mad - kid in kindergarten has late birthday

[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.

Thanks for your permission. Here's hoping the judgmental set is as openly hostile in real life so I will know who to avoid. The parents I know who spend their time judging other's parenting and helicoptering about to make things right for their children are known commodities to the children, the parents, and the teachers. I'm quite content and in good company in being subject to your judgment.

[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.

Thanks for your permission. Here's hoping the judgmental set is as openly hostile in real life so I will know who to avoid. The parents I know who spend their time judging other's parenting and helicoptering about to make things right for their children are known commodities to the children, the parents, and the teachers. I'm quite content and in good company in being subject to your judgment.

1) Oh you'd never know I judge you -- I'm very friendly in person and would never let on that I think you're a selfish jerk for redshirting your May birthday kid just so you can pretend he's "advanced."

2) I like how this comment is premised on the idea that people who redshirt their kids are not judgmental of other people or their kids. IME people who redshirt are hyperaware of status and competition and will be among the first people to judge others. I've heard redshirting parents who complained about the "immaturity" of on time kids! Just breathtaking. Redshirting is something people do when they feel insecure about their child's ability to compete against peers, so game the system by just ensuring their peer group is all younger kids. Insecure people tend to be the most judgmental.

[Anonymous]

I sent my summer birthday girl on time - right after turning five- and she has been in a grade with kids up to two years older. It didn't really come up until this year (4th grade) when suddenly tons of girls in her class are growing breasts and are having growth spurts and she is the shortest girl in her class!

[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.

Thanks for your permission. Here's hoping the judgmental set is as openly hostile in real life so I will know who to avoid. The parents I know who spend their time judging other's parenting and helicoptering about to make things right for their children are known commodities to the children, the parents, and the teachers. I'm quite content and in good company in being subject to your judgment.

1) Oh you'd never know I judge you -- I'm very friendly in person and would never let on that I think you're a selfish jerk for redshirting your May birthday kid just so you can pretend he's "advanced."

2) I like how this comment is premised on the idea that people who redshirt their kids are not judgmental of other people or their kids. IME people who redshirt are hyperaware of status and competition and will be among the first people to judge others. I've heard redshirting parents who complained about the "immaturity" of on time kids! Just breathtaking. Redshirting is something people do when they feel insecure about their child's ability to compete against peers, so game the system by just ensuring their peer group is all younger kids. Insecure people tend to be the most judgmental.

Well, then, I'm confused. Why seethe in silence and then pretend to be nice to me? If you're so certain of the moral outrage, why hide? Go make your case to the school, or to other parents that the heinous behavior must be stopped for the good of society. Why lurk in the shadows calling me a "selfish jerk" anonymously? If this is an injustice, be loud and proud. Show your evidence and shame me to the world. I could give you my reasons and you could give me yours and we could talk it out like civilized people. Quiet judgment isn't doing anyone any good. Own your point of view.

[Anonymous]

This is an insane thread. I trust that parents who redshirt have good reasons to do so. It is not gaming the system; it's an option available to all parents, and it allows for some judgment on the parents' part about what's best for their children.

It's hard for me to imagine that parents would redshirt an April birthday simply for academic advantage. I would assume the best in others and move on. Maybe there's a language barrier. Maybe the kid missed half of kindergarten last year due to illness or death in the family. Or maybe they have an invisible social or learning challenge.

There are a million things that impact your child's education, many children who are good or bad influences, disruptive, etc. You can't control this.

[Anonymous]

I agree with the selfishness. There is a child in my daughter's kindergarten class with a Spring birthday. He will turn 7. It has been brought up to the HOS. They did this because he is small for his age. He is very spoiled and they are doing it for advantage. Everyone talks about them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the selfishness. There is a child in my daughter's kindergarten class with a Spring birthday. He will turn 7. It has been brought up to the HOS. They did this because he is small for his age. He is very spoiled and they are doing it for advantage. Everyone talks about them.

Is HOS head of school? How was it brought up to the HOS? And what did the HOS say/do in response?

[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.

Everyone in the class benefits if there are less kids crying, acting, and wetting pants

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's hard for me to imagine that parents would redshirt an April birthday simply for academic advantage. I would assume the best in others and move on. Maybe there's a language barrier. Maybe the kid missed half of kindergarten last year due to illness or death in the family. Or maybe they have an invisible social or learning challenge.

My BIL has an October birthday so was already one of the oldest in his grade. Then in K he had a surgery that went awry and missed a ton of school, therefore repeating K. Stuff happens. My son has a late summer birthday and there were multiple kids in his cohort in elementary school who were a full year older than him...a couple of them were his close friends. When I realized that, I thought, ok, then moved on with my life. Nothing to get worked up over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the selfishness. There is a child in my daughter's kindergarten class with a Spring birthday. He will turn 7. It has been brought up to the HOS. They did this because he is small for his age. He is very spoiled and they are doing it for advantage. Everyone talks about them.

Is HOS head of school? How was it brought up to the HOS? And what did the HOS say/do in response?

Yes - head of school. It is not an "epidemic" at our small private school. He suggested some reading and said he disagrees with the trend at this age but that nothing could really be done.

[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.

We redshirted our oldest, and are happy with that choice.

Your problem is that you believe that your opinion is worth a warm bowl of tobacco spit to anyone but yourself.

[Anonymous]

That's crazy. I started K at 4 (in nyc you have to turn 5 by 12/31 that year, and I am an october bday). I can't imagine 7 year olds in the class.

in 5th grade he'll turn 12! Wow

[Anonymous]

I redshirted my end of August birthday DS and it was absolutely the right decision for us. This was during covid, and as an immature kid with poor impulse control, starting online K at 4 would have been a complete disaster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in an area that did half grades in the period from the 1930s-1950s or so. I’ve never seen a full explanation for it, but the concept was that everyone was grouped in 6 month cohorts instead of year-long cohorts. It was before mandatory kindergarten.

I think it would be better for kids like the ones that are not quite ready for K but would be bored by the spring of a repeated PreK year, but I’m sure redshirting would mess that up, too. But anyway: imagine some kids starting K in September and others starting in Feb/March.

In the 1950s my mom sent me to private kindergarten at age 4, my birthday was in November. The next year she kept me home because I wasn't old enough for first grade at Chesterbrook in Fairfax. When I went to first grade the next year they moved me up to second grade within a month because I could already read. I was in a split class, first and second grade, and I did math with the first graders for awhile, but ultimately moved on to third after that year. That was a different era, obviously, but they did use some unique solutions. Being among the youngest in every grade was a total non issue for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I redshirted my end of August birthday DS and it was absolutely the right decision for us. This was during covid, and as an immature kid with poor impulse control, starting online K at 4 would have been a complete disaster.

Uh, online kindergarten was a disaster for most kids. It has nothing with your kid being immature for his age or having "poor impulse control." You didn't want to participate in online school and I don't blame you-- it sucked.

But it also screwed over kids who didn't have a choice. Not you, personally, but a system where richer people who could afford to redshirt were able to do so while others could not.