate the age advantage their kid would have.

Actually, we have a fall birthday child and I did not want him to be the oldest, nor do I feel there is an advantage to being the oldest, so I don't feel disadvantaged in any way by redshirting. So that comment above was really an inaccurate generalization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: isn't that still kids being a year older than they are "supposed" to be?

Isn't that part of the problem here... defining what "supposed to be" is? Who is best suited to dictate when a child is "supposed" to be ready to start a rigorous curriculum? The government? The public school system? Private school admissions officers and teachers? Parents?

Remember, our school calendar system is basically based on a old agrarian calendar because kids needed the summers off to go farm in the fields. I'd say we've progressed a little bit since then... and perhaps we should be evolving to a point where we understand that different children develop at different paces in the early years, and so it should be left to parents and teachers to make a decision, within a reasonable window of time, as to when a child is ready to start a rigorous curriculum (as has been pointed out before, independent school K curriculum are the old 1st grade curriculum of past).

If one argues that everyone must only abide by an arbitrary calendar age cut-off date set by a governmental body (school system)... say Sept 1... then you are effectively making an argument that all kids who turn 5 on Aug 31 are ready to begin K, and all kids who are born on Sept 2 are not. 2 days difference. Does that seem reasonable to you? I would prefer a range that says Sept 1 is the cut off but any kids within say 4 months of that date could be held back if the parents and teachers agree it is in the best interest of the child.

This is what is effectively happening now. It's just that some parents (particularly those with fall birthday kids) don't like it b/c it serves to somewhat mitigate the age advantage their kid would have.

Agree with this, but I would also say that the 4-month window should apply as well if the child is ready to being school EARLIER than the government-imposed date. We had a child who would have easily been ready to start K early, but missed the window by three months. In MoCo, where we live, you can apply for early K admission only within something like 30-45 days of the cutoff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: isn't that still kids being a year older than they are "supposed" to be?

Isn't that part of the problem here... defining what "supposed to be" is? Who is best suited to dictate when a child is "supposed" to be ready to start a rigorous curriculum? The government? The public school system? Private school admissions officers and teachers? Parents?

Remember, our school calendar system is basically based on a old agrarian calendar because kids needed the summers off to go farm in the fields. I'd say we've progressed a little bit since then... and perhaps we should be evolving to a point where we understand that different children develop at different paces in the early years, and so it should be left to parents and teachers to make a decision, within a reasonable window of time, as to when a child is ready to start a rigorous curriculum (as has been pointed out before, independent school K curriculum are the old 1st grade curriculum of past).

If one argues that everyone must only abide by an arbitrary calendar age cut-off date set by a governmental body (school system)... say Sept 1... then you are effectively making an argument that all kids who turn 5 on Aug 31 are ready to begin K, and all kids who are born on Sept 2 are not. 2 days difference. Does that seem reasonable to you? I would prefer a range that says Sept 1 is the cut off but any kids within say 4 months of that date could be held back if the parents and teachers agree it is in the best interest of the child.

This is what is effectively happening now. It's just that some parents (particularly those with fall birthday kids) don't like it b/c it serves to somewhat mitigate the age advantage their kid would have.

Actually, we have a fall birthday child and I did not want him to be the oldest, nor do I feel there is an advantage to being the oldest, so I don't feel disadvantaged in any way by redshirting. So that comment above was really an inaccurate generalization.

Fair enough. Sounds like you take a very reasonable approach to the issue. Unfortunately, as evidenced by 15+ previous threads on this board around this topic, there are many others who do not. My apologies for including you in this generalization.

[Anonymous]

I have contended that summer bithdays can go either way, and certainly that should be left to parents/administrators to decide.

My issue is with the rest of the year, where there are fall, winter and spring birthdays that are a full year older than kids who make the published cut-offs.

I have no problem with say, a June-Aug birthday who turns 6 for kindergarten. However, when they are 6 the summer before, or even turn 6 in the spring before, it seems to be out of whack. In my experience, this is not an isolated scenario.