Just another redshirting vent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Redshirting is an athletic term applied to the keeping of an athlete out of college competition for a year in order to develop the athlete's skills and extend their period of playing eligibility. The term has crept into the early education field as the practice of postponing entrance into kindergarten of age-eligible children in order to allow extra time for socioemotional, intellectual, or physical growth. But there is a problem here: in athletics, yes, redshirting may be used to give an advantage to the team by keeping an older, stronger or more skilled player around longer. That concept simply DOES NOT APPLY to classes. Read the definition; the child's entry is being postponed in order to give the child a chance to grow up as needed. It will have little to no impact on your kid. Grades are not comparative or competitive in K, 1 or 2. And the research show that whatever early advantage slightly older kids might have washes out after a few years (usually by 5-6th grades.)
Don't worry about it. Your kid will be fine.

There was a study recently showing that advantages of starting school later sustain through HS and into adulthood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also started 1st at 5. I don't even think I realized other kids were younger. It was only a pain for a couple months in college, when I had to wait for my 18th bday to go out to bars/clubs with friends. Anecdotal, but being young actually meant that I started grad school at 21 and had a Ph.D. at 26.

Ha! You could be me! I started 1st at 5; graduated at 21; published by 21; doctorate by 26; owned house by that time and car paid off! I always felt a little extra smart b/c I was the youngest in the class.

I'm started my 4 yr old in K b/c he hits the cut off, can read, do math and wants to go to his older sister's school. So he's going.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Redshirting is an athletic term applied to the keeping of an athlete out of college competition for a year in order to develop the athlete's skills and extend their period of playing eligibility. The term has crept into the early education field as the practice of postponing entrance into kindergarten of age-eligible children in order to allow extra time for socioemotional, intellectual, or physical growth. But there is a problem here: in athletics, yes, redshirting may be used to give an advantage to the team by keeping an older, stronger or more skilled player around longer. That concept simply DOES NOT APPLY to classes. Read the definition; the child's entry is being postponed in order to give the child a chance to grow up as needed. It will have little to no impact on your kid. Grades are not comparative or competitive in K, 1 or 2. And the research show that whatever early advantage slightly older kids might have washes out after a few years (usually by 5-6th grades.)
Don't worry about it. Your kid will be fine.

There was a study recently showing that advantages of starting school later sustain through HS and into adulthood.

citation please

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We kind of redshirted but not really. My son has an October birthday, and it was a blessing in disguise. I have a problem with K at 5 for two reasons. First, it is developmentally inappropriate, and second, it is academically meaningless (at least for us). So I put my son into a private Jr K year program with a very small class, lots of outdoors and playtime, arts, music and of course academics. So in a way, he had another year of playtime where he also effortlessly absorbed the academic content of K. After that year, he went directly into 1st grade. It was perfect because at that point he was ready for school, and academically ready for 1st.

“Developmentally inappropriate” based on what? What educational expert? Or is this just your opinion?

And if it’s academically meaningless, why not just start them on time?

Yes, it is my opinion that five-year olds do not belong in all-day large classrooms with limited recess and outdoor playtime.

We did start on time. He missed the cutoff by three weeks, which was a blessing in disguise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:20:55 again. Meant to say that I suspect there’s another type of redshirting family—those that suspect/are fearful of a diagnosis like ADHD, and don’t want their child labeled as such when they hope the answer may just be that their child is just “not ready” for what they think is an inappropriately academic K environment. They are hoping that with another year before K things will sort themselves out.

I’ve seen studies cited to support the above—namely, that younger kids are more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than kids who’re older in K. While I don’t doubt those findings, I wonder whether older kids are able to compensate in some ways such that the diagnosis is more likely to be missed—in other words, instead of false positives in younger kids, false negatives in older kids is also plausible.

Really, if a diagnosis like ADHD is suspected, the best way to proceed would be to get your kid in school and connected with services sooner, vs. waiting a year. However, I could understand why parents might wait and instead attribute their child’s perceived lack of readiness to the K environment as inappropriate for 5yos, esp.for boys.

or they HAVE a diagnosis and delay K. you never know and should MYOB.

PP here. Then why delay K for a confirmed diagnosis instead of getting the child connected to services and supports at school? Earlier intervention is usually predictive of better outcomes for various diagnoses.

[Anonymous]

OP, I agree with you 100%. “Junior Kindergarten” or other stodgy ways of saying your kid is either repeating or being held back. If the kid is developmentally normal, it’s pathetic and all based on the parents’ insecurities and lack of trust in their own child. Believe in your kids, parents! They CAN handle being in the grade they should be in!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:20:55 again. Meant to say that I suspect there’s another type of redshirting family—those that suspect/are fearful of a diagnosis like ADHD, and don’t want their child labeled as such when they hope the answer may just be that their child is just “not ready” for what they think is an inappropriately academic K environment. They are hoping that with another year before K things will sort themselves out.

I’ve seen studies cited to support the above—namely, that younger kids are more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than kids who’re older in K. While I don’t doubt those findings, I wonder whether older kids are able to compensate in some ways such that the diagnosis is more likely to be missed—in other words, instead of false positives in younger kids, false negatives in older kids is also plausible.

Really, if a diagnosis like ADHD is suspected, the best way to proceed would be to get your kid in school and connected with services sooner, vs. waiting a year. However, I could understand why parents might wait and instead attribute their child’s perceived lack of readiness to the K environment as inappropriate for 5yos, esp.for boys.

or they HAVE a diagnosis and delay K. you never know and should MYOB.

PP here. Then why delay K for a confirmed diagnosis instead of getting the child connected to services and supports at school? Earlier intervention is usually predictive of better outcomes for various diagnoses.

You say this like services and support exist only at school. For all you know, the physician who diagnosed the child recommended redshirting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:20:55 again. Meant to say that I suspect there’s another type of redshirting family—those that suspect/are fearful of a diagnosis like ADHD, and don’t want their child labeled as such when they hope the answer may just be that their child is just “not ready” for what they think is an inappropriately academic K environment. They are hoping that with another year before K things will sort themselves out.

I’ve seen studies cited to support the above—namely, that younger kids are more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than kids who’re older in K. While I don’t doubt those findings, I wonder whether older kids are able to compensate in some ways such that the diagnosis is more likely to be missed—in other words, instead of false positives in younger kids, false negatives in older kids is also plausible.

Really, if a diagnosis like ADHD is suspected, the best way to proceed would be to get your kid in school and connected with services sooner, vs. waiting a year. However, I could understand why parents might wait and instead attribute their child’s perceived lack of readiness to the K environment as inappropriate for 5yos, esp.for boys.

or they HAVE a diagnosis and delay K. you never know and should MYOB.

PP here. Then why delay K for a confirmed diagnosis instead of getting the child connected to services and supports at school? Earlier intervention is usually predictive of better outcomes for various diagnoses.

An extra year helps lots of kids with diagnoses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I agree with you 100%. “Junior Kindergarten” or other stodgy ways of saying your kid is either repeating or being held back. If the kid is developmentally normal, it’s pathetic and all based on the parents’ insecurities and lack of trust in their own child. Believe in your kids, parents! They CAN handle being in the grade they should be in!

You understand, don't you, that what grade a child SHOULD be in varies from county to county? I mean, you have a spread of cutoff dates from September to December! Children don't change but apparently what authorities feel they should be capable of changes depending on their zipcodes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For all the parents claiming that something "doesn't affect you" because the kid(s) in question are in other classrooms or schools, they are all part of the same college application cohort. So yes, it absolutely does affect everyone in the year level to have redshirted kids.

I really don't think colleges care that some kids had an extra year singing "twinkle, twinkle" before their 13 years of academic instruction began. Yes, some preschools may introduce the alphabet, but no preschool is going to do Trig or Calculus. I was one of the youngest in my cohort, and I struggled when my class learned to read in K. However, I caught up quickly and went into magnet programs. The 13 years focused on academics more than compensates for an extra year of development.

What evidence does suggest is harder to overcome is a home environment lacking in stimulus. If you were really concerned with levelling the playing field for college admission, you could withhold books from your child and keep conversation to a minimum to better simulate the home environment of less privileged children. Of course, nobody expects you to do that. You naturally want to do the best you can for your child. When you read "Goodnight Moon" or talk about the things you encounter during your day, you're probably not doing it with Harvard in mind, but because you recognize it's what your child needs then. Similarly, the vast majority of redshirting parents are trying to address their children's needs at the time. They're not trying to outmaneuver you into an Ivy. (Most families don't aim for Ivies. They're expensive and I truly believe that there are so many excellent students that it's almost a lottery to get in. If your child wins the top prize at the Intel Science Fair, solos at Carnegie Hall, or medals in the Olympics - yes, they're probably in. A straight-A student with perfect SAT scores, I suspect a lot of those get turned down.)

If you're so concerned about eliminating advantages in a college application cohort, I would worry less about the kid who was a year older because they spent a year in preschool than I would about the kid who was a year older because they spent a Gap year having an amazing experience somewhere. Then there are the applicants who are several years older because they're returning to college after years of working. A career changer getting a second degree I would surely think would have an edge over your average high-schooler, even if the high schooler had been redshirted 13 years earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:20:55 again. Meant to say that I suspect there’s another type of redshirting family—those that suspect/are fearful of a diagnosis like ADHD, and don’t want their child labeled as such when they hope the answer may just be that their child is just “not ready” for what they think is an inappropriately academic K environment. They are hoping that with another year before K things will sort themselves out.

I’ve seen studies cited to support the above—namely, that younger kids are more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than kids who’re older in K. While I don’t doubt those findings, I wonder whether older kids are able to compensate in some ways such that the diagnosis is more likely to be missed—in other words, instead of false positives in younger kids, false negatives in older kids is also plausible.

Really, if a diagnosis like ADHD is suspected, the best way to proceed would be to get your kid in school and connected with services sooner, vs. waiting a year. However, I could understand why parents might wait and instead attribute their child’s perceived lack of readiness to the K environment as inappropriate for 5yos, esp.for boys.

or they HAVE a diagnosis and delay K. you never know and should MYOB.

PP here. Then why delay K for a confirmed diagnosis instead of getting the child connected to services and supports at school? Earlier intervention is usually predictive of better outcomes for various diagnoses.

An extra year helps lots of kids with diagnoses.

Source? Because I looked and quickly found studies to suggest that redshirting due to ADHD was NOT associated with better outcomes:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361476X15000442

Another top result was this article from a pediatric practice that advises against redshirting for ADHD.

“Dr. Steinberg strongly advises against redshirting for kindergarten, because the process just delays kids’ education and parents will need to deal with the ADHD diagnosis whether the child is in school or not.

He believes that children should be in school by age 5, although preschool can be quite beneficial and should be weighed on an individual basis. Holding children back because they’re “immature” is a mistake as the underlying issues of a child’s immaturity can be addressed in school.”

https://www.woodburnpediatric.com/blog/redshirt-child-adhd/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:20:55 again. Meant to say that I suspect there’s another type of redshirting family—those that suspect/are fearful of a diagnosis like ADHD, and don’t want their child labeled as such when they hope the answer may just be that their child is just “not ready” for what they think is an inappropriately academic K environment. They are hoping that with another year before K things will sort themselves out.

I’ve seen studies cited to support the above—namely, that younger kids are more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than kids who’re older in K. While I don’t doubt those findings, I wonder whether older kids are able to compensate in some ways such that the diagnosis is more likely to be missed—in other words, instead of false positives in younger kids, false negatives in older kids is also plausible.

Really, if a diagnosis like ADHD is suspected, the best way to proceed would be to get your kid in school and connected with services sooner, vs. waiting a year. However, I could understand why parents might wait and instead attribute their child’s perceived lack of readiness to the K environment as inappropriate for 5yos, esp.for boys.

or they HAVE a diagnosis and delay K. you never know and should MYOB.

PP here. Then why delay K for a confirmed diagnosis instead of getting the child connected to services and supports at school? Earlier intervention is usually predictive of better outcomes for various diagnoses.

because you can do early intervention in preschool too. again MYOB MYOB MYOB. nobody is out to get an unfair advantage over your child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:20:55 again. Meant to say that I suspect there’s another type of redshirting family—those that suspect/are fearful of a diagnosis like ADHD, and don’t want their child labeled as such when they hope the answer may just be that their child is just “not ready” for what they think is an inappropriately academic K environment. They are hoping that with another year before K things will sort themselves out.

I’ve seen studies cited to support the above—namely, that younger kids are more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than kids who’re older in K. While I don’t doubt those findings, I wonder whether older kids are able to compensate in some ways such that the diagnosis is more likely to be missed—in other words, instead of false positives in younger kids, false negatives in older kids is also plausible.

Really, if a diagnosis like ADHD is suspected, the best way to proceed would be to get your kid in school and connected with services sooner, vs. waiting a year. However, I could understand why parents might wait and instead attribute their child’s perceived lack of readiness to the K environment as inappropriate for 5yos, esp.for boys.

or they HAVE a diagnosis and delay K. you never know and should MYOB.

PP here. Then why delay K for a confirmed diagnosis instead of getting the child connected to services and supports at school? Earlier intervention is usually predictive of better outcomes for various diagnoses.

An extra year helps lots of kids with diagnoses.

Source? Because I looked and quickly found studies to suggest that redshirting due to ADHD was NOT associated with better outcomes:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361476X15000442

Another top result was this article from a pediatric practice that advises against redshirting for ADHD.

“Dr. Steinberg strongly advises against redshirting for kindergarten, because the process just delays kids’ education and parents will need to deal with the ADHD diagnosis whether the child is in school or not.

He believes that children should be in school by age 5, although preschool can be quite beneficial and should be weighed on an individual basis. Holding children back because they’re “immature” is a mistake as the underlying issues of a child’s immaturity can be addressed in school.”

https://www.woodburnpediatric.com/blog/redshirt-child-adhd/

the parents I know who redshirt due to a diagnosis had their kids in excellent pre-Ks with plenty of therapy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:20:55 again. Meant to say that I suspect there’s another type of redshirting family—those that suspect/are fearful of a diagnosis like ADHD, and don’t want their child labeled as such when they hope the answer may just be that their child is just “not ready” for what they think is an inappropriately academic K environment. They are hoping that with another year before K things will sort themselves out.

I’ve seen studies cited to support the above—namely, that younger kids are more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than kids who’re older in K. While I don’t doubt those findings, I wonder whether older kids are able to compensate in some ways such that the diagnosis is more likely to be missed—in other words, instead of false positives in younger kids, false negatives in older kids is also plausible.

Really, if a diagnosis like ADHD is suspected, the best way to proceed would be to get your kid in school and connected with services sooner, vs. waiting a year. However, I could understand why parents might wait and instead attribute their child’s perceived lack of readiness to the K environment as inappropriate for 5yos, esp.for boys.

or they HAVE a diagnosis and delay K. you never know and should MYOB.

PP here. Then why delay K for a confirmed diagnosis instead of getting the child connected to services and supports at school? Earlier intervention is usually predictive of better outcomes for various diagnoses.

An extra year helps lots of kids with diagnoses.

Source? Because I looked and quickly found studies to suggest that redshirting due to ADHD was NOT associated with better outcomes:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361476X15000442

Another top result was this article from a pediatric practice that advises against redshirting for ADHD.

[b]“Dr. Steinberg strongly advises against redshirting for kindergarten, because the process just delays kids’ education and parents will need to deal with the ADHD diagnosis whether the child is in school or not.

He believes that children should be in school by age 5, although preschool can be quite beneficial and should be weighed on an individual basis. Holding children back because they’re “immature” is a mistake as the underlying issues of a child’s immaturity can be addressed in school.”[/b]

https://www.woodburnpediatric.com/blog/redshirt-child-adhd/

+1

Amen. I think a lot of well meaning parents are sorely mislead.

[Anonymous]

I feel like the adhd studies are making my head hurt. I think the younger kids are being over diagnosed and the older kids are being under diagnosed.
And I don’t understand the Finnish or Danish studies saying allowing liberal redshirting decreases the # of adhd diagnoses. Doesn’t someone still have to be the youngest? And won’t those kids still be at risk for adhd diagnosis? Or at least in the way the system is set up in the US without universal preschool or other school options for every single kid who is “not ready”?