What’s the point of redshirting when it cancels out the pride factor?

[Anonymous]

I don’t get this can someone just lay out redshirting to me and why it’s useful thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get this can someone just lay out redshirting to me and why it’s useful thanks.

The name redshirting is a reference to college football where each player has a a fixed number of years of which they are eligible to compete in the tournaments. In a situation where a player isn’t yet up to the standard to compete but the coach feels that they have potential they can invite a player to train with the team for a year but not compete therefore not using 1 eligibility year.


The author Malcolm Gladwell famously studied the birthdays of elite hockey players. He found that they were disproportionately the eldest in the youth clubs seasons. The being that the physically bigger and stronger kids caught the eye of the coaches better during tryouts of elite teams , getting those kids stronger training opportunities which compounded overtime. This made privileged parents everywhere ears twitch.

In private schools in particular the parents of predominantly white boys born in the summer doesn’t want them to be the youngest of the school year, disadvantaging them in both academics and sports as gladwell explained. Therefore since they have both the financial and social infrastructural means to not send their son to school the fall they turn 5, ie they have a stay at home mom to provide childcare for a year or can afford a nanny, they send them the follow fall when they will be among the eldest in the year.

Obviously this doesn’t solve the “ relative age affect”, just shifts it down and now the disadvantage of being the youngest falls on the spring borns who could be over a year younger than the eldest redshirters in their grade. There is also a socio economic and racial consequence since a poor single mom without near by family who needs the free childcare of public school to have a full time job doesn’t have the means to redshirt their kid, exacerbating the socio economic education gap.

[Anonymous]

Tl;dr

Do what makes sense for your DC. Different kids are different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that kids who are older generally do better in school and end up with better jobs. But the whole point of getting good grades and having a good job is to have something to be proud of, and outperforming kids a year younger than you is nothing to be proud of.

The point is rubbing the success of my child in the face of other parents that were too dumb to redshirt their kids when countless studies show it’s a MAJOR ADVANTAGE for grades and career. I relish their envious looks and snide comments, it just proves I did the RIGHT THING and they were just sheep following stupid rules. Nothing they have compares to the success of my child, while theirs is embarrassingly stupid and can barely keep up with school work, this year and the next year, all the way to COMMUNITY COLLEGE, while mine will be targeting IVY”s.

OUTPERFORMING kids a year younger is so much better than being a LOSER amongst kids your own age. Nobody will interview a Harvard graduate and ask how old they were when they went to freaking KINDERGARTEN!

OP, if you’re one of those parents sorry, NOT sorry!

I don't actually care about redshirting, especially because usually it's done because child has a developmental delay of some kind and of course I would never begrudge doing what is right to help a child with special needs, but my kid is the youngest in the grade and is at the top of her class. You are vastly overstating the benefits of redshirting, which are marginal at best, and far less important than things like parents' level of education, SES level, and willingness to invest those resources in your kid. Also just a kid's natural intelligence level and predisposition to learning. Redshirting is not going to get your kid into Harvard if he wouldn't have gotten in without it. You know that, right?

Redshirting is NOT not get him into Harvard either.

You profess that you don’t care while posting about how redshirting cancels the pride factor and badmouthing kids and families that redshirt. Sounds like green envy to me, but that’s fine, I’m used to it.

It’s true, classes move too slow for my kid, that’s why I asked the teacher to differentiate and give him worksheets above grade. I bet you hate that too! Tough luck!

My kids special need is to be the best and brightest in his grade, there, I said it.

Mine too and one if the youngest.

Then why are you here BADMOUTHING kids that were held back? It does not compute! I seriously doubt that your kid is one of the best and brightest. In fact I think it’s a summer child that is doing poorly in school and you can’t stand when redshirt kids are doing great. I know my kid is better than yours, you know how? Because a bright 6 year old is BETTER than a bright 5 year old!

The best thing is there’s NOTHING you can do except whine about it, while my kid DESTROYS your and your kids self esteem.

No, they are just older. My kid did algebra in 6th and calc bd in 10th. How about yours? A 5 year old in the same class achieving the same grades and similar work means the younger child is more capable and brighter.

Algebra in 4th, Calculus in 6th.

If your child is past 10th grade why are you whining about redshirted kids on this forum. At some point you have to let it go.

[Anonymous]

There is a real problem related to boys education they are just doing worse than girls across the board, from kindergarten to college.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/boys-left-behind-education-gender-gaps-across-the-us/

Parents that get educated on this trend use redshirting to increase the level of maturity of boys when they enter school, which is why redshirting is more prevalent among summer birth boys of high socioeconomic status families.

Nothing wrong with this trend, we want our kids to succeed, it’s good for the entire society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our local schools had a date of December 31 until around the year 2000. Parents with kids born in July or August would look ridiculous holding them back. The girls always went on time. Some boys were held back for not being ready.

NAEP graphs track test scores starting on the 70s for American schools.

The highest recorded score in math was 285 in 2012. The highest score recorded for reading was 263 in also in 2012..

The most recent math score was 271 in 2022. In reading, the most recent score is 256 in 2022.

With so many parents starting their kids later and later entering Kindergarten or First Grade you would think scores would increase. Instead they dropped from the peak in 2012 and have yet to make any major improvements

This is a well known trend and has been extensively studied by academics. It is most likely tied to the effects of the No Child Left Behind law and the swing toward standardized testing and « teaching to the test » that was first implemented in 2000. It has nothing to do with redshirting and the changes were seen across all states regardless of cutoffs. Of all the things that impact children’s outcomes, redshirting is not a statistically important one.

Ok but what was the point of creating new cutoff dates where children are entering school much later? It’s not redshirting I’m talking about, it’s the schools changing their cutoff dates where children are starting school up to a year later than they used to.

These test scores have been given for 55 years. I understand they might have peaked with No Child Left Behind but they went down after 2012. With children being older starting school you would think the 3rd grade testing grades would improve but they haven’t.

The age and test scores are not the issue, the curriculum is where they dumbed down things, got rid of homework, reading books, textbooks, etc. kids should be required to be enrolled in K at age 5. If they are not enrolled at age 5, they should go into the age appropriate grade when enrolled, so directly into 1st. It’s the parents holding back.

As if anyone is going to give a rats ass about what you think parents should do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get this can someone just lay out redshirting to me and why it’s useful thanks.

The name redshirting is a reference to college football where each player has a a fixed number of years of which they are eligible to compete in the tournaments. In a situation where a player isn’t yet up to the standard to compete but the coach feels that they have potential they can invite a player to train with the team for a year but not compete therefore not using 1 eligibility year.


The author Malcolm Gladwell famously studied the birthdays of elite hockey players. He found that they were disproportionately the eldest in the youth clubs seasons. The being that the physically bigger and stronger kids caught the eye of the coaches better during tryouts of elite teams , getting those kids stronger training opportunities which compounded overtime. This made privileged parents everywhere ears twitch.

In private schools in particular the parents of predominantly white boys born in the summer doesn’t want them to be the youngest of the school year, disadvantaging them in both academics and sports as gladwell explained. Therefore since they have both the financial and social infrastructural means to not send their son to school the fall they turn 5, ie they have a stay at home mom to provide childcare for a year or can afford a nanny, they send them the follow fall when they will be among the eldest in the year.

Obviously this doesn’t solve the “ relative age affect”, just shifts it down and now the disadvantage of being the youngest falls on the spring borns who could be over a year younger than the eldest redshirters in their grade. There is also a socio economic and racial consequence since a poor single mom without near by family who needs the free childcare of public school to have a full time job doesn’t have the means to redshirt their kid, exacerbating the socio economic education gap.

🙄

What a crock of nonsense. I didn’t redshirt, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tl;dr

Do what makes sense for your DC. Different kids are different.

Seriously. I do not get the weirdo obsessives who creepily track the birthdays of kindergarteners. God, if I ever start keeping spreadsheets of the birthdays of other kids, I’d think I should be institutionalized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get this can someone just lay out redshirting to me and why it’s useful thanks.

The name redshirting is a reference to college football where each player has a a fixed number of years of which they are eligible to compete in the tournaments. In a situation where a player isn’t yet up to the standard to compete but the coach feels that they have potential they can invite a player to train with the team for a year but not compete therefore not using 1 eligibility year.


The author Malcolm Gladwell famously studied the birthdays of elite hockey players. He found that they were disproportionately the eldest in the youth clubs seasons. The being that the physically bigger and stronger kids caught the eye of the coaches better during tryouts of elite teams , getting those kids stronger training opportunities which compounded overtime. This made privileged parents everywhere ears twitch.

In private schools in particular the parents of predominantly white boys born in the summer doesn’t want them to be the youngest of the school year, disadvantaging them in both academics and sports as gladwell explained. Therefore since they have both the financial and social infrastructural means to not send their son to school the fall they turn 5, ie they have a stay at home mom to provide childcare for a year or can afford a nanny, they send them the follow fall when they will be among the eldest in the year.

Obviously this doesn’t solve the “ relative age affect”, just shifts it down and now the disadvantage of being the youngest falls on the spring borns who could be over a year younger than the eldest redshirters in their grade. There is also a socio economic and racial consequence since a poor single mom without near by family who needs the free childcare of public school to have a full time job doesn’t have the means to redshirt their kid, exacerbating the socio economic education gap.

Really Appreciate it thanks 😊

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that kids who are older generally do better in school and end up with better jobs. But the whole point of getting good grades and having a good job is to have something to be proud of, and outperforming kids a year younger than you is nothing to be proud of.

The point is rubbing the success of my child in the face of other parents that were too dumb to redshirt their kids when countless studies show it’s a MAJOR ADVANTAGE for grades and career. I relish their envious looks and snide comments, it just proves I did the RIGHT THING and they were just sheep following stupid rules. Nothing they have compares to the success of my child, while theirs is embarrassingly stupid and can barely keep up with school work, this year and the next year, all the way to COMMUNITY COLLEGE, while mine will be targeting IVY”s.

OUTPERFORMING kids a year younger is so much better than being a LOSER amongst kids your own age. Nobody will interview a Harvard graduate and ask how old they were when they went to freaking KINDERGARTEN!

OP, if you’re one of those parents sorry, NOT sorry!

I don't actually care about redshirting, especially because usually it's done because child has a developmental delay of some kind and of course I would never begrudge doing what is right to help a child with special needs, but my kid is the youngest in the grade and is at the top of her class. You are vastly overstating the benefits of redshirting, which are marginal at best, and far less important than things like parents' level of education, SES level, and willingness to invest those resources in your kid. Also just a kid's natural intelligence level and predisposition to learning. Redshirting is not going to get your kid into Harvard if he wouldn't have gotten in without it. You know that, right?

Redshirting is NOT not get him into Harvard either.

You profess that you don’t care while posting about how redshirting cancels the pride factor and badmouthing kids and families that redshirt. Sounds like green envy to me, but that’s fine, I’m used to it.

It’s true, classes move too slow for my kid, that’s why I asked the teacher to differentiate and give him worksheets above grade. I bet you hate that too! Tough luck!

My kids special need is to be the best and brightest in his grade, there, I said it.

Mine too and one if the youngest.

Then why are you here BADMOUTHING kids that were held back? It does not compute! I seriously doubt that your kid is one of the best and brightest. In fact I think it’s a summer child that is doing poorly in school and you can’t stand when redshirt kids are doing great. I know my kid is better than yours, you know how? Because a bright 6 year old is BETTER than a bright 5 year old!

The best thing is there’s NOTHING you can do except whine about it, while my kid DESTROYS your and your kids self esteem.

PP, your work in this thread has been exceptional. Top-notch trolling. 🫡

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get this can someone just lay out redshirting to me and why it’s useful thanks.

The name redshirting is a reference to college football where each player has a a fixed number of years of which they are eligible to compete in the tournaments. In a situation where a player isn’t yet up to the standard to compete but the coach feels that they have potential they can invite a player to train with the team for a year but not compete therefore not using 1 eligibility year.


The author Malcolm Gladwell famously studied the birthdays of elite hockey players. He found that they were disproportionately the eldest in the youth clubs seasons. The being that the physically bigger and stronger kids caught the eye of the coaches better during tryouts of elite teams , getting those kids stronger training opportunities which compounded overtime. This made privileged parents everywhere ears twitch.

In private schools in particular the parents of predominantly white boys born in the summer doesn’t want them to be the youngest of the school year, disadvantaging them in both academics and sports as gladwell explained. Therefore since they have both the financial and social infrastructural means to not send their son to school the fall they turn 5, ie they have a stay at home mom to provide childcare for a year or can afford a nanny, they send them the follow fall when they will be among the eldest in the year.

Obviously this doesn’t solve the “ relative age affect”, just shifts it down and now the disadvantage of being the youngest falls on the spring borns who could be over a year younger than the eldest redshirters in their grade. There is also a socio economic and racial consequence since a poor single mom without near by family who needs the free childcare of public school to have a full time job doesn’t have the means to redshirt their kid, exacerbating the socio economic education gap.

Really Appreciate it thanks 😊

Just FYI, PPs explanation is silly for the most part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get this can someone just lay out redshirting to me and why it’s useful thanks.

The name redshirting is a reference to college football where each player has a a fixed number of years of which they are eligible to compete in the tournaments. In a situation where a player isn’t yet up to the standard to compete but the coach feels that they have potential they can invite a player to train with the team for a year but not compete therefore not using 1 eligibility year.


The author Malcolm Gladwell famously studied the birthdays of elite hockey players. He found that they were disproportionately the eldest in the youth clubs seasons. The being that the physically bigger and stronger kids caught the eye of the coaches better during tryouts of elite teams , getting those kids stronger training opportunities which compounded overtime. This made privileged parents everywhere ears twitch.

In private schools in particular the parents of predominantly white boys born in the summer doesn’t want them to be the youngest of the school year, disadvantaging them in both academics and sports as gladwell explained. Therefore since they have both the financial and social infrastructural means to not send their son to school the fall they turn 5, ie they have a stay at home mom to provide childcare for a year or can afford a nanny, they send them the follow fall when they will be among the eldest in the year.

Obviously this doesn’t solve the “ relative age affect”, just shifts it down and now the disadvantage of being the youngest falls on the spring borns who could be over a year younger than the eldest redshirters in their grade. There is also a socio economic and racial consequence since a poor single mom without near by family who needs the free childcare of public school to have a full time job doesn’t have the means to redshirt their kid, exacerbating the socio economic education gap.

Really Appreciate it thanks 😊

Just FYI, PPs explanation is silly for the most part.

Don’t be lazy, provide a compelling counter argument to what you disagree with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get this can someone just lay out redshirting to me and why it’s useful thanks.

The name redshirting is a reference to college football where each player has a a fixed number of years of which they are eligible to compete in the tournaments. In a situation where a player isn’t yet up to the standard to compete but the coach feels that they have potential they can invite a player to train with the team for a year but not compete therefore not using 1 eligibility year.


The author Malcolm Gladwell famously studied the birthdays of elite hockey players. He found that they were disproportionately the eldest in the youth clubs seasons. The being that the physically bigger and stronger kids caught the eye of the coaches better during tryouts of elite teams , getting those kids stronger training opportunities which compounded overtime. This made privileged parents everywhere ears twitch.

In private schools in particular the parents of predominantly white boys born in the summer doesn’t want them to be the youngest of the school year, disadvantaging them in both academics and sports as gladwell explained. Therefore since they have both the financial and social infrastructural means to not send their son to school the fall they turn 5, ie they have a stay at home mom to provide childcare for a year or can afford a nanny, they send them the follow fall when they will be among the eldest in the year.

Obviously this doesn’t solve the “ relative age affect”, just shifts it down and now the disadvantage of being the youngest falls on the spring borns who could be over a year younger than the eldest redshirters in their grade. There is also a socio economic and racial consequence since a poor single mom without near by family who needs the free childcare of public school to have a full time job doesn’t have the means to redshirt their kid, exacerbating the socio economic education gap.

I see, the summer boys redshirting puts the spring boys at a disadvantage, so if you have one it’s better to redshirt them as a preemptive strike and pass the hot potato to winter boy parents. But there’s a risk they would also catch wing something’s off so they might hold back as well.

You’re probably safe if you double redshirt though.

Your best option is to homeschool. It’s only one kid and that’s going to make come true your wish that everyone in the class is the same exact age. It’s best for you, your kid, other parents and students, a win-win for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our local schools had a date of December 31 until around the year 2000. Parents with kids born in July or August would look ridiculous holding them back. The girls always went on time. Some boys were held back for not being ready.

NAEP graphs track test scores starting on the 70s for American schools.

The highest recorded score in math was 285 in 2012. The highest score recorded for reading was 263 in also in 2012..

The most recent math score was 271 in 2022. In reading, the most recent score is 256 in 2022.

With so many parents starting their kids later and later entering Kindergarten or First Grade you would think scores would increase. Instead they dropped from the peak in 2012 and have yet to make any major improvements

This is a well known trend and has been extensively studied by academics. It is most likely tied to the effects of the No Child Left Behind law and the swing toward standardized testing and « teaching to the test » that was first implemented in 2000. It has nothing to do with redshirting and the changes were seen across all states regardless of cutoffs. Of all the things that impact children’s outcomes, redshirting is not a statistically important one.

Ok but what was the point of creating new cutoff dates where children are entering school much later? It’s not redshirting I’m talking about, it’s the schools changing their cutoff dates where children are starting school up to a year later than they used to.

These test scores have been given for 55 years. I understand they might have peaked with No Child Left Behind but they went down after 2012. With children being older starting school you would think the 3rd grade testing grades would improve but they haven’t.

No. They went down BECAUSE of No Child Left Behind. That is how data works. It takes years to see the consequences of changes. No Child Left Behind was a failed law that we are still getting out from under.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a real problem related to boys education they are just doing worse than girls across the board, from kindergarten to college.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/boys-left-behind-education-gender-gaps-across-the-us/

Parents that get educated on this trend use redshirting to increase the level of maturity of boys when they enter school, which is why redshirting is more prevalent among summer birth boys of high socioeconomic status families.

Nothing wrong with this trend, we want our kids to succeed, it’s good for the entire society.

Why wouldn’t these high socioeconomic status boys succeed unless they were held back a year? The kids who are our future scientists, doctors, creators, the most intelligent kids do not need to be held back, in fact it would be detrimental to their growth as students.

If your kid might benefit from staying back for a year because they will do better, just admit it. That’s a smart decision and is made all the time.