Redshirting consequences at Lafayette

[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.

Don't argue with these people. They want it both ways -- "redshirting is not an advantage" AND "let us just do it for our kids and mind your own business."

They will clearly not back down. Everyone sees through it and it's making them lose their minds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a theory.

It used to be very rare for white or UMC people outside of upper NW to send their kids to their neighborhood DCPS. For a long time white and UMC people simply avoided living in any but upper NW neighborhoods, and if they did, they sent their kids to private or charters.

But over the last 15 years, som east side, or just east of the park, neighborhoods have both gentrified a lot AND gotten buy in from those new families for the neighborhood schools. As a school's white and UMC population increases, so too will interest in redshirting. It's an educational trend that is very concentrated among upper-income white people.

Well, what if families in, for instance, Capitol Hill started asking or trying to redshirt at their neighborhood schools? They are going to get a hard no, because the official policy of DCPS is that you are not allowed to do this and that kindergarten is delayed only if the school itself has evaluated the child and determined it is appropriate -- not at parental discretion.

But UMC talk. At work, with friends, here on DCUM. So if you are an UMC parent on Cap Hill who wants to redshirt, you might know for a fact that there are people in upper NW who have been allowed to do it. And that is very likely to be what you say to your principal when they give you a hard no on redshirting: "Well we know multiple families at Lafayette and Mann who have redshirted in recent years, so obviously it's allowed."

It would not take more than one or two such conversations with principals outside JKLM for this to get up to Central Office and force DCPS to realize that the situation has to be addressed, and that the politics and demographics of DC, and DCPS, are such that the only reasonable solution is to crack down on the "loop hole" in those upper NW schools.

It may just be coming to a head now because for so long there were simply not enough high income white people at schools outside of upper NW to press the issue. Gentrification/integration of DCPS schools requires that everyone follow the same rules.

I'm aware of redshirters at Peabody/Watkins, so the practice wasn't exclusive to JKLM.

[Anonymous]

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.

The rationale of one of the parents quoted in the WaPo article is literally just, "Since he’d be the youngest child in his class, having an extra year would be advantageous to his development." That's it. Just being older to get an advantage. (And of course some other kid is the youngest now.)

[Anonymous]

So much indignation! So much self righteousness! But does anyone have any actual evidence that redshirting leads to what you think it leads to? Or are we just doing a whole lot of supposing? Parents have been "redshirting" long before anyone ever decided to call it that, so there should be plenty of studies out there. Or do we just have all your stupid anecdotal bullshit to go on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So much indignation! So much self righteousness! But does anyone have any actual evidence that redshirting leads to what you think it leads to? Or are we just doing a whole lot of supposing? Parents have been "redshirting" long before anyone ever decided to call it that, so there should be plenty of studies out there. Or do we just have all your stupid anecdotal bullshit to go on?

To be clear, our stupid anecdotal bullshit is "parents should follow the rules." The end.

SO outrageous.

Lafayette mom is pissed because she found a principal with a spine. So much of the weird mixed messaging from Team Lafayette mom is that she's all about principal's discretion... but that's actually where the no started. She really wants "I can do whatever I want," but because no one would be sympathetic to that, she's gone for a weird amalgamation of all the reasons one might have a good reason to redshirt... none of which apply to her kid. Who is literally just young.

[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.

+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.

Yes. Saying that statistically that age is positively correlated with sports performance for children is DEFINITELY EXACTLY the same thing as saying that "getting better at sports is merely a function of getting older." It's not, say, that it's an advantage... and that's what red-shirters are looking for. I can only assume that you are somewhat frustrated when you see the ridiculous corner you have painted yourself into. Enjoy 1st grade!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So much indignation! So much self righteousness! But does anyone have any actual evidence that redshirting leads to what you think it leads to? Or are we just doing a whole lot of supposing? Parents have been "redshirting" long before anyone ever decided to call it that, so there should be plenty of studies out there. Or do we just have all your stupid anecdotal bullshit to go on?

So there's no studies that prove the value? Then why do it? I don't get it. Is it an advantage because it's good for kids (thereby of course disadvantaging other kids now the youngest)? Or is it that there's no evidence that it helps and thus why do it? I am completely confused by this argument.

[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.

+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.

Yes. Saying that statistically that age is positively correlated with sports performance for children is DEFINITELY EXACTLY the same thing as saying that "getting better at sports is merely a function of getting older." It's not, say, that it's an advantage... and that's what red-shirters are looking for. I can only assume that you are somewhat frustrated when you see the ridiculous corner you have painted yourself into. Enjoy 1st grade!

Oh yeah. If your child is klutzy, uncoordinated and terrible at anything involving a ball, just wait a year or two. Through the magic of getting slightly older (and, apparently, redshirting) he or she will be transformed into a graceful, dominating athlete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much indignation! So much self righteousness! But does anyone have any actual evidence that redshirting leads to what you think it leads to? Or are we just doing a whole lot of supposing? Parents have been "redshirting" long before anyone ever decided to call it that, so there should be plenty of studies out there. Or do we just have all your stupid anecdotal bullshit to go on?

So there's no studies that prove the value? Then why do it? I don't get it. Is it an advantage because it's good for kids (thereby of course disadvantaging other kids now the youngest)? Or is it that there's no evidence that it helps and thus why do it? I am completely confused by this argument.

Because you're being obtuse? Because you have a startling lack of compassion for children? Jeez. Some kids have issues. Their parents are trying not to make those issues worse. That is not putting your issue-less child at a disadvantage. This is not a zero sum game. It has no bearing on your kid and, in fact, it's none of your fkcing business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much indignation! So much self righteousness! But does anyone have any actual evidence that redshirting leads to what you think it leads to? Or are we just doing a whole lot of supposing? Parents have been "redshirting" long before anyone ever decided to call it that, so there should be plenty of studies out there. Or do we just have all your stupid anecdotal bullshit to go on?

So there's no studies that prove the value? Then why do it? I don't get it. Is it an advantage because it's good for kids (thereby of course disadvantaging other kids now the youngest)? Or is it that there's no evidence that it helps and thus why do it? I am completely confused by this argument.

Because you're being obtuse? Because you have a startling lack of compassion for children? Jeez. Some kids have issues. Their parents are trying not to make those issues worse. That is not putting your issue-less child at a disadvantage. This is not a zero sum game. It has no bearing on your kid and, in fact, it's none of your fkcing business.

It does impact other kids because it changes the age range and the range of development/size of the kids in the grade. Do what you want but the rest of us are not dumb and we are allowed to have views too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much indignation! So much self righteousness! But does anyone have any actual evidence that redshirting leads to what you think it leads to? Or are we just doing a whole lot of supposing? Parents have been "redshirting" long before anyone ever decided to call it that, so there should be plenty of studies out there. Or do we just have all your stupid anecdotal bullshit to go on?

So there's no studies that prove the value? Then why do it? I don't get it. Is it an advantage because it's good for kids (thereby of course disadvantaging other kids now the youngest)? Or is it that there's no evidence that it helps and thus why do it? I am completely confused by this argument.

Because you're being obtuse? Because you have a startling lack of compassion for children? Jeez. Some kids have issues. Their parents are trying not to make those issues worse. That is not putting your issue-less child at a disadvantage. This is not a zero sum game. It has no bearing on your kid and, in fact, it's none of your fkcing business.

What issues, though? That's what makes this really confusing. The article was just like "she's young and it would be bad for her self esteem." If parents were saying "my kid has special needs and an IEP and this is what they recommended", I would get that. But a summer birthday is not an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much indignation! So much self righteousness! But does anyone have any actual evidence that redshirting leads to what you think it leads to? Or are we just doing a whole lot of supposing? Parents have been "redshirting" long before anyone ever decided to call it that, so there should be plenty of studies out there. Or do we just have all your stupid anecdotal bullshit to go on?

To be clear, our stupid anecdotal bullshit is "parents should follow the rules." The end.

SO outrageous.

Lafayette mom is pissed because she found a principal with a spine. So much of the weird mixed messaging from Team Lafayette mom is that she's all about principal's discretion... but that's actually where the no started. She really wants "I can do whatever I want," but because no one would be sympathetic to that, she's gone for a weird amalgamation of all the reasons one might have a good reason to redshirt... none of which apply to her kid. Who is literally just young.

+1

WaPo Lafayette Mom: It should be left up to the Principal's discretion, not DCPS!!
Principal: Your child must register for their appropriate grade according to DOB, unless you have a DCPS readiness evaluation saying otherwise.
WaPo Lafayette Mom: HOW DARE YOU. I'm taking this up with DCPS!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much indignation! So much self righteousness! But does anyone have any actual evidence that redshirting leads to what you think it leads to? Or are we just doing a whole lot of supposing? Parents have been "redshirting" long before anyone ever decided to call it that, so there should be plenty of studies out there. Or do we just have all your stupid anecdotal bullshit to go on?

So there's no studies that prove the value? Then why do it? I don't get it. Is it an advantage because it's good for kids (thereby of course disadvantaging other kids now the youngest)? Or is it that there's no evidence that it helps and thus why do it? I am completely confused by this argument.

Because you're being obtuse? Because you have a startling lack of compassion for children? Jeez. Some kids have issues. Their parents are trying not to make those issues worse. That is not putting your issue-less child at a disadvantage. This is not a zero sum game. It has no bearing on your kid and, in fact, it's none of your fkcing business.

What issues, though? That's what makes this really confusing. The article was just like "she's young and it would be bad for her self esteem." If parents were saying "my kid has special needs and an IEP and this is what they recommended", I would get that. But a summer birthday is not an issue.

There are no issues. The fact the one has no issue saying they've done it already for multiple kids shows it's not a readiness thing. It's a preference. And they are making this a really bad situation for families who may actually need to have this option available for a legitimate reason.

[Anonymous]

Some kids have issues. Their parents are trying not to make those issues worse. That is not putting your issue-less child at a disadvantage. This is not a zero sum game. It has no bearing on your kid and, in fact, it's none of your fkcing business.

And some kids don't have any issues other than being a bit young for the grade. Their parents see that as a disadvantage--not an issue, just a disadvantage. And the parent don't want their kids to be disadvantaged and they don't give a damn that doing this will disadvantage the kids who end up in the same class as their little snowflake and can't keep up with a kid more than a year older.

Yes, co-ordination matters. In the aggregate, that is aligned with age, especially among little kids. So, walk down an elementary school classroom fpr grades K-3 at a school where the children's work is displayed. Look at the handwriting on the reports. In most cases, the best, most legible printing or writing will belong to the oldest kids in the class. Look at the artwork. Again, the best art--the art in which you can actually figure out what the child was drawing--will belong to the oldest kids in the class. Watch kindergarten kids playing in activity centers. Which kids are coming up with the ideas for what the group should do and getting the others to follow their lead? Usually, it's the older ones. Go out on the playground. Watch the kids traveling across the monkey bars. Which kids have the upper body strength to do it? Usually it's the oldest ones.

Back when my parents went to school, the public elementary school in their community used a semester system. So, if you were the right age by a certain age, you started in September. If you missed that cut off, you started in January. Nobody even thought of redshirting.

More recently, I know there was a suburb of Dallas Texas which grouped kindergarteners by age. There were so many incoming kids, that each classroom usually had kids with birthdates in about a 2 month span. So the kids who had been redshirted--pretty common in Texas, at least then-- were all in the same class.

Heck, we all know that at most private pre schools, even now, there's a "young 3s" or an "Older 3s" classroom. If age doesn't matter why do these schools do this?