Why is redshirting so rare if it's so advantageous?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My June baby was ready for kindergarten. So we put her in kindergarten

I was asking about kids with Fall birthdays. It wouldn't really make sense to hold back someone with a June birthday seeing as how they're already on the older half by default.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP- the crazy anti-redshirting parents came out in full force for this one! I held my kid back because his preK teacher recommended it for social/speech reasons. He could ready by four and has always scored in the 99th percentile for everything, so my teacher friends were appalled that I was holding him back. He’ll be bored! they said. Nope. He was just mature enough to cope with the mundane aspects of public school- all the sitting and paperwork that now constitutes first grade etc. As he’s gotten older, I have never once regretted holding him back. I think for boys especially, it’s a good thing. I don’t think of it as “cheating”. I don’t care about his performance on whatever tests. I care about MY KID and that decision was best for him. The anti-redshirting families are weirdly competitive and they are very vocal. They are the families who pay attention to their child’s scores etc compared to their classmates’ etc. My kid isn’t sporty so he isn’t taking anyone’s prized basketball spot or anything either. Just make the right decision for your kid, listen to people you trust. If you can afford to give your kid one more year of sweet non structured preK living, go for it! Good luck.

Of course. If there is some mental, emotional, social, physical deficiency in your child that can be rectified by keeping them back then you should do so. I don't think that parents whose kids don't have any of these issues think of redshirting.

We don't think of it as redshirting. We think of it as giving our kids another year at home to be kids. We aren't worried about the cost. We have a nanny no matter what and the kids participate in all the enrichment activities we could want. It basically makes for a nicer childhood for our kids. Our kids are going to private school anyway so it isn't like you'll ever be face-to-face with them. If you can't afford it then don't do it. We can afford it so we do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:27% of the kids in my town are red shirted.

Ah! Trumper town?

I doubt you have that data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP- the crazy anti-redshirting parents came out in full force for this one! I held my kid back because his preK teacher recommended it for social/speech reasons. He could ready by four and has always scored in the 99th percentile for everything, so my teacher friends were appalled that I was holding him back. He’ll be bored! they said. Nope. He was just mature enough to cope with the mundane aspects of public school- all the sitting and paperwork that now constitutes first grade etc. As he’s gotten older, I have never once regretted holding him back. I think for boys especially, it’s a good thing. I don’t think of it as “cheating”. I don’t care about his performance on whatever tests. I care about MY KID and that decision was best for him. The anti-redshirting families are weirdly competitive and they are very vocal. They are the families who pay attention to their child’s scores etc compared to their classmates’ etc. My kid isn’t sporty so he isn’t taking anyone’s prized basketball spot or anything either. Just make the right decision for your kid, listen to people you trust. If you can afford to give your kid one more year of sweet non structured preK living, go for it! Good luck.

Of course. If there is some mental, emotional, social, physical deficiency in your child that can be rectified by keeping them back then you should do so. I don't think that parents whose kids don't have any of these issues think of redshirting.

We found the opposite. Holding back did our child a disservice and we had to move them up. The higher academics and social helped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP- the crazy anti-redshirting parents came out in full force for this one! I held my kid back because his preK teacher recommended it for social/speech reasons. He could ready by four and has always scored in the 99th percentile for everything, so my teacher friends were appalled that I was holding him back. He’ll be bored! they said. Nope. He was just mature enough to cope with the mundane aspects of public school- all the sitting and paperwork that now constitutes first grade etc. As he’s gotten older, I have never once regretted holding him back. I think for boys especially, it’s a good thing. I don’t think of it as “cheating”. I don’t care about his performance on whatever tests. I care about MY KID and that decision was best for him. The anti-redshirting families are weirdly competitive and they are very vocal. They are the families who pay attention to their child’s scores etc compared to their classmates’ etc. My kid isn’t sporty so he isn’t taking anyone’s prized basketball spot or anything either. Just make the right decision for your kid, listen to people you trust. If you can afford to give your kid one more year of sweet non structured preK living, go for it! Good luck.

Of course. If there is some mental, emotional, social, physical deficiency in your child that can be rectified by keeping them back then you should do so. I don't think that parents whose kids don't have any of these issues think of redshirting.

We don't think of it as redshirting. We think of it as giving our kids another year at home to be kids. We aren't worried about the cost. We have a nanny no matter what and the kids participate in all the enrichment activities we could want. It basically makes for a nicer childhood for our kids. Our kids are going to private school anyway so it isn't like you'll ever be face-to-face with them. If you can't afford it then don't do it. We can afford it so we do it.

I don't know. My anecdata - I felt that parents of kids without issues should avoid private schools at least in ES level. Even one kid with academic or behavioral issues can make the school day come to a grinding halt. I removed my kid from a very reputed school when they admitted a child in my DC's classroom who was older and would throw tantrums by banging his head on the floor and screaming. Yup, they got an aide for him but he was a distraction for the rest of the classroom. The parents had selected our classroom because everything was so calm and kids were academically advanced and they wanted the best environment for their child. I bet they paid a lot more than what we were paying. Several parents dropped out and moved to public school by greenshirting because of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP- the crazy anti-redshirting parents came out in full force for this one! I held my kid back because his preK teacher recommended it for social/speech reasons. He could ready by four and has always scored in the 99th percentile for everything, so my teacher friends were appalled that I was holding him back. He’ll be bored! they said. Nope. He was just mature enough to cope with the mundane aspects of public school- all the sitting and paperwork that now constitutes first grade etc. As he’s gotten older, I have never once regretted holding him back. I think for boys especially, it’s a good thing. I don’t think of it as “cheating”. I don’t care about his performance on whatever tests. I care about MY KID and that decision was best for him. The anti-redshirting families are weirdly competitive and they are very vocal. They are the families who pay attention to their child’s scores etc compared to their classmates’ etc. My kid isn’t sporty so he isn’t taking anyone’s prized basketball spot or anything either. Just make the right decision for your kid, listen to people you trust. If you can afford to give your kid one more year of sweet non structured preK living, go for it! Good luck.

Of course. If there is some mental, emotional, social, physical deficiency in your child that can be rectified by keeping them back then you should do so. I don't think that parents whose kids don't have any of these issues think of redshirting.

We don't think of it as redshirting. We think of it as giving our kids another year at home to be kids. We aren't worried about the cost. We have a nanny no matter what and the kids participate in all the enrichment activities we could want. It basically makes for a nicer childhood for our kids. Our kids are going to private school anyway so it isn't like you'll ever be face-to-face with them. If you can't afford it then don't do it. We can afford it so we do it.

I don't know. My anecdata - I felt that parents of kids without issues should avoid private schools at least in ES level. Even one kid with academic or behavioral issues can make the school day come to a grinding halt. I removed my kid from a very reputed school when they admitted a child in my DC's classroom who was older and would throw tantrums by banging his head on the floor and screaming. Yup, they got an aide for him but he was a distraction for the rest of the classroom. The parents had selected our classroom because everything was so calm and kids were academically advanced and they wanted the best environment for their child. I bet they paid a lot more than what we were paying. Several parents dropped out and moved to public school by greenshirting because of that.

Your story is weird. It's obvious the boy's issues had nothing to do with being a year older.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP- the crazy anti-redshirting parents came out in full force for this one! I held my kid back because his preK teacher recommended it for social/speech reasons. He could ready by four and has always scored in the 99th percentile for everything, so my teacher friends were appalled that I was holding him back. He’ll be bored! they said. Nope. He was just mature enough to cope with the mundane aspects of public school- all the sitting and paperwork that now constitutes first grade etc. As he’s gotten older, I have never once regretted holding him back. I think for boys especially, it’s a good thing. I don’t think of it as “cheating”. I don’t care about his performance on whatever tests. I care about MY KID and that decision was best for him. The anti-redshirting families are weirdly competitive and they are very vocal. They are the families who pay attention to their child’s scores etc compared to their classmates’ etc. My kid isn’t sporty so he isn’t taking anyone’s prized basketball spot or anything either. Just make the right decision for your kid, listen to people you trust. If you can afford to give your kid one more year of sweet non structured preK living, go for it! Good luck.

Of course. If there is some mental, emotional, social, physical deficiency in your child that can be rectified by keeping them back then you should do so. I don't think that parents whose kids don't have any of these issues think of redshirting.

That can also happen at public school.

-lived it

We don't think of it as redshirting. We think of it as giving our kids another year at home to be kids. We aren't worried about the cost. We have a nanny no matter what and the kids participate in all the enrichment activities we could want. It basically makes for a nicer childhood for our kids. Our kids are going to private school anyway so it isn't like you'll ever be face-to-face with them. If you can't afford it then don't do it. We can afford it so we do it.

I don't know. My anecdata - I felt that parents of kids without issues should avoid private schools at least in ES level. Even one kid with academic or behavioral issues can make the school day come to a grinding halt. I removed my kid from a very reputed school when they admitted a child in my DC's classroom who was older and would throw tantrums by banging his head on the floor and screaming. Yup, they got an aide for him but he was a distraction for the rest of the classroom. The parents had selected our classroom because everything was so calm and kids were academically advanced and they wanted the best environment for their child. I bet they paid a lot more than what we were paying. Several parents dropped out and moved to public school by greenshirting because of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people say that it gives the child one less year to work and earn money - it leaves them at a disadvantage.

But someone who does better in school will go to a more prestigious university and get a higher-paying job. In the long-run, someone who starts a prestigious career at 22 is going to be much better off financially than someone who starts a mediocre career at 21.

But there are plenty of people who start a prestigious career at 21.

In the meantime, some kid is sitting in 7th grade math asking why he is learning the same stuff as a bunch of kids a year younger than him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people say that it gives the child one less year to work and earn money - it leaves them at a disadvantage.

But someone who does better in school will go to a more prestigious university and get a higher-paying job. In the long-run, someone who starts a prestigious career at 22 is going to be much better off financially than someone who starts a mediocre career at 21.

But there are plenty of people who start a prestigious career at 21.

In the meantime, some kid is sitting in 7th grade math asking why he is learning the same stuff as a bunch of kids a year younger than him.

Why do you make things up? This doesn’t happen.

[Anonymous]

My son has a fall birthday. He missed the cutoff for entering k by 5 days. We considered pushing him ahead a year early, but decided for social immaturity reasons to keep him with his assigned grade. He is one of the oldest for his grade, but there are always a couple kids that were redshirted that are older than him.
My anecdotal? He was Absolutely bored in school. I ended up placing him in a charter school that groups children by ability, not by age. He is grouped with older children and is thriving. Most of the children he is in class with are a full year older. In hindsight, I should have enrolled him in private K early.
Bottom line… each child is unique. You could be helping by redshirting, or hurting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:27% of the kids in my town are red shirted.

Ah! Trumper town?

No, usually it is the rich Democrats.

This is true. Generally, wealthier and better educated = Democrats, and also far more likely to redshirt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people say that it gives the child one less year to work and earn money - it leaves them at a disadvantage.

But someone who does better in school will go to a more prestigious university and get a higher-paying job. In the long-run, someone who starts a prestigious career at 22 is going to be much better off financially than someone who starts a mediocre career at 21.

But there are plenty of people who start a prestigious career at 21.

In the meantime, some kid is sitting in 7th grade math asking why he is learning the same stuff as a bunch of kids a year younger than him.

Why do you make things up? This doesn’t happen.

It does. Except for me, it was a first grader wondering why the other kids can’t read yet.
And as a 5th grader annoyed the other kids don’t understand the math and why does the teacher have to teach the same thing over and over.
Being oldest in a class can be very boring for some children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people say that it gives the child one less year to work and earn money - it leaves them at a disadvantage.

But someone who does better in school will go to a more prestigious university and get a higher-paying job. In the long-run, someone who starts a prestigious career at 22 is going to be much better off financially than someone who starts a mediocre career at 21.

But there are plenty of people who start a prestigious career at 21.

In the meantime, some kid is sitting in 7th grade math asking why he is learning the same stuff as a bunch of kids a year younger than him.

Why do you make things up? This doesn’t happen.

It does. Except for me, it was a first grader wondering why the other kids can’t read yet.
And as a 5th grader annoyed the other kids don’t understand the math and why does the teacher have to teach the same thing over and over.
Being oldest in a class can be very boring for some children.

So, oldest = smartest?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people say that it gives the child one less year to work and earn money - it leaves them at a disadvantage.

But someone who does better in school will go to a more prestigious university and get a higher-paying job. In the long-run, someone who starts a prestigious career at 22 is going to be much better off financially than someone who starts a mediocre career at 21.

But there are plenty of people who start a prestigious career at 21.

In the meantime, some kid is sitting in 7th grade math asking why he is learning the same stuff as a bunch of kids a year younger than him.

Why do you make things up? This doesn’t happen.

It does. Except for me, it was a first grader wondering why the other kids can’t read yet.
And as a 5th grader annoyed the other kids don’t understand the math and why does the teacher have to teach the same thing over and over.
Being oldest in a class can be very boring for some children.

So, oldest = smartest?

Not always, but at younger ages, 10 to 14 months of age difference means the older child has had significantly more exposure to things like reading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people say that it gives the child one less year to work and earn money - it leaves them at a disadvantage.

But someone who does better in school will go to a more prestigious university and get a higher-paying job. In the long-run, someone who starts a prestigious career at 22 is going to be much better off financially than someone who starts a mediocre career at 21.

But there are plenty of people who start a prestigious career at 21.

I know that, but those people would have had an even better career had they been redshirted.