Redshirting consequences at Lafayette

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion that "'redshirting" is some trick that rich people use to get an unfair advantage for their kid seems utterly and completely ridiculous. It's not going to give them a leg up academically or athletically. If anything, it's going to give the kid a complex about why he or she is older than everyone else. But if the parent sees some problem that will be exacerbated by pushing their kid along, then I don't know why we don't give the parent the benefit of the doubt. They know their kid better than anyone else.

This is some Pollyanna nonsense. Redshirting is a thing in sports precisely because being a year older gives a huge advantage. Looking for an academic edge (over others, though they don’t say the quiet part aloud) is why some parents do it for school.

You obviously know nothing about sports. That's not even why college athletes redshirt. They generally only get four years of eligibility. If you're trying to make it to the pros, it may not make sense to burn a year of eligibility sitting on the bench if it's clear you're not going to play because you're not good enough. But sitting out that year, not officially being on the team, doesn't make you any more attractive as a prospect the following year. It's still just as possible that someone new will come along, who is younger than you, who will also be better than you. Redshirting can mark you as a marginal talent.

The reason you would spend your first year on the bench and not, say, your 4th is because for non-superstars, coaches often want them to gain a year of physical maturity, because — gasp — being a year older gives you a comparative advantage physically. Like you are tiptoeing sooooo close to the truth, but can’t bring yourself to say it. Also, the whole reason there are only 5 years of eligibility (normally), is to stop multi-year redshirting for non-injury precisely because folks would otherwise do it. We do agree that if your kid was a superstar, you wouldn’t feel the need to hold him back… but here you are.

If you’re redshirting, it means you’re the worst player on the field.

It also means you’re going to stand around holding a clipboard for a year while everyone else around you is playing, improving their skills, learning to work together and showing off to the world what they can do.

The idea that the clipboard guy will get some unfair advantage down the road, by standing around for a year watching everyone else get to play, would surely come as a shock to clipboard guys everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion that "'redshirting" is some trick that rich people use to get an unfair advantage for their kid seems utterly and completely ridiculous. It's not going to give them a leg up academically or athletically. If anything, it's going to give the kid a complex about why he or she is older than everyone else. But if the parent sees some problem that will be exacerbated by pushing their kid along, then I don't know why we don't give the parent the benefit of the doubt. They know their kid better than anyone else.

This is some Pollyanna nonsense. Redshirting is a thing in sports precisely because being a year older gives a huge advantage. Looking for an academic edge (over others, though they don’t say the quiet part aloud) is why some parents do it for school.

You obviously know nothing about sports. That's not even why college athletes redshirt. They generally only get four years of eligibility. If you're trying to make it to the pros, it may not make sense to burn a year of eligibility sitting on the bench if it's clear you're not going to play because you're not good enough. But sitting out that year, not officially being on the team, doesn't make you any more attractive as a prospect the following year. It's still just as possible that someone new will come along, who is younger than you, who will also be better than you. Redshirting can mark you as a marginal talent.

The reason you would spend your first year on the bench and not, say, your 4th is because for non-superstars, coaches often want them to gain a year of physical maturity, because — gasp — being a year older gives you a comparative advantage physically. Like you are tiptoeing sooooo close to the truth, but can’t bring yourself to say it. Also, the whole reason there are only 5 years of eligibility (normally), is to stop multi-year redshirting for non-injury precisely because folks would otherwise do it. We do agree that if your kid was a superstar, you wouldn’t feel the need to hold him back… but here you are.

If you’re redshirting, it means you’re the worst player on the field.

It also means you’re going to stand around holding a clipboard for a year while everyone else around you is playing, improving their skills, learning to work together and showing off to the world what they can do.

The idea that the clipboard guy will get some unfair advantage down the road, by standing around for a year watching everyone else get to play, would surely come as a shock to clipboard guys everywhere.

This is simply not the reality in certain college sports. Redshirted freshman in college football are incredibly routine, especially for positions that are heavily benefitted from players being larger. And those players are not standing around holding a clipboard for the year -- they train with the team and spend the entire year improving skills, strength training, learning offensive/defensive schemes, etc. The redshirt year is considered a developmental year, not punishment for being bad at football. There are absolutely redshirted players who are better than some active players, it depends on year, position, sometimes team needs, and what the team views as the player's ceiling for development.

I don't know what sport you are familiar with that has "clipboard guys" who are allowed on the team but apparently are bad at the sport and thus get this weird position where they stand around and do nothing for a year, but this is simply not true for most popular, recruited sports. Someone like that would simply not be recruited to play on most competitive college teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion that "'redshirting" is some trick that rich people use to get an unfair advantage for their kid seems utterly and completely ridiculous. It's not going to give them a leg up academically or athletically. If anything, it's going to give the kid a complex about why he or she is older than everyone else. But if the parent sees some problem that will be exacerbated by pushing their kid along, then I don't know why we don't give the parent the benefit of the doubt. They know their kid better than anyone else.

This is some Pollyanna nonsense. Redshirting is a thing in sports precisely because being a year older gives a huge advantage. Looking for an academic edge (over others, though they don’t say the quiet part aloud) is why some parents do it for school.

You obviously know nothing about sports. That's not even why college athletes redshirt. They generally only get four years of eligibility. If you're trying to make it to the pros, it may not make sense to burn a year of eligibility sitting on the bench if it's clear you're not going to play because you're not good enough. But sitting out that year, not officially being on the team, doesn't make you any more attractive as a prospect the following year. It's still just as possible that someone new will come along, who is younger than you, who will also be better than you. Redshirting can mark you as a marginal talent.

The reason you would spend your first year on the bench and not, say, your 4th is because for non-superstars, coaches often want them to gain a year of physical maturity, because — gasp — being a year older gives you a comparative advantage physically. Like you are tiptoeing sooooo close to the truth, but can’t bring yourself to say it. Also, the whole reason there are only 5 years of eligibility (normally), is to stop multi-year redshirting for non-injury precisely because folks would otherwise do it. We do agree that if your kid was a superstar, you wouldn’t feel the need to hold him back… but here you are.

If you’re redshirting, it means you’re the worst player on the field.

It also means you’re going to stand around holding a clipboard for a year while everyone else around you is playing, improving their skills, learning to work together and showing off to the world what they can do.

The idea that the clipboard guy will get some unfair advantage down the road, by standing around for a year watching everyone else get to play, would surely come as a shock to clipboard guys everywhere.

You really, really do not understand competitive sports. Like at all. Even a little. Redshirted players practice with the team. They don't hold a clipboard. They aren't the manager. They are (generally) scholarship athletes who are sitting out a year to gain muscle mass and/or improve skill sets in order to contribute the next season. This may be for physical reasons, maturity, or because there is a glut of talent at the position. It's literally an extra year to gain competitive advantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion that "'redshirting" is some trick that rich people use to get an unfair advantage for their kid seems utterly and completely ridiculous. It's not going to give them a leg up academically or athletically. If anything, it's going to give the kid a complex about why he or she is older than everyone else. But if the parent sees some problem that will be exacerbated by pushing their kid along, then I don't know why we don't give the parent the benefit of the doubt. They know their kid better than anyone else.

This is some Pollyanna nonsense. Redshirting is a thing in sports precisely because being a year older gives a huge advantage. Looking for an academic edge (over others, though they don’t say the quiet part aloud) is why some parents do it for school.

You obviously know nothing about sports. That's not even why college athletes redshirt. They generally only get four years of eligibility. If you're trying to make it to the pros, it may not make sense to burn a year of eligibility sitting on the bench if it's clear you're not going to play because you're not good enough. But sitting out that year, not officially being on the team, doesn't make you any more attractive as a prospect the following year. It's still just as possible that someone new will come along, who is younger than you, who will also be better than you. Redshirting can mark you as a marginal talent.

The reason you would spend your first year on the bench and not, say, your 4th is because for non-superstars, coaches often want them to gain a year of physical maturity, because — gasp — being a year older gives you a comparative advantage physically. Like you are tiptoeing sooooo close to the truth, but can’t bring yourself to say it. Also, the whole reason there are only 5 years of eligibility (normally), is to stop multi-year redshirting for non-injury precisely because folks would otherwise do it. We do agree that if your kid was a superstar, you wouldn’t feel the need to hold him back… but here you are.

If you’re redshirting, it means you’re the worst player on the field.

It also means you’re going to stand around holding a clipboard for a year while everyone else around you is playing, improving their skills, learning to work together and showing off to the world what they can do.

The idea that the clipboard guy will get some unfair advantage down the road, by standing around for a year watching everyone else get to play, would surely come as a shock to clipboard guys everywhere.

This is simply not the reality in certain college sports. Redshirted freshman in college football are incredibly routine, especially for positions that are heavily benefitted from players being larger. And those players are not standing around holding a clipboard for the year -- they train with the team and spend the entire year improving skills, strength training, learning offensive/defensive schemes, etc. The redshirt year is considered a developmental year, not punishment for being bad at football. There are absolutely redshirted players who are better than some active players, it depends on year, position, sometimes team needs, and what the team views as the player's ceiling for development.

I don't know what sport you are familiar with that has "clipboard guys" who are allowed on the team but apparently are bad at the sport and thus get this weird position where they stand around and do nothing for a year, but this is simply not true for most popular, recruited sports. Someone like that would simply not be recruited to play on most competitive college teams.

This person sounds like their only knowledge of college sports is the Lori Laughlin scandal. Because what are clipboard guys?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion that "'redshirting" is some trick that rich people use to get an unfair advantage for their kid seems utterly and completely ridiculous. It's not going to give them a leg up academically or athletically. If anything, it's going to give the kid a complex about why he or she is older than everyone else. But if the parent sees some problem that will be exacerbated by pushing their kid along, then I don't know why we don't give the parent the benefit of the doubt. They know their kid better than anyone else.

This is some Pollyanna nonsense. Redshirting is a thing in sports precisely because being a year older gives a huge advantage. Looking for an academic edge (over others, though they don’t say the quiet part aloud) is why some parents do it for school.

You obviously know nothing about sports. That's not even why college athletes redshirt. They generally only get four years of eligibility. If you're trying to make it to the pros, it may not make sense to burn a year of eligibility sitting on the bench if it's clear you're not going to play because you're not good enough. But sitting out that year, not officially being on the team, doesn't make you any more attractive as a prospect the following year. It's still just as possible that someone new will come along, who is younger than you, who will also be better than you. Redshirting can mark you as a marginal talent.

The reason you would spend your first year on the bench and not, say, your 4th is because for non-superstars, coaches often want them to gain a year of physical maturity, because — gasp — being a year older gives you a comparative advantage physically. Like you are tiptoeing sooooo close to the truth, but can’t bring yourself to say it. Also, the whole reason there are only 5 years of eligibility (normally), is to stop multi-year redshirting for non-injury precisely because folks would otherwise do it. We do agree that if your kid was a superstar, you wouldn’t feel the need to hold him back… but here you are.

Have you....been to a children's soccer game? Or to a school classroom? There is zero correlation between a child's age and how good they are at math or at driving the ball down the field. The imagined benefits of redshirting seem a little fanciful.

People generally cite emotional maturity as the reason to redshirt. Which I think can be a very valid reason to do it -- some kids really are not ready to sit still, follow directions, resolve minor disputes with peers, and other things that are expected in a K classroom but not at the pre-K level.

But we should be careful with this, because as many posters have noted, Kindergarten expectations have increased in recent years, with the grade becoming more academic than it used to be. A generation ago, many K programs were not even full time, and they more resembled PK, with more time dedicated to free play, and lighter academics delivered largely through fun interactions like songs and games. It would have been unusual to see a classroom of K kids listening to a lesson on phonics or doing a math worksheet. Now those things are quite standard.

So what's the danger with redshirting? It further shifts expectations for ALL the students in the classroom, when already expectations are really pushing the limits of what is appropriate even for children who are 5.5 or close to 6 at the start of the year. The more 6 year olds you have in a K classroom, the more likely teachers are to view it as "normal" for kids to be be quiet, compliant, less prone to tears, etc. But actually it is typical for kindergarteners to struggle with those things, and traditionally the whole point of kindergarten was to help kids develop those skills so that they would be set up for success in 1st.

So allowing very emotionally immature kids to be redshirted occasionally shouldn't be an issue, as it will bring those kids more into line with other children in the classroom. But allowing broad discretion by parents results in too many kids being redshirted, which leads to classrooms that lean older, which leads to higher expectations from teachers, which then means that kids who are not even young for the grade (but now are young for the classroom) and who have no real maturity issues, are suddenly viewed as problems simply because they are not as mature as the average kid in class.

All of which is why redshirting decisions should be made in collaboration with the school, not independently by parents (and not by private preschools who have a major incentive to recommend redshirting -- it means they get an extra year of tuition from that family), and should only be done in more extreme situations and not when a child is simply at the lower end of normal for kindergarten maturity. If you are within the range of normal for the age, you should start on time.

I actually hadn't considered this angle but it's absolutely correct.

[Anonymous]

Older kids get the advantage in sports, studies have been done. Google Malcolm Gladwell's
"Relative Age Effect" from his book The Tipping Point. It found that the OLDEST kids in each year's hockey class were more likely to go to the NHL! Older/bigger kids do better from the start, end up with more playing time, more attention from coaches, etc etc. which leads to star athletes. All because they started out older and bigger than everyone else.

It is a real advantage over everyone else. Not only in hockey, this just quantifies it and explains it.

Extrapolate for any other sport or academic area. Older, more articulate (age based language milestones), more attentive (developmental skill), more able to think abstractly (developmental skill), etc etc. Means more success in school, more positive attention, more responsibility, etc which could lead to academic advantages that everyone else does not automatically get.
But not because the student earns it, but because they are just OLDER than everyone else.

Let's not confuse the issue with the original meaning of the term "red shirting" which is specific to college sports, eligibility rules etc. Just borrowed for early childhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion that "'redshirting" is some trick that rich people use to get an unfair advantage for their kid seems utterly and completely ridiculous. It's not going to give them a leg up academically or athletically. If anything, it's going to give the kid a complex about why he or she is older than everyone else. But if the parent sees some problem that will be exacerbated by pushing their kid along, then I don't know why we don't give the parent the benefit of the doubt. They know their kid better than anyone else.

This is some Pollyanna nonsense. Redshirting is a thing in sports precisely because being a year older gives a huge advantage. Looking for an academic edge (over others, though they don’t say the quiet part aloud) is why some parents do it for school.

You obviously know nothing about sports. That's not even why college athletes redshirt. They generally only get four years of eligibility. If you're trying to make it to the pros, it may not make sense to burn a year of eligibility sitting on the bench if it's clear you're not going to play because you're not good enough. But sitting out that year, not officially being on the team, doesn't make you any more attractive as a prospect the following year. It's still just as possible that someone new will come along, who is younger than you, who will also be better than you. Redshirting can mark you as a marginal talent.

The reason you would spend your first year on the bench and not, say, your 4th is because for non-superstars, coaches often want them to gain a year of physical maturity, because — gasp — being a year older gives you a comparative advantage physically. Like you are tiptoeing sooooo close to the truth, but can’t bring yourself to say it. Also, the whole reason there are only 5 years of eligibility (normally), is to stop multi-year redshirting for non-injury precisely because folks would otherwise do it. We do agree that if your kid was a superstar, you wouldn’t feel the need to hold him back… but here you are.

Have you....been to a children's soccer game? Or to a school classroom? There is zero correlation between a child's age and how good they are at math or at driving the ball down the field. The imagined benefits of redshirting seem a little fanciful.

People generally cite emotional maturity as the reason to redshirt. Which I think can be a very valid reason to do it -- some kids really are not ready to sit still, follow directions, resolve minor disputes with peers, and other things that are expected in a K classroom but not at the pre-K level.

But we should be careful with this, because as many posters have noted, Kindergarten expectations have increased in recent years, with the grade becoming more academic than it used to be. A generation ago, many K programs were not even full time, and they more resembled PK, with more time dedicated to free play, and lighter academics delivered largely through fun interactions like songs and games. It would have been unusual to see a classroom of K kids listening to a lesson on phonics or doing a math worksheet. Now those things are quite standard.

So what's the danger with redshirting? It further shifts expectations for ALL the students in the classroom, when already expectations are really pushing the limits of what is appropriate even for children who are 5.5 or close to 6 at the start of the year. The more 6 year olds you have in a K classroom, the more likely teachers are to view it as "normal" for kids to be be quiet, compliant, less prone to tears, etc. But actually it is typical for kindergarteners to struggle with those things, and traditionally the whole point of kindergarten was to help kids develop those skills so that they would be set up for success in 1st.

So allowing very emotionally immature kids to be redshirted occasionally shouldn't be an issue, as it will bring those kids more into line with other children in the classroom. But allowing broad discretion by parents results in too many kids being redshirted, which leads to classrooms that lean older, which leads to higher expectations from teachers, which then means that kids who are not even young for the grade (but now are young for the classroom) and who have no real maturity issues, are suddenly viewed as problems simply because they are not as mature as the average kid in class.

All of which is why redshirting decisions should be made in collaboration with the school, not independently by parents (and not by private preschools who have a major incentive to recommend redshirting -- it means they get an extra year of tuition from that family), and should only be done in more extreme situations and not when a child is simply at the lower end of normal for kindergarten maturity. If you are within the range of normal for the age, you should start on time.

I actually hadn't considered this angle but it's absolutely correct.

People like to view redshirting as purely an individual decision that is just about what is best for a specific child or family, and often overlook how shifting the average of a classroom or grade cohort can impact all children in the grade, can impact teachers, and can change expectations and even lead to shifts in curriculum. There is no such thing as a purely individual decision in a classroom -- all kids are impacted.

These impacts can also follow kids up through the grades. In DC, many of the most desirable public high schools are application schools. Discretionary redshirting will change the makeup of the applicant class for those schools. Maturity can be a major factor in HS applications, especially where interviews and teacher recommendations play a significant role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion that "'redshirting" is some trick that rich people use to get an unfair advantage for their kid seems utterly and completely ridiculous. It's not going to give them a leg up academically or athletically. If anything, it's going to give the kid a complex about why he or she is older than everyone else. But if the parent sees some problem that will be exacerbated by pushing their kid along, then I don't know why we don't give the parent the benefit of the doubt. They know their kid better than anyone else.

This is some Pollyanna nonsense. Redshirting is a thing in sports precisely because being a year older gives a huge advantage. Looking for an academic edge (over others, though they don’t say the quiet part aloud) is why some parents do it for school.

You obviously know nothing about sports. That's not even why college athletes redshirt. They generally only get four years of eligibility. If you're trying to make it to the pros, it may not make sense to burn a year of eligibility sitting on the bench if it's clear you're not going to play because you're not good enough. But sitting out that year, not officially being on the team, doesn't make you any more attractive as a prospect the following year. It's still just as possible that someone new will come along, who is younger than you, who will also be better than you. Redshirting can mark you as a marginal talent.

The reason you would spend your first year on the bench and not, say, your 4th is because for non-superstars, coaches often want them to gain a year of physical maturity, because — gasp — being a year older gives you a comparative advantage physically. Like you are tiptoeing sooooo close to the truth, but can’t bring yourself to say it. Also, the whole reason there are only 5 years of eligibility (normally), is to stop multi-year redshirting for non-injury precisely because folks would otherwise do it. We do agree that if your kid was a superstar, you wouldn’t feel the need to hold him back… but here you are.

Have you....been to a children's soccer game? Or to a school classroom? There is zero correlation between a child's age and how good they are at math or at driving the ball down the field. The imagined benefits of redshirting seem a little fanciful.

People generally cite emotional maturity as the reason to redshirt. Which I think can be a very valid reason to do it -- some kids really are not ready to sit still, follow directions, resolve minor disputes with peers, and other things that are expected in a K classroom but not at the pre-K level.

But we should be careful with this, because as many posters have noted, Kindergarten expectations have increased in recent years, with the grade becoming more academic than it used to be. A generation ago, many K programs were not even full time, and they more resembled PK, with more time dedicated to free play, and lighter academics delivered largely through fun interactions like songs and games. It would have been unusual to see a classroom of K kids listening to a lesson on phonics or doing a math worksheet. Now those things are quite standard.

So what's the danger with redshirting? It further shifts expectations for ALL the students in the classroom, when already expectations are really pushing the limits of what is appropriate even for children who are 5.5 or close to 6 at the start of the year. The more 6 year olds you have in a K classroom, the more likely teachers are to view it as "normal" for kids to be be quiet, compliant, less prone to tears, etc. But actually it is typical for kindergarteners to struggle with those things, and traditionally the whole point of kindergarten was to help kids develop those skills so that they would be set up for success in 1st.

So allowing very emotionally immature kids to be redshirted occasionally shouldn't be an issue, as it will bring those kids more into line with other children in the classroom. But allowing broad discretion by parents results in too many kids being redshirted, which leads to classrooms that lean older, which leads to higher expectations from teachers, which then means that kids who are not even young for the grade (but now are young for the classroom) and who have no real maturity issues, are suddenly viewed as problems simply because they are not as mature as the average kid in class.

All of which is why redshirting decisions should be made in collaboration with the school, not independently by parents (and not by private preschools who have a major incentive to recommend redshirting -- it means they get an extra year of tuition from that family), and should only be done in more extreme situations and not when a child is simply at the lower end of normal for kindergarten maturity. If you are within the range of normal for the age, you should start on time.

I actually hadn't considered this angle but it's absolutely correct.

People like to view redshirting as purely an individual decision that is just about what is best for a specific child or family, and often overlook how shifting the average of a classroom or grade cohort can impact all children in the grade, can impact teachers, and can change expectations and even lead to shifts in curriculum. There is no such thing as a purely individual decision in a classroom -- all kids are impacted.

These impacts can also follow kids up through the grades. In DC, many of the most desirable public high schools are application schools. Discretionary redshirting will change the makeup of the applicant class for those schools. Maturity can be a major factor in HS applications, especially where interviews and teacher recommendations play a significant role.

+1. I have a boy with very uneven development (big for age, emotionally young for age, advanced reader for age, very un-advanced EF for age especially compared to girls!) sent him on time because of DCPS policy and nobody ever suggested not. I’m really glad that his age cohort is evenly distributed and not distorted by redshirting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Older kids get the advantage in sports, studies have been done. Google Malcolm Gladwell's
"Relative Age Effect" from his book The Tipping Point. It found that the OLDEST kids in each year's hockey class were more likely to go to the NHL! Older/bigger kids do better from the start, end up with more playing time, more attention from coaches, etc etc. which leads to star athletes. All because they started out older and bigger than everyone else.

It is a real advantage over everyone else. Not only in hockey, this just quantifies it and explains it.

Extrapolate for any other sport or academic area. Older, more articulate (age based language milestones), more attentive (developmental skill), more able to think abstractly (developmental skill), etc etc. Means more success in school, more positive attention, more responsibility, etc which could lead to academic advantages that everyone else does not automatically get.
But not because the student earns it, but because they are just OLDER than everyone else.

Let's not confuse the issue with the original meaning of the term "red shirting" which is specific to college sports, eligibility rules etc. Just borrowed for early childhood.

Academics should come first and smart kids will be fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion that "'redshirting" is some trick that rich people use to get an unfair advantage for their kid seems utterly and completely ridiculous. It's not going to give them a leg up academically or athletically. If anything, it's going to give the kid a complex about why he or she is older than everyone else. But if the parent sees some problem that will be exacerbated by pushing their kid along, then I don't know why we don't give the parent the benefit of the doubt. They know their kid better than anyone else.

This is some Pollyanna nonsense. Redshirting is a thing in sports precisely because being a year older gives a huge advantage. Looking for an academic edge (over others, though they don’t say the quiet part aloud) is why some parents do it for school.

You obviously know nothing about sports. That's not even why college athletes redshirt. They generally only get four years of eligibility. If you're trying to make it to the pros, it may not make sense to burn a year of eligibility sitting on the bench if it's clear you're not going to play because you're not good enough. But sitting out that year, not officially being on the team, doesn't make you any more attractive as a prospect the following year. It's still just as possible that someone new will come along, who is younger than you, who will also be better than you. Redshirting can mark you as a marginal talent.

The reason you would spend your first year on the bench and not, say, your 4th is because for non-superstars, coaches often want them to gain a year of physical maturity, because — gasp — being a year older gives you a comparative advantage physically. Like you are tiptoeing sooooo close to the truth, but can’t bring yourself to say it. Also, the whole reason there are only 5 years of eligibility (normally), is to stop multi-year redshirting for non-injury precisely because folks would otherwise do it. We do agree that if your kid was a superstar, you wouldn’t feel the need to hold him back… but here you are.

Have you....been to a children's soccer game? Or to a school classroom? There is zero correlation between a child's age and how good they are at math or at driving the ball down the field. The imagined benefits of redshirting seem a little fanciful.

People generally cite emotional maturity as the reason to redshirt. Which I think can be a very valid reason to do it -- some kids really are not ready to sit still, follow directions, resolve minor disputes with peers, and other things that are expected in a K classroom but not at the pre-K level.

But we should be careful with this, because as many posters have noted, Kindergarten expectations have increased in recent years, with the grade becoming more academic than it used to be. A generation ago, many K programs were not even full time, and they more resembled PK, with more time dedicated to free play, and lighter academics delivered largely through fun interactions like songs and games. It would have been unusual to see a classroom of K kids listening to a lesson on phonics or doing a math worksheet. Now those things are quite standard.

So what's the danger with redshirting? It further shifts expectations for ALL the students in the classroom, when already expectations are really pushing the limits of what is appropriate even for children who are 5.5 or close to 6 at the start of the year. The more 6 year olds you have in a K classroom, the more likely teachers are to view it as "normal" for kids to be be quiet, compliant, less prone to tears, etc. But actually it is typical for kindergarteners to struggle with those things, and traditionally the whole point of kindergarten was to help kids develop those skills so that they would be set up for success in 1st.

So allowing very emotionally immature kids to be redshirted occasionally shouldn't be an issue, as it will bring those kids more into line with other children in the classroom. But allowing broad discretion by parents results in too many kids being redshirted, which leads to classrooms that lean older, which leads to higher expectations from teachers, which then means that kids who are not even young for the grade (but now are young for the classroom) and who have no real maturity issues, are suddenly viewed as problems simply because they are not as mature as the average kid in class.

All of which is why redshirting decisions should be made in collaboration with the school, not independently by parents (and not by private preschools who have a major incentive to recommend redshirting -- it means they get an extra year of tuition from that family), and should only be done in more extreme situations and not when a child is simply at the lower end of normal for kindergarten maturity. If you are within the range of normal for the age, you should start on time.

I actually hadn't considered this angle but it's absolutely correct.

People like to view redshirting as purely an individual decision that is just about what is best for a specific child or family, and often overlook how shifting the average of a classroom or grade cohort can impact all children in the grade, can impact teachers, and can change expectations and even lead to shifts in curriculum. There is no such thing as a purely individual decision in a classroom -- all kids are impacted.

These impacts can also follow kids up through the grades. In DC, many of the most desirable public high schools are application schools. Discretionary redshirting will change the makeup of the applicant class for those schools. Maturity can be a major factor in HS applications, especially where interviews and teacher recommendations play a significant role.

+1. I have a boy with very uneven development (big for age, emotionally young for age, advanced reader for age, very un-advanced EF for age especially compared to girls!) sent him on time because of DCPS policy and nobody ever suggested not. I’m really glad that his age cohort is evenly distributed and not distorted by redshirting.

Oh I am glad you mentioned this. We are in the same boat and the conversation around redshirting frustrates me because it ignores kids like ours. And I think most kids are like this to some degree -- doing better than average on some things and struggling on others. It's normal. Everyone has their strengths and everyone has their weaknesses. The way we raise resilient kids who know how to problem-solve and overcome challenges is not by trying to optimize every situation to eliminate those challenges. We have to let kids struggle sometimes in order for them to develop tools for overcoming struggles.

I'm not anti-redshirting, but unless you are talking about a kid who is well below average across the board, you are probably talking about a normal kid who just has some stuff to work on. Let them work on it with the rest of their same-age peers, who mostly also have stuff to work on. That's the whole point of school in general but especially kindergarten, which is supposed to be a transitional grade that teaches children who to handle elementary school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion that "'redshirting" is some trick that rich people use to get an unfair advantage for their kid seems utterly and completely ridiculous. It's not going to give them a leg up academically or athletically. If anything, it's going to give the kid a complex about why he or she is older than everyone else. But if the parent sees some problem that will be exacerbated by pushing their kid along, then I don't know why we don't give the parent the benefit of the doubt. They know their kid better than anyone else.

This is some Pollyanna nonsense. Redshirting is a thing in sports precisely because being a year older gives a huge advantage. Looking for an academic edge (over others, though they don’t say the quiet part aloud) is why some parents do it for school.

You obviously know nothing about sports. That's not even why college athletes redshirt. They generally only get four years of eligibility. If you're trying to make it to the pros, it may not make sense to burn a year of eligibility sitting on the bench if it's clear you're not going to play because you're not good enough. But sitting out that year, not officially being on the team, doesn't make you any more attractive as a prospect the following year. It's still just as possible that someone new will come along, who is younger than you, who will also be better than you. Redshirting can mark you as a marginal talent.

The reason you would spend your first year on the bench and not, say, your 4th is because for non-superstars, coaches often want them to gain a year of physical maturity, because — gasp — being a year older gives you a comparative advantage physically. Like you are tiptoeing sooooo close to the truth, but can’t bring yourself to say it. Also, the whole reason there are only 5 years of eligibility (normally), is to stop multi-year redshirting for non-injury precisely because folks would otherwise do it. We do agree that if your kid was a superstar, you wouldn’t feel the need to hold him back… but here you are.

If you’re redshirting, it means you’re the worst player on the field.

It also means you’re going to stand around holding a clipboard for a year while everyone else around you is playing, improving their skills, learning to work together and showing off to the world what they can do.

The idea that the clipboard guy will get some unfair advantage down the road, by standing around for a year watching everyone else get to play, would surely come as a shock to clipboard guys everywhere.

You're holding a clipboard if you are redshirting due to injury. That's it. Unless it's health-related, you're doing basically everything the other athletes are except playing on game day. And it's because the coaches want you to take a year to GET OLDER (bigger, faster, stronger, smarter) so that they are using your limited years of eligibility to their advantage. IT IS AN ADVANTAGE TO COLLEGE TEAMS FOR YOU TO BE OLDER. This is why you're only allowed one "normal" redshirt season in D1 - you have to petition of a second and that's only granted by the NCAA if you had two serious, documented injuries/health issues, or recently the weird COVID season. The all-star basketball phenoms that you remember playing collegiate hoops at 17 and 18 without redshirtting did so because before NIL money existed there was more financial risk to staying in the NCAA (injury) versus declaring for the draft as a one-and-done and signing a big first pro contract. The Canadians who came to my school to play hockey were 20 year old freshmen. But sure, keep showing how willfully ignorant you are in hopes of bolstering your defense of having your kid start K a year too late.

Signed, a former D1 athlete who took a redshirt season

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion that "'redshirting" is some trick that rich people use to get an unfair advantage for their kid seems utterly and completely ridiculous. It's not going to give them a leg up academically or athletically. If anything, it's going to give the kid a complex about why he or she is older than everyone else. But if the parent sees some problem that will be exacerbated by pushing their kid along, then I don't know why we don't give the parent the benefit of the doubt. They know their kid better than anyone else.

This is some Pollyanna nonsense. Redshirting is a thing in sports precisely because being a year older gives a huge advantage. Looking for an academic edge (over others, though they don’t say the quiet part aloud) is why some parents do it for school.

You obviously know nothing about sports. That's not even why college athletes redshirt. They generally only get four years of eligibility. If you're trying to make it to the pros, it may not make sense to burn a year of eligibility sitting on the bench if it's clear you're not going to play because you're not good enough. But sitting out that year, not officially being on the team, doesn't make you any more attractive as a prospect the following year. It's still just as possible that someone new will come along, who is younger than you, who will also be better than you. Redshirting can mark you as a marginal talent.

The reason you would spend your first year on the bench and not, say, your 4th is because for non-superstars, coaches often want them to gain a year of physical maturity, because — gasp — being a year older gives you a comparative advantage physically. Like you are tiptoeing sooooo close to the truth, but can’t bring yourself to say it. Also, the whole reason there are only 5 years of eligibility (normally), is to stop multi-year redshirting for non-injury precisely because folks would otherwise do it. We do agree that if your kid was a superstar, you wouldn’t feel the need to hold him back… but here you are.

Have you....been to a children's soccer game? Or to a school classroom? There is zero correlation between a child's age and how good they are at math or at driving the ball down the field. The imagined benefits of redshirting seem a little fanciful.

People generally cite emotional maturity as the reason to redshirt. Which I think can be a very valid reason to do it -- some kids really are not ready to sit still, follow directions, resolve minor disputes with peers, and other things that are expected in a K classroom but not at the pre-K level.

But we should be careful with this, because as many posters have noted, Kindergarten expectations have increased in recent years, with the grade becoming more academic than it used to be. A generation ago, many K programs were not even full time, and they more resembled PK, with more time dedicated to free play, and lighter academics delivered largely through fun interactions like songs and games. It would have been unusual to see a classroom of K kids listening to a lesson on phonics or doing a math worksheet. Now those things are quite standard.

So what's the danger with redshirting? It further shifts expectations for ALL the students in the classroom, when already expectations are really pushing the limits of what is appropriate even for children who are 5.5 or close to 6 at the start of the year. The more 6 year olds you have in a K classroom, the more likely teachers are to view it as "normal" for kids to be be quiet, compliant, less prone to tears, etc. But actually it is typical for kindergarteners to struggle with those things, and traditionally the whole point of kindergarten was to help kids develop those skills so that they would be set up for success in 1st.

So allowing very emotionally immature kids to be redshirted occasionally shouldn't be an issue, as it will bring those kids more into line with other children in the classroom. But allowing broad discretion by parents results in too many kids being redshirted, which leads to classrooms that lean older, which leads to higher expectations from teachers, which then means that kids who are not even young for the grade (but now are young for the classroom) and who have no real maturity issues, are suddenly viewed as problems simply because they are not as mature as the average kid in class.

All of which is why redshirting decisions should be made in collaboration with the school, not independently by parents (and not by private preschools who have a major incentive to recommend redshirting -- it means they get an extra year of tuition from that family), and should only be done in more extreme situations and not when a child is simply at the lower end of normal for kindergarten maturity. If you are within the range of normal for the age, you should start on time.

So many if's!

If the choice is between a parent who has reluctantly concluded that their kid should be held back because they don't want to exacerbate some deficiency and your extremely theoretical parade of horribles, I will go with helping a child who actually exists.

[Anonymous]

It's hilarious how DCPS won't flunk anyone for any reason. You can be a 15 year old who can't spell your name, and DCPS will send you on to the next grade. Why? Because the social stigma that comes with failing a grade is so profound that it is simply too much for a child to bear.

BUT on DCUM, "redshirting" (not flunking!) is some incredible advantage that is so valuable that it would be unfair to give it to one kid and not all the other kids who are sent on to the next grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion that "'redshirting" is some trick that rich people use to get an unfair advantage for their kid seems utterly and completely ridiculous. It's not going to give them a leg up academically or athletically. If anything, it's going to give the kid a complex about why he or she is older than everyone else. But if the parent sees some problem that will be exacerbated by pushing their kid along, then I don't know why we don't give the parent the benefit of the doubt. They know their kid better than anyone else.

This is some Pollyanna nonsense. Redshirting is a thing in sports precisely because being a year older gives a huge advantage. Looking for an academic edge (over others, though they don’t say the quiet part aloud) is why some parents do it for school.

You obviously know nothing about sports. That's not even why college athletes redshirt. They generally only get four years of eligibility. If you're trying to make it to the pros, it may not make sense to burn a year of eligibility sitting on the bench if it's clear you're not going to play because you're not good enough. But sitting out that year, not officially being on the team, doesn't make you any more attractive as a prospect the following year. It's still just as possible that someone new will come along, who is younger than you, who will also be better than you. Redshirting can mark you as a marginal talent.

The reason you would spend your first year on the bench and not, say, your 4th is because for non-superstars, coaches often want them to gain a year of physical maturity, because — gasp — being a year older gives you a comparative advantage physically. Like you are tiptoeing sooooo close to the truth, but can’t bring yourself to say it. Also, the whole reason there are only 5 years of eligibility (normally), is to stop multi-year redshirting for non-injury precisely because folks would otherwise do it. We do agree that if your kid was a superstar, you wouldn’t feel the need to hold him back… but here you are.

Have you....been to a children's soccer game? Or to a school classroom? There is zero correlation between a child's age and how good they are at math or at driving the ball down the field. The imagined benefits of redshirting seem a little fanciful.

+1. This must be a troll. There is a HUGE advantage statistically to minor differences in age in many sports. The whole idea of sports grouping kids by age (or even by grade level) recognizes this. Of course the difference between 2 months is less than 7 is less than 12 is less than 24... but, to be clear, taken to its logical extreme, your claim is that Kers can play against 5th graders no problem. Of course you don't mean that, but that is actually what you're claiming by saying that age doesn't matter statistically-speaking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion that "'redshirting" is some trick that rich people use to get an unfair advantage for their kid seems utterly and completely ridiculous. It's not going to give them a leg up academically or athletically. If anything, it's going to give the kid a complex about why he or she is older than everyone else. But if the parent sees some problem that will be exacerbated by pushing their kid along, then I don't know why we don't give the parent the benefit of the doubt. They know their kid better than anyone else.

This is some Pollyanna nonsense. Redshirting is a thing in sports precisely because being a year older gives a huge advantage. Looking for an academic edge (over others, though they don’t say the quiet part aloud) is why some parents do it for school.

You obviously know nothing about sports. That's not even why college athletes redshirt. They generally only get four years of eligibility. If you're trying to make it to the pros, it may not make sense to burn a year of eligibility sitting on the bench if it's clear you're not going to play because you're not good enough. But sitting out that year, not officially being on the team, doesn't make you any more attractive as a prospect the following year. It's still just as possible that someone new will come along, who is younger than you, who will also be better than you. Redshirting can mark you as a marginal talent.

The reason you would spend your first year on the bench and not, say, your 4th is because for non-superstars, coaches often want them to gain a year of physical maturity, because — gasp — being a year older gives you a comparative advantage physically. Like you are tiptoeing sooooo close to the truth, but can’t bring yourself to say it. Also, the whole reason there are only 5 years of eligibility (normally), is to stop multi-year redshirting for non-injury precisely because folks would otherwise do it. We do agree that if your kid was a superstar, you wouldn’t feel the need to hold him back… but here you are.

Have you....been to a children's soccer game? Or to a school classroom? There is zero correlation between a child's age and how good they are at math or at driving the ball down the field. The imagined benefits of redshirting seem a little fanciful.

+1. This must be a troll. There is a HUGE advantage statistically to minor differences in age in many sports. The whole idea of sports grouping kids by age (or even by grade level) recognizes this. Of course the difference between 2 months is less than 7 is less than 12 is less than 24... but, to be clear, taken to its logical extreme, your claim is that Kers can play against 5th graders no problem. Of course you don't mean that, but that is actually what you're claiming by saying that age doesn't matter statistically-speaking.

It's weird how y'all think getting better at sports is merely a function of getting older. You could reshirt basically everyone on my kid's soccer team, repeatedly, and they'd still get smoked by that one kid who is so good with the ball.