Speak up (to your school) if you are worried about all the redshirting

[Anonymous]

"Emotional IQ" ????

Wow. And I thought I had heard everything......

[Anonymous]

One of Maret's K classes had at least 3 7 year olds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since there appear to be a bunch of parents who are overly concerned about red-shirting, then I propose we eliminate all special resource teachers at school. Our children has never needed one. I frankly have no idea who they are at our Big 5 School, though I have no doubt they are excellent. I simply do not want to pay for them through tuition increases. If a child requires special resource teachers, the chilld probably should not be at that school. BTW. Redshirting may be one means to avoid the need to special resource teachers.

Teacher here...

Are you serious? I have consulted with our resource staff on EVERY student in my grade. Just because your child isn't receiving pull-out or push-in support doesn't mean they aren't be supported by these members of the staff. Obviously, some get more than others, but that is how it works! We promote equity, not equality. Not every kid needs the same thing. Some will get more attention, some less. Some will take honors classes, some will take regular ones. If you want a one-size-fits-none model, go for it. But you'll be crying a different tune when your child doesn't get the individualized attention you want.

This is the same privileged attitude that causes so many problem in independents. Everyone wants what they want but doesn't want to deal with the drawbacks. Newsflash: life doesn't work that way, even if you've managed to avoid dealing with the consequences of most of your actions. You choose an independent and some of your money is going to resource staff, which may disproportionately support other students more than yours (though yours is no doubt getting some benefits from their presence there). If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That was one of the reasons we left our expensive, well-regarded school for a less-known one. Every time I volunteered at the school I saw other kids getting special help, while my bright kids never got any individualized attention at all. Where's the fairness in that? When the school started a "learning center" and I dared to ask at a parent meeting why we needed one, I was given the same line -- that 70% of kids have learning issues at some point in their careers. That still doesn't make it a just use of limited private school resources, particularly when most of the parents are well able to hire tutors (which is what the parents at our current school do).

Teacher here...

Are you serious? So just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it wasn't happening? How about the fact that the program was designed in such a way so that your child didn't NEED special help? Are you really complaining about being part of the privileged majority? Oh, how sorry for you. First off, your child definitely got individualized attention. Unless you were in a crap school, it happened, and either you didn't see it or you didn't know what it looked like. Furthermore, how does the fact that something is needed by 70% of the students not make it worthwhile? Only 50% of the students use the girls bathroom... should we get rid of that, too? Should we get rid of the athletic facilities that only a small percentage of students take advantage of? Yes, some money goes to supporting less than 100% of the students. But do you know what the bulk of the money goes to? Supporting YOUR kid. Your kid is the beneficiary of a system designed so that he/she doesn't NEED extra help. Your child gets to succeed because the environment was set up with him/her in mind and for him/her to succeed. And you have the gall to gripe because others less privileged than you (and I don't mean in the financial sense) are getting some help to succeed as well? Shame on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Emotional IQ" ????

Wow. And I thought I had heard everything......

Wow. You are uninformed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That was one of the reasons we left our expensive, well-regarded school for a less-known one. Every time I volunteered at the school I saw other kids getting special help, while my bright kids never got any individualized attention at all. Where's the fairness in that?

I know what you mean! At my kid's private school one time, I saw this kid who was having trouble beathing, and a teacher performed the Heimlich maneuver on him.. I mean, come on! My kid didn't get one -- how unfair was THAT???

LOL. The anti-redshirters are clueless of the pain that parents who have to make this choice go through. They are just making assumptions about other people's motivations without facts. Emotional IQ of the child plus speech and language delays were the 100% reasons for our choice. I won't tell you that if you rudely demand to know why my 7 year old was in your kindergarten. He would have been lost, really brutally lost had he been in first grade. He is doing so much better because of it.

Nosy, mean, competitive bitches.

Teacher here...

I wouldn't classify this situation as redshirting perse, because your child had diagnosable needs. I don't know that the chosen path was necessarily the best one, but this is a situation where I would consider it a potential viable option because the child has identified, diagnosed needs. The issue stems from parents who simply don't want their child to struggle, want to give them an edge, or otherwise can't stand to have little Johnny or little Jenny not be the star of the show. Those are the ones most people are talking about here. Again, I still don't think it was the best course of action for your child, since the short-term gains will likely be outweighed by long-term complications, but I don't know the specifics enough to comment beyond that.

[Anonymous]

@teacher

Thank you for your participation and feedback.

[Anonymous]

It is sad that all these parents preemptively flunk their children to prevent them from being anthing less than the star of their class.

[Anonymous]

#23:24

But how do youknow from the outside whether parents had a legitimate reason for keeping their kids back a year, or were just doing it to gain an edge?

If people are seeing 3 7-year olds in their child's K class this May, how do they know those kids weren't kept back for legitimate reasons?

[Anonymous]

"Emotional IQ" and "social immaturity" are 2010 versions of BS that people are using to justify pre-flunking their kids. This has been such an eye-opening forum to experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:#23:24

But how do youknow from the outside whether parents had a legitimate reason for keeping their kids back a year, or were just doing it to gain an edge?

If people are seeing 3 7-year olds in their child's K class this May, how do they know those kids weren't kept back for legitimate reasons?

Because there are very, very few legitimate reasons to hold a child back. If a child has legitimate reasons to not be in the class that his/her chronological age would dictate, than it usually means he/she needs support beyond just being older. A typical, single-age class should have a 12-month age span. This means a 24-month developmental span. Teachers should be prepared to differentiate for this range. If a child is up to 6-months below grade level, they should still be in that class. Beyond that, they need more support. Just having them be older won't correct for or adjust the issues the child is facing. The frequency with which we're seeing these older kids in classes simply doesn't fit with what developmental profiles dictate.

I say this as a teacher leading a program designed to give kids "extra time". Essentially, the program is one giant redshirt. I see these kids go onto Kindergarten and continue to struggle, because there needs are still not being met. They have legitimate learning issues, language issues, or social-emotional struggles that are not being met by simply waiting for them to "grow out of it". They need additional support or a different learning environment. They don't need to just be older.

[Anonymous]

I still fail to see that redshirting is a big issue. If a kid is redshirted and still requires substantial special resources, then the school certainly might suggest private tutoring and/or perhaps another school. But my guess is that redshirted kids tend not to require a many special resources as other kids. A problem here is that very very few of the private schools do an adequate job of differentiating kids. We have toured almost all of the private schools in DC and inner burbs on multiple times. The best school at differentiating is Norwood by far. Frankly, the MC public schools do a substantial job of it, and we have personal experience with that. The private schools seem to be afraid of differentiating kids especially at the younger grades,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still fail to see that redshirting is a big issue. If a kid is redshirted and still requires substantial special resources, then the school certainly might suggest private tutoring and/or perhaps another school. But my guess is that redshirted kids tend not to require a many special resources as other kids. A problem here is that very very few of the private schools do an adequate job of differentiating kids. We have toured almost all of the private schools in DC and inner burbs on multiple times. The best school at differentiating is Norwood by far. Frankly, the MC public schools do a substantial job of it, and we have personal experience with that. The private schools seem to be afraid of differentiating kids especially at the younger grades,

This is one benefit of Norwood in our view, to be sure. We assumed all/most private schools differentiated in similar ways, but learned otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That was one of the reasons we left our expensive, well-regarded school for a less-known one. Every time I volunteered at the school I saw other kids getting special help, while my bright kids never got any individualized attention at all. Where's the fairness in that? When the school started a "learning center" and I dared to ask at a parent meeting why we needed one, I was given the same line -- that 70% of kids have learning issues at some point in their careers. That still doesn't make it a just use of limited private school resources, particularly when most of the parents are well able to hire tutors (which is what the parents at our current school do).

You are so brave, asking about the learning center. I'm sure all the parents got entertainment value from your standing up to announce that since your child didn't ever need extra help being so bright and everything, that there was no reason for the school to have such resources. Such a generous spirit.

My DC doesn't do sports. Maybe I should complain about all that money spent on athletic resources. Waste of limited funds as far as I'm concerned.

Can't let you get away with this idea that there are bright kids versus the kids who need extra help. When i was in school I struggled with a foreign language and -- gasp -- needed tutoring. I guess everyone was too stupid back then to realize that meant I wasn't bright because I got into Yale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Because there are very, very few legitimate reasons to hold a child back. If a child has legitimate reasons to not be in the class that his/her chronological age would dictate, than it usually means he/she needs support beyond just being older. A typical, single-age class should have a 12-month age span. This means a 24-month developmental span. Teachers should be prepared to differentiate for this range. If a child is up to 6-months below grade level, they should still be in that class. Beyond that, they need more support. Just having them be older won't correct for or adjust the issues the child is facing. The frequency with which we're seeing these older kids in classes simply doesn't fit with what developmental profiles dictate.

I say this as a teacher leading a program designed to give kids "extra time". Essentially, the program is one giant redshirt. I see these kids go onto Kindergarten and continue to struggle, because there needs are still not being met. They have legitimate learning issues, language issues, or social-emotional struggles that are not being met by simply waiting for them to "grow out of it". They need additional support or a different learning environment. They don't need to just be older.

Well, at first glance that sounds convincing. But I went back and looked at what (I presume you) said to a person whose child had "diagnosable" learning issues -- which you agreed were legitimate reasons to consider holding a child back.

Essentially those diagnosable reasons were speech and language delays, and one would presume otehr children have diagnosable motor skill delays. As these things develop on a continuum, some child will always be at the delayed end of speech development or motor skills development, no?