mad - kid in kindergarten has late birthday

[Anonymous]

It is what it is. Someone has to be the youngest. If that is my kid (late summer bday) bc everyone else redshirted, so be it. I have confidence in my kid, they can handle it.

The only thing I would say is that K teachers should have some child development training so they understand what is normal at age 5 and aren’t swayed into thinking a 5yo is immature among all the 6yos around them. We experienced that in early K though it got better by the end of the year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does it bother you? And how does it even remotely affect your kid? May be the kid was sick and missed starting on time, may be his parents took the year off enjoyed their time living on the beach. Whatever reason, it doesn’t really affect you.

Not OP but redshirting impacts the other kids in the cohort. You can claim up and down that it's just a personal choice and no one else's business, but if it actually had no impact on other kids, no one would complain about it.

The reason redshirting is controversial is that a lot of us have had experiences of our on time kids being in classrooms that were dysfunctional, had behavioral issues, or where behavioral expectations did not make sense for kids were were enrolled on the schedule the school set out as "on time." And at root of this was a number of redshirted kids in the classroom. It changes the school environment.

Most parents (including those that redshirt), if given the option of sending their kid to a kindergarten classroom where a substantial number of the kids are more than a year older than their kid, would be opposed. I mean, isn't this exactly the reasoning behind a lot of redshirting choices? They don't want their kid to be significantly younger than the oldest kids in class.

Well guess what, I don't want that either. But redshirting parents put me in a situation where in order to get that, I would have to redshirt. And at that point, why not just have all the kids start K at 6? But then you get the same problem all over again.

Redshirting parents, other than situation where a child has a serious delay or other extenuating circumstance, are cheating. They are ensuring their kids don't have to be in a classroom with kids 9-10 months older than them, and in so doing, they are forcing other people's kids to be in a classroom with kids who are 13+ months older. It's selfish and antisocial and that's why people don't like it. So go ahead and reshirt, but don't expect use to pat you on the back for it.

I don’t necessarily disagree with you about it being selfish and antisocial. At the same time, my observation is that no one else but parents are looking out for our kids.

My daughter is a September birthday and we may not live in this area long term. She is also likely to be extremely petite (presently 15th percentile, her cousin fell off the chart last year, and I’m barely 5’ ft).

So, who is going to prioritize her safety if she’s four in a class with six year olds? No one more than her parents. Who is going to make sure she’s positioned well if we move to a state with an earlier cutoff? Definitely not going to be anyone else's’ concern.

And so this is one of the times where what is best for our child may have to take priority for us, because it certainly will be only us making that a priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another day, another "my kid should be protected from the redshirts" thread.

Your kid is going to have to be in a classroom with older kids, younger kids, smarter kids, dumber kids, meaner kids, athletic kids, nerdy kids, disruptive kids, smelly kids, kids whose parents have different rules than you, kids whose parents provide them extra tutoring, and the list goes on. Your kid will be fine. Education is not a zero sum game. The schools aren't going to outlaw this perceived moral outrage because it's not a moral outrage. It is a parent deciding for whatever reason that this was the best choice for their kid. They aren’t making parenting decisions for you and you don’t get to make parenting decisions for them. You can judge that all you want on an anonymous forum but if you try to make your case to the schools, they will nod politely and explain the rules to you, and perhaps write a note in the file so other teachers know what to expect from you. You have no substantive grounds for being appalled by this. Plenty of educators think it is developmentally appropriate in many instances for many different reasons. The K enrollment rules are structured to allow this, and there is no evidence-based reason why this should change.

To sum up: you are ridiculous.

No, parents who hold back (“redshirt”) their non-SN kids so they’re seven freaking years old in kindergarten are ridiculous. DP

By the end of the year, when that kid is finally 7, more than half the kids will be 6. I don't see the glaring issue here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another day, another "my kid should be protected from the redshirts" thread.

Your kid is going to have to be in a classroom with older kids, younger kids, smarter kids, dumber kids, meaner kids, athletic kids, nerdy kids, disruptive kids, smelly kids, kids whose parents have different rules than you, kids whose parents provide them extra tutoring, and the list goes on. Your kid will be fine. Education is not a zero sum game. The schools aren't going to outlaw this perceived moral outrage because it's not a moral outrage. It is a parent deciding for whatever reason that this was the best choice for their kid. They aren’t making parenting decisions for you and you don’t get to make parenting decisions for them. You can judge that all you want on an anonymous forum but if you try to make your case to the schools, they will nod politely and explain the rules to you, and perhaps write a note in the file so other teachers know what to expect from you. You have no substantive grounds for being appalled by this. Plenty of educators think it is developmentally appropriate in many instances for many different reasons. The K enrollment rules are structured to allow this, and there is no evidence-based reason why this should change.

To sum up: you are ridiculous.

No, parents who hold back (“redshirt”) their non-SN kids so they’re seven freaking years old in kindergarten are ridiculous. DP

By the end of the year, when that kid is finally 7, more than half the kids will be 6. I don't see the glaring issue here.

Yep even if that kid is the oldest, he may be only 3,4,5,6 months older than others (or up to 12 months older)

Whereas if he went the previous year, he could be 9,10,11,12 months younger (or as near as 1 month), PLUS not ready behaviorally and acting out.

[Anonymous]

While redshirting may give SOME “advantage” to SOME kids…it is within the rules and probably is not going to change. I don’t see any sense in worrying about it. Best to focus on your own child.

Redshirting for an advantage is among the many MANY “unfair” things that will repeatedly occur in school, sports and extracurriculars, and really throughout life. Getting the “bad” teacher or getting stuck in the “bad” class at some point, seeing a teacher/coach favor other kids due to who their parents are or for other reasons that are not “fair”, kids with lucky birthdays for sports or who hit puberty earlier than everyone else, etc. All have been FREQUENT topics on DCUM. Beyond that, there will always be kids who are smarter, savvier, bigger and stronger, more talented etc…just because. That doesn’t even touch the topic of other advantages…the ones that many of the parents on this board provide (tutors, enrichment, lessons etc) that many families cannot.

Focus on your own child, teach resilience and encourage them to be the best THEY can be- rather than comparing with others, in the first place. If you are going down the “it’s not faaaaaair” rabbit hole already in Kindergarten….it is going to be a long LONG road for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does it bother you? And how does it even remotely affect your kid? May be the kid was sick and missed starting on time, may be his parents took the year off enjoyed their time living on the beach. Whatever reason, it doesn’t really affect you.

Not OP but redshirting impacts the other kids in the cohort. You can claim up and down that it's just a personal choice and no one else's business, but if it actually had no impact on other kids, no one would complain about it.

The reason redshirting is controversial is that a lot of us have had experiences of our on time kids being in classrooms that were dysfunctional, had behavioral issues, or where behavioral expectations did not make sense for kids were were enrolled on the schedule the school set out as "on time." And at root of this was a number of redshirted kids in the classroom. It changes the school environment.

Most parents (including those that redshirt), if given the option of sending their kid to a kindergarten classroom where a substantial number of the kids are more than a year older than their kid, would be opposed. I mean, isn't this exactly the reasoning behind a lot of redshirting choices? They don't want their kid to be significantly younger than the oldest kids in class.

Well guess what, I don't want that either. But redshirting parents put me in a situation where in order to get that, I would have to redshirt. And at that point, why not just have all the kids start K at 6? But then you get the same problem all over again.

Redshirting parents, other than situation where a child has a serious delay or other extenuating circumstance, are cheating. They are ensuring their kids don't have to be in a classroom with kids 9-10 months older than them, and in so doing, they are forcing other people's kids to be in a classroom with kids who are 13+ months older. It's selfish and antisocial and that's why people don't like it. So go ahead and reshirt, but don't expect use to pat you on the back for it.

I don’t necessarily disagree with you about it being selfish and antisocial. At the same time, my observation is that no one else but parents are looking out for our kids.

My daughter is a September birthday and we may not live in this area long term. She is also likely to be extremely petite (presently 15th percentile, her cousin fell off the chart last year, and I’m barely 5’ ft).

So, who is going to prioritize her safety if she’s four in a class with six year olds? No one more than her parents. Who is going to make sure she’s positioned well if we move to a state with an earlier cutoff? Definitely not going to be anyone else's’ concern.

And so this is one of the times where what is best for our child may have to take priority for us, because it certainly will be only us making that a priority.

Hate to break it to you, but physical issues can happen regardless of age. My daughter went on time (April birthday so started kindergarten at 5.5) and was literally dragged around the playground in her kindergarten year by her friend who is 2 months older but 3 inches taller and at least 15 lbs heavier. Friend is a nice enough kid but plays rough, and my daughter wouldn't stand up for herself. And in the same year she and two boys in her class were attacked (hit from behind) on the playground by a second grader who had some kind of issues. Stuff happens.

Anyway this is just not that common. Maybe there will be two six year olds in a class of 15 (or around here, 25-30) but it's not going to be the entire class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does it bother you? And how does it even remotely affect your kid? May be the kid was sick and missed starting on time, may be his parents took the year off enjoyed their time living on the beach. Whatever reason, it doesn’t really affect you.

Not OP but redshirting impacts the other kids in the cohort. You can claim up and down that it's just a personal choice and no one else's business, but if it actually had no impact on other kids, no one would complain about it.

The reason redshirting is controversial is that a lot of us have had experiences of our on time kids being in classrooms that were dysfunctional, had behavioral issues, or where behavioral expectations did not make sense for kids were were enrolled on the schedule the school set out as "on time." And at root of this was a number of redshirted kids in the classroom. It changes the school environment.

Most parents (including those that redshirt), if given the option of sending their kid to a kindergarten classroom where a substantial number of the kids are more than a year older than their kid, would be opposed. I mean, isn't this exactly the reasoning behind a lot of redshirting choices? They don't want their kid to be significantly younger than the oldest kids in class.

Well guess what, I don't want that either. But redshirting parents put me in a situation where in order to get that, I would have to redshirt. And at that point, why not just have all the kids start K at 6? But then you get the same problem all over again.

Redshirting parents, other than situation where a child has a serious delay or other extenuating circumstance, are cheating. They are ensuring their kids don't have to be in a classroom with kids 9-10 months older than them, and in so doing, they are forcing other people's kids to be in a classroom with kids who are 13+ months older. It's selfish and antisocial and that's why people don't like it. So go ahead and reshirt, but don't expect use to pat you on the back for it.

I don’t necessarily disagree with you about it being selfish and antisocial. At the same time, my observation is that no one else but parents are looking out for our kids.

My daughter is a September birthday and we may not live in this area long term. She is also likely to be extremely petite (presently 15th percentile, her cousin fell off the chart last year, and I’m barely 5’ ft).

So, who is going to prioritize her safety if she’s four in a class with six year olds? No one more than her parents. Who is going to make sure she’s positioned well if we move to a state with an earlier cutoff? Definitely not going to be anyone else's’ concern.

And so this is one of the times where what is best for our child may have to take priority for us, because it certainly will be only us making that a priority.

Hate to break it to you, but physical issues can happen regardless of age. My daughter went on time (April birthday so started kindergarten at 5.5) and was literally dragged around the playground in her kindergarten year by her friend who is 2 months older but 3 inches taller and at least 15 lbs heavier. Friend is a nice enough kid but plays rough, and my daughter wouldn't stand up for herself. And in the same year she and two boys in her class were attacked (hit from behind) on the playground by a second grader who had some kind of issues. Stuff happens.

Anyway this is just not that common. Maybe there will be two six year olds in a class of 15 (or around here, 25-30) but it's not going to be the entire class.

+1. My DD was redshirted (late august birthday with a Sept 1st cutoff) and was pushed around and even hit once in 3rd grade by a much bigger girl who was a few months younger (maybe even 6 months younger). Some girls start developing around 9 or so and become much bigger quickly. My DD (currently in 5th) is a late bloomer and many of her younger classmates are wearing bras and getting periods while she is still thin like a stick. Aggressive kids are aggressive no matter what age they are… and around 9 or so they all start growing at different speeds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another day, another "my kid should be protected from the redshirts" thread.

Your kid is going to have to be in a classroom with older kids, younger kids, smarter kids, dumber kids, meaner kids, athletic kids, nerdy kids, disruptive kids, smelly kids, kids whose parents have different rules than you, kids whose parents provide them extra tutoring, and the list goes on. Your kid will be fine. Education is not a zero sum game. The schools aren't going to outlaw this perceived moral outrage because it's not a moral outrage. It is a parent deciding for whatever reason that this was the best choice for their kid. They aren’t making parenting decisions for you and you don’t get to make parenting decisions for them. You can judge that all you want on an anonymous forum but if you try to make your case to the schools, they will nod politely and explain the rules to you, and perhaps write a note in the file so other teachers know what to expect from you. You have no substantive grounds for being appalled by this. Plenty of educators think it is developmentally appropriate in many instances for many different reasons. The K enrollment rules are structured to allow this, and there is no evidence-based reason why this should change.

To sum up: you are ridiculous.

No, parents who hold back (“redshirt”) their non-SN kids so they’re seven freaking years old in kindergarten are ridiculous. DP

By the end of the year, when that kid is finally 7, more than half the kids will be 6. I don't see the glaring issue here.

The issue is the group of kids who will not be 6. A minority of kids but their experience matters too. Without redshirting, those kids are still the youngest but no one else is more than a year older. With redshirting, they are in a class with kids who are 13 or more months older. Redshirting impacts them the most.

The ridiculous thing is that when parents who redshirt often do so to save their child from the challenge of being 10-11 months younger than the oldest kids in class. And I'm so doing, they force non-redshirted kids to be in classrooms with kids 13+ months older. This is why redshirting parents are not credible. They claim redshirting is not a problem even though they are redshirting to solve the problem caused by redshirting (just only for their kid).

My feeling is go ahead and redshirt if you want, but know other people will never stop being annoyed by it and thinking less of you for doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it op. My late-August birthday girl was called a baby and told she belonged in pre-k because she was still 5 in the late spring of her kindergarten year, by the 7 year olds in the class. Blatant red-shirting skews the dynamics.

You sent a 4 year old to kindergarten?

Why not? My kid turned 5 last January. Her K class has had 3 birthday parties so far for kids who turned 5 in August or September. Sending a kid with a late summer/early fall birthday is expected and there’s nothing wrong with a kid finishing K at 5.

My older kids’ school was you had turn five by December 31st. My younger one is at a school where it’s September 1st. Her birthday is November so it seemed odd to be that she had to wait. There were a lot of girls with November December birthdays who started at four. Not as money boys and you could easily see why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another day, another "my kid should be protected from the redshirts" thread.

Your kid is going to have to be in a classroom with older kids, younger kids, smarter kids, dumber kids, meaner kids, athletic kids, nerdy kids, disruptive kids, smelly kids, kids whose parents have different rules than you, kids whose parents provide them extra tutoring, and the list goes on. Your kid will be fine. Education is not a zero sum game. The schools aren't going to outlaw this perceived moral outrage because it's not a moral outrage. It is a parent deciding for whatever reason that this was the best choice for their kid. They aren’t making parenting decisions for you and you don’t get to make parenting decisions for them. You can judge that all you want on an anonymous forum but if you try to make your case to the schools, they will nod politely and explain the rules to you, and perhaps write a note in the file so other teachers know what to expect from you. You have no substantive grounds for being appalled by this. Plenty of educators think it is developmentally appropriate in many instances for many different reasons. The K enrollment rules are structured to allow this, and there is no evidence-based reason why this should change.

To sum up: you are ridiculous.

No, parents who hold back (“redshirt”) their non-SN kids so they’re seven freaking years old in kindergarten are ridiculous. DP

By the end of the year, when that kid is finally 7, more than half the kids will be 6. I don't see the glaring issue here.

The issue is the group of kids who will not be 6. A minority of kids but their experience matters too. Without redshirting, those kids are still the youngest but no one else is more than a year older. With redshirting, they are in a class with kids who are 13 or more months older. Redshirting impacts them the most.

The ridiculous thing is that when parents who redshirt often do so to save their child from the challenge of being 10-11 months younger than the oldest kids in class. And I'm so doing, they force non-redshirted kids to be in classrooms with kids 13+ months older. This is why redshirting parents are not credible. They claim redshirting is not a problem even though they are redshirting to solve the problem caused by redshirting (just only for their kid).

My feeling is go ahead and redshirt if you want, but know other people will never stop being annoyed by it and thinking less of you for doing it.

It should matter. The age of the students in the class doesn’t change the curriculum the teacher teachers. Whether your child is 5 or 7 in kindergarten- they are still getting taught kindergarten curriculum. Teachers don’t care or cater to the kids able to work above grade level. We all know that, especially if you have an advanced child. It isn’t as if since there is a 7 yr old in class, the teacher is going to therefore teach 2nd grade curriculum to the the whole class but still call it kindergarten. I really don’t understand the concern. It doesn’t impact your child and it is the minority of kids that are either very old or very young.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another day, another "my kid should be protected from the redshirts" thread.

Your kid is going to have to be in a classroom with older kids, younger kids, smarter kids, dumber kids, meaner kids, athletic kids, nerdy kids, disruptive kids, smelly kids, kids whose parents have different rules than you, kids whose parents provide them extra tutoring, and the list goes on. Your kid will be fine. Education is not a zero sum game. The schools aren't going to outlaw this perceived moral outrage because it's not a moral outrage. It is a parent deciding for whatever reason that this was the best choice for their kid. They aren’t making parenting decisions for you and you don’t get to make parenting decisions for them. You can judge that all you want on an anonymous forum but if you try to make your case to the schools, they will nod politely and explain the rules to you, and perhaps write a note in the file so other teachers know what to expect from you. You have no substantive grounds for being appalled by this. Plenty of educators think it is developmentally appropriate in many instances for many different reasons. The K enrollment rules are structured to allow this, and there is no evidence-based reason why this should change.

To sum up: you are ridiculous.

No, parents who hold back (“redshirt”) their non-SN kids so they’re seven freaking years old in kindergarten are ridiculous. DP

By the end of the year, when that kid is finally 7, more than half the kids will be 6. I don't see the glaring issue here.

The issue is the group of kids who will not be 6. A minority of kids but their experience matters too. Without redshirting, those kids are still the youngest but no one else is more than a year older. With redshirting, they are in a class with kids who are 13 or more months older. Redshirting impacts them the most.

The ridiculous thing is that when parents who redshirt often do so to save their child from the challenge of being 10-11 months younger than the oldest kids in class. And I'm so doing, they force non-redshirted kids to be in classrooms with kids 13+ months older. This is why redshirting parents are not credible. They claim redshirting is not a problem even though they are redshirting to solve the problem caused by redshirting (just only for their kid).

My feeling is go ahead and redshirt if you want, but know other people will never stop being annoyed by it and thinking less of you for doing it.

Most of this happens in private schools. These kids aren’t forced to be there. Find a school that better aligns with your values. Because this isn’t going to change. And honestly the vast majority of parents don’t feel as you do so your feelings on it are irrelevant. Find a nice public school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another day, another "my kid should be protected from the redshirts" thread.

Your kid is going to have to be in a classroom with older kids, younger kids, smarter kids, dumber kids, meaner kids, athletic kids, nerdy kids, disruptive kids, smelly kids, kids whose parents have different rules than you, kids whose parents provide them extra tutoring, and the list goes on. Your kid will be fine. Education is not a zero sum game. The schools aren't going to outlaw this perceived moral outrage because it's not a moral outrage. It is a parent deciding for whatever reason that this was the best choice for their kid. They aren’t making parenting decisions for you and you don’t get to make parenting decisions for them. You can judge that all you want on an anonymous forum but if you try to make your case to the schools, they will nod politely and explain the rules to you, and perhaps write a note in the file so other teachers know what to expect from you. You have no substantive grounds for being appalled by this. Plenty of educators think it is developmentally appropriate in many instances for many different reasons. The K enrollment rules are structured to allow this, and there is no evidence-based reason why this should change.

To sum up: you are ridiculous.

No, parents who hold back (“redshirt”) their non-SN kids so they’re seven freaking years old in kindergarten are ridiculous. DP

By the end of the year, when that kid is finally 7, more than half the kids will be 6. I don't see the glaring issue here.

The issue is the group of kids who will not be 6. A minority of kids but their experience matters too. Without redshirting, those kids are still the youngest but no one else is more than a year older. With redshirting, they are in a class with kids who are 13 or more months older. Redshirting impacts them the most.

The ridiculous thing is that when parents who redshirt often do so to save their child from the challenge of being 10-11 months younger than the oldest kids in class. And I'm so doing, they force non-redshirted kids to be in classrooms with kids 13+ months older. This is why redshirting parents are not credible. They claim redshirting is not a problem even though they are redshirting to solve the problem caused by redshirting (just only for their kid).

My feeling is go ahead and redshirt if you want, but know other people will never stop being annoyed by it and thinking less of you for doing it.

It should matter. The age of the students in the class doesn’t change the curriculum the teacher teachers. Whether your child is 5 or 7 in kindergarten- they are still getting taught kindergarten curriculum. Teachers don’t care or cater to the kids able to work above grade level. We all know that, especially if you have an advanced child. It isn’t as if since there is a 7 yr old in class, the teacher is going to therefore teach 2nd grade curriculum to the the whole class but still call it kindergarten. I really don’t understand the concern. It doesn’t impact your child and it is the minority of kids that are either very old or very young.

It's not about curriculum, it's about behavioral expectations.

It's developmentally normal for 5 yr olds to cry more often and be more emotionally reactive. A 5 yr old who cries because a classmate took the last green piece of paper is not immature, acting out, or hypersensitive. They are 5, and most 5 year olds will outgrow this behavior over the course of kindergarten. There is a noticeable maturing that happens over the course of the year.

But one thing that happens in a classroom with a number of redshirted kids is that crying becomes a "problem behavior." Now, a good kindergarten teacher will recognize that it's normal and use developmentally appropriate techniques with kids. But the other kids may still tease a child who cries more than others. And a bad teacher will get more irritated with the younger kids in class for crying, because she's adjusted her expectations window to include children who start the grade at 6 and behave, emotionally, more like 1st graders (where crying is significantly less common.

So a young 5 yr old who cries frequently at the beginning of K can be teased or reprimanded for crying even though it's not really something they can control at that age and is actually normal behavior for the grade level. You also see similar issues regarding attention span (5 yr olds being expected to sit still and pay attention for longer periods because the 6 yr olds set the expectation). And while accidents should not be as frequent in kindergarten as you might see in preschool, a young 5 yr old is also more likely to have them than a 6 yr old, and there can be stigma assigned to younger kids who have accidents by older kids who have outgrown it.

So yes, skewing the average age of kindergarteners via redshirting can have a negative impact on non-redshirted kids, especially those who are young for the grade. They can be treated differently by peers and teachers and can develop negative self-image because of the false perception that they are developmentally "behind." They aren't, they are right on target. Redshirting obscures this thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another day, another "my kid should be protected from the redshirts" thread.

Your kid is going to have to be in a classroom with older kids, younger kids, smarter kids, dumber kids, meaner kids, athletic kids, nerdy kids, disruptive kids, smelly kids, kids whose parents have different rules than you, kids whose parents provide them extra tutoring, and the list goes on. Your kid will be fine. Education is not a zero sum game. The schools aren't going to outlaw this perceived moral outrage because it's not a moral outrage. It is a parent deciding for whatever reason that this was the best choice for their kid. They aren’t making parenting decisions for you and you don’t get to make parenting decisions for them. You can judge that all you want on an anonymous forum but if you try to make your case to the schools, they will nod politely and explain the rules to you, and perhaps write a note in the file so other teachers know what to expect from you. You have no substantive grounds for being appalled by this. Plenty of educators think it is developmentally appropriate in many instances for many different reasons. The K enrollment rules are structured to allow this, and there is no evidence-based reason why this should change.

To sum up: you are ridiculous.

No, parents who hold back (“redshirt”) their non-SN kids so they’re seven freaking years old in kindergarten are ridiculous. DP

By the end of the year, when that kid is finally 7, more than half the kids will be 6. I don't see the glaring issue here.

The issue is the group of kids who will not be 6. A minority of kids but their experience matters too. Without redshirting, those kids are still the youngest but no one else is more than a year older. With redshirting, they are in a class with kids who are 13 or more months older. Redshirting impacts them the most.

The ridiculous thing is that when parents who redshirt often do so to save their child from the challenge of being 10-11 months younger than the oldest kids in class. And I'm so doing, they force non-redshirted kids to be in classrooms with kids 13+ months older. This is why redshirting parents are not credible. They claim redshirting is not a problem even though they are redshirting to solve the problem caused by redshirting (just only for their kid).

My feeling is go ahead and redshirt if you want, but know other people will never stop being annoyed by it and thinking less of you for doing it.

It should matter. The age of the students in the class doesn’t change the curriculum the teacher teachers. Whether your child is 5 or 7 in kindergarten- they are still getting taught kindergarten curriculum. Teachers don’t care or cater to the kids able to work above grade level. We all know that, especially if you have an advanced child. It isn’t as if since there is a 7 yr old in class, the teacher is going to therefore teach 2nd grade curriculum to the the whole class but still call it kindergarten. I really don’t understand the concern. It doesn’t impact your child and it is the minority of kids that are either very old or very young.

It's not about curriculum, it's about behavioral expectations.

It's developmentally normal for 5 yr olds to cry more often and be more emotionally reactive. A 5 yr old who cries because a classmate took the last green piece of paper is not immature, acting out, or hypersensitive. They are 5, and most 5 year olds will outgrow this behavior over the course of kindergarten. There is a noticeable maturing that happens over the course of the year.

But one thing that happens in a classroom with a number of redshirted kids is that crying becomes a "problem behavior." Now, a good kindergarten teacher will recognize that it's normal and use developmentally appropriate techniques with kids. But the other kids may still tease a child who cries more than others. And a bad teacher will get more irritated with the younger kids in class for crying, because she's adjusted her expectations window to include children who start the grade at 6 and behave, emotionally, more like 1st graders (where crying is significantly less common.

So a young 5 yr old who cries frequently at the beginning of K can be teased or reprimanded for crying even though it's not really something they can control at that age and is actually normal behavior for the grade level. You also see similar issues regarding attention span (5 yr olds being expected to sit still and pay attention for longer periods because the 6 yr olds set the expectation). And while accidents should not be as frequent in kindergarten as you might see in preschool, a young 5 yr old is also more likely to have them than a 6 yr old, and there can be stigma assigned to younger kids who have accidents by older kids who have outgrown it.

So yes, skewing the average age of kindergarteners via redshirting can have a negative impact on non-redshirted kids, especially those who are young for the grade. They can be treated differently by peers and teachers and can develop negative self-image because of the false perception that they are developmentally "behind." They aren't, they are right on target. Redshirting obscures this thought.

I hate to break it to you but kids are crying in 1st, 2nd, and even 3rd grade (and occasionally wetting their pants). These are pretty poor examples. And if the curriculum is inappropriate, or the expectations, you should take that up with your administration. Your issue isn't with the people who have made a different decision to hep their own child succeed, it's with bad teachers with biases or classroom management. And about the potty training stigma? I don't think it exists. Kids shrug off accidents. I think you're making up examples, to find a worst case scenario, but they don't conform to reality. Or maybe this particular school is not for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just wait until they are all teens and your daughter is 16-17 and the boys are 19 to 20 year old men.

My 14 year old freshman went on some dates with an 18 year old senior. There’s going to be five year gaps in ages in high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another day, another "my kid should be protected from the redshirts" thread.

Your kid is going to have to be in a classroom with older kids, younger kids, smarter kids, dumber kids, meaner kids, athletic kids, nerdy kids, disruptive kids, smelly kids, kids whose parents have different rules than you, kids whose parents provide them extra tutoring, and the list goes on. Your kid will be fine. Education is not a zero sum game. The schools aren't going to outlaw this perceived moral outrage because it's not a moral outrage. It is a parent deciding for whatever reason that this was the best choice for their kid. They aren’t making parenting decisions for you and you don’t get to make parenting decisions for them. You can judge that all you want on an anonymous forum but if you try to make your case to the schools, they will nod politely and explain the rules to you, and perhaps write a note in the file so other teachers know what to expect from you. You have no substantive grounds for being appalled by this. Plenty of educators think it is developmentally appropriate in many instances for many different reasons. The K enrollment rules are structured to allow this, and there is no evidence-based reason why this should change.

To sum up: you are ridiculous.

No, parents who hold back (“redshirt”) their non-SN kids so they’re seven freaking years old in kindergarten are ridiculous. DP

By the end of the year, when that kid is finally 7, more than half the kids will be 6. I don't see the glaring issue here.

The issue is the group of kids who will not be 6. A minority of kids but their experience matters too. Without redshirting, those kids are still the youngest but no one else is more than a year older. With redshirting, they are in a class with kids who are 13 or more months older. Redshirting impacts them the most.

The ridiculous thing is that when parents who redshirt often do so to save their child from the challenge of being 10-11 months younger than the oldest kids in class. And I'm so doing, they force non-redshirted kids to be in classrooms with kids 13+ months older. This is why redshirting parents are not credible. They claim redshirting is not a problem even though they are redshirting to solve the problem caused by redshirting (just only for their kid).

My feeling is go ahead and redshirt if you want, but know other people will never stop being annoyed by it and thinking less of you for doing it.

It should matter. The age of the students in the class doesn’t change the curriculum the teacher teachers. Whether your child is 5 or 7 in kindergarten- they are still getting taught kindergarten curriculum. Teachers don’t care or cater to the kids able to work above grade level. We all know that, especially if you have an advanced child. It isn’t as if since there is a 7 yr old in class, the teacher is going to therefore teach 2nd grade curriculum to the the whole class but still call it kindergarten. I really don’t understand the concern. It doesn’t impact your child and it is the minority of kids that are either very old or very young.

It's not about curriculum, it's about behavioral expectations.

It's developmentally normal for 5 yr olds to cry more often and be more emotionally reactive. A 5 yr old who cries because a classmate took the last green piece of paper is not immature, acting out, or hypersensitive. They are 5, and most 5 year olds will outgrow this behavior over the course of kindergarten. There is a noticeable maturing that happens over the course of the year.

But one thing that happens in a classroom with a number of redshirted kids is that crying becomes a "problem behavior." Now, a good kindergarten teacher will recognize that it's normal and use developmentally appropriate techniques with kids. But the other kids may still tease a child who cries more than others. And a bad teacher will get more irritated with the younger kids in class for crying, because she's adjusted her expectations window to include children who start the grade at 6 and behave, emotionally, more like 1st graders (where crying is significantly less common.

So a young 5 yr old who cries frequently at the beginning of K can be teased or reprimanded for crying even though it's not really something they can control at that age and is actually normal behavior for the grade level. You also see similar issues regarding attention span (5 yr olds being expected to sit still and pay attention for longer periods because the 6 yr olds set the expectation). And while accidents should not be as frequent in kindergarten as you might see in preschool, a young 5 yr old is also more likely to have them than a 6 yr old, and there can be stigma assigned to younger kids who have accidents by older kids who have outgrown it.

So yes, skewing the average age of kindergarteners via redshirting can have a negative impact on non-redshirted kids, especially those who are young for the grade. They can be treated differently by peers and teachers and can develop negative self-image because of the false perception that they are developmentally "behind." They aren't, they are right on target. Redshirting obscures this thought.

I hate to break it to you but kids are crying in 1st, 2nd, and even 3rd grade (and occasionally wetting their pants). These are pretty poor examples. And if the curriculum is inappropriate, or the expectations, you should take that up with your administration. Your issue isn't with the people who have made a different decision to hep their own child succeed, it's with bad teachers with biases or classroom management. And about the potty training stigma? I don't think it exists. Kids shrug off accidents. I think you're making up examples, to find a worst case scenario, but they don't conform to reality. Or maybe this particular school is not for you.

If kids are crying and wetting their pants into 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, why would anyone ever need to redshirt their kid?