Am I the only one who DOESN'T care if kids are "redshirted" OR "skipped"?

[Anonymous]

All the discussions are interesting (the coherent parts ), but I must be missing some point. I am disgusted by parents who would hold back a child who was ready, or push ahead a child who wasn't. I'm an elementary teacher, and believe me, I've seen plenty of both. What I don't understand is the seeming obsession with having everything be "equal" (or "better than equal" for MY special little snowflake).

As many have pointed out, someone has to be the youngest/oldest, smallest/biggest, etc. Variability is a constant. Every year, since I taught my first class, 20 years ago, there have been inequities that would not have been lessened by an ironclad age guideline. I'm thinking, for example, of the two tiny 4.5 year olds in kindy one year. They both outperformed most of their classmates (academically and socially), some of whom were more than a year older. Then there was the 1st grade girl who made the age cutoff by a week-- tons of friends, top of the class. And fwiw, she was taller than the oldest kid in the class (turned 8 a week after she turned 6), who was repeating the year.

How well children do in school, academically and socially, has just as much to do with their personalities, inate abilities, and prior experiences as their age! Why do we seem more concerned with arguing and slinging mud at each other than with getting kids the best placement for them?

[Anonymous]

No, you are not the only one who couldn't care less about this. I sent both of my kids to school on time - one who was just past the cut off and who I could have argued should have been admitted anyway, and one with a mid-summer birthday. I assume those who push a kid ahead or hold a kid back have legitimate reasons for doing so. I assume my children's school performance depends on them, us and the school, not who else is (or isn't) in the class.