Genuinely don't get why redshirting in K is allowed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting because the research seems to be showing that it actually doesn't help kids that much and may harm them somewhat in the long run. Yet parents continue to do it because they think their child is getting some kind of mysterious advantage. It seems like a short sighted thing to do.

Interesting. You're continuing to assume that you can determine the motivation for someone else's actions. That's quite a talent.

I've seen the research that shows kids who are oldest in their class might not end up being the academic superstars. Isn't it shocking that kids whose parents felt they weren't ready to start school on time tend (in general) to not be academic superstars?

My son with a summer birthday was very late to talk and socially immature. I do think holding him back was a good move - even though he was academically out of step with his classmates. He would have been out of step with the grade ahead both socially and academically. His first grade teacher commented at his conference that at first she'd thought we had him in the wrong grade - but she'd concluded that he was clearly very happy and we had made the right choice.

[Anonymous]

I had a kid who was in the sixth percentile for height and weight for years, even though she was academically very bright. There were times in kindergarten, first and second grade that I actually worried that she would get hurt because some of the kids were so much bigger than she was.
I also had kids who were at the extreme ends of the bell curve in terms of maturing late. One daughter got her period when she was 16. I think the humiliation and embarrassment of not having boobs, etc. in tenth grade was probably greater since there were kids getting their periods in fifth grade -- and it wasn't because of hormones in the chicken, etc. but rather because they were 12 years old in fifth grade.

In short, I think that the kids who are really small for their age or who mature late can be somewhat affected by routinely being in classes with kids so much bigger and older than they are. And yes, you could have said we should have held our kids back but 1. we couldn't afford the extra years of daycare and 2. we kept thinking our kids would mature and join the rest of the pack but they never did -- until 11th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think there's too broad a definition of special needs when I hear from my sister, who's a speech pathologist in an elementary school, that nearly every kid come in now with some kind of an IEP. Kind of takes away from the kids with legitimate needs to cater to the kids who just never learned to sit still or follow directions.

Your sister is a speech pathologist. It should not be surprising that most kids who see your sister, the speech pathologist, have an IEP.

To clarify, not every kid who comes in to see her, just the number of kids she sees vs the number of kids in the school seems like a absurdly high percentage

[Anonymous]

Why is it not ok for your kid to experience some discomfort? Adversity builds character. So let your kid be the smallest in class or a bit behind, they will learn from this and become more resilient adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had a kid who was in the sixth percentile for height and weight for years, even though she was academically very bright. There were times in kindergarten, first and second grade that I actually worried that she would get hurt because some of the kids were so much bigger than she was.
I also had kids who were at the extreme ends of the bell curve in terms of maturing late. One daughter got her period when she was 16. I think the humiliation and embarrassment of not having boobs, etc. in tenth grade was probably greater since there were kids getting their periods in fifth grade -- and it wasn't because of hormones in the chicken, etc. but rather because they were 12 years old in fifth grade.

In short, I think that the kids who are really small for their age or who mature late can be somewhat affected by routinely being in classes with kids so much bigger and older than they are. And yes, you could have said we should have held our kids back but 1. we couldn't afford the extra years of daycare and 2. we kept thinking our kids would mature and join the rest of the pack but they never did -- until 11th grade.

You're not saying that Kid A should go to kindergarten at 5, regardless, because Kid B is small/late-maturing -- are you?

Are kids affected by the other kids in their class? Yes. But should Parent A make their decision based on what's best for Kid A, or on what's best for Kid B? I think that Parent A should make their decision based on what's best for Kid A.

(And in case you think I'm being self-justifying -- I'm not. I have a Kid B, small AND the youngest in the class.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is it not ok for your kid to experience some discomfort? Adversity builds character. So let your kid be the smallest in class or a bit behind, they will learn from this and become more resilient adults.

Unless they are not resilient kids. Then they'll be scarred for life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People should leave redshirting parents alone. They know better than anyone if their child is incapable of handling a Kindergarten class. I would prefer that when my child goes to Kindergarten they are not in class with a bunch of kids who cannot manage being there.

If your child is in no shape to go to Kindergarten, keep them out for another year.

Cannot "manage" being there? What does that even mean? There will be more mature kids and less mature kids. There will be academically advanced kids, and academically behind kids. There is no way to create a 'fair' system of clones with identical abilities, despite what redshirting parents claim to think.

Most do it to try to get their kid a leg up.

I don't know any family that has ever said that. So my conclusion has always been that although their child is chronologically ready that child is unable to handle being in a Kindergarten class with peers. They often need an extra year in a preschool classroom to get them ready.

NP here. I know multiple parents who have said, "I want my child to be a leader." And they have held back children of typical/average maturity and intellect for their age. I know these children and have families, and they would have been fine in Kindergarten. Maybe not a superstar, but fine. I do not think these people should be able to hold back. There should be some sort of standard, for example written documentation from the preschool teacher, doctor, psychologist, or developmental specialist. I absolutely know children who have been held back purely to give them what the parents perceive as an advantage, which really skews the standards and dynamics of a classroom. I understand there are some very immature children who would benefit from being held back. So having a system where there are exceptions for these might make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know why parents do it - to skew things to their kid's advantage. School systems allow it based on the precedent that, in very rare cases especially special needs, it is needed.

Exactly. And there should be documented proof that it's needed (in cases of serious special needs - not because it would marginally benefit the child).

Yes. The school system should require testing to prove a need to hold back.

Fine with me - my pediatrician was prepared to write a letter if need be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So much nonsense in this thread. I chose not to send my five year old to kindergarten. Why? It's none of your business. I had a reason and it wasn't to gain a competitive advantage over your kid. We don't approach education as a competition. It's pitiful to see adults worrying about another child having an advantage in kindergarten. What are you afraid is going to happen to your child?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much nonsense in this thread. I chose not to send my five year old to kindergarten. Why? It's none of your business. I had a reason and it wasn't to gain a competitive advantage over your kid. We don't approach education as a competition. It's pitiful to see adults worrying about another child having an advantage in kindergarten. What are you afraid is going to happen to your child?

+1

What are YOU afraid is going to happen to YOUR child if they start on time?

[Anonymous]

I cannot believe there is ANOTHER thread about this subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much nonsense in this thread. I chose not to send my five year old to kindergarten. Why? It's none of your business. I had a reason and it wasn't to gain a competitive advantage over your kid. We don't approach education as a competition. It's pitiful to see adults worrying about another child having an advantage in kindergarten. What are you afraid is going to happen to your child?

+1

What are YOU afraid is going to happen to YOUR child if they start on time?

+1 I think CA started requiring a Ped's note or possibly from Prek teacher if you want to hold the child back. This should be the norm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much nonsense in this thread. I chose not to send my five year old to kindergarten. Why? It's none of your business. I had a reason and it wasn't to gain a competitive advantage over your kid. We don't approach education as a competition. It's pitiful to see adults worrying about another child having an advantage in kindergarten. What are you afraid is going to happen to your child?

+1

What are YOU afraid is going to happen to YOUR child if they start on time?

+1 I think CA started requiring a Ped's note or possibly from Prek teacher if you want to hold the child back. This should be the norm.

2 years ago NY started requiring permission from the principle for a child to be held back from K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much nonsense in this thread. I chose not to send my five year old to kindergarten. Why? It's none of your business. I had a reason and it wasn't to gain a competitive advantage over your kid. We don't approach education as a competition. It's pitiful to see adults worrying about another child having an advantage in kindergarten. What are you afraid is going to happen to your child?

+1

What are YOU afraid is going to happen to YOUR child if they start on time?

+1 I think CA started requiring a Ped's note or possibly from Prek teacher if you want to hold the child back. This should be the norm.

2 years ago NY started requiring permission from the principle for a child to be held back from K.

and we would have had no problem obtaining permission. not every kid was held back for some kind of advantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much nonsense in this thread. I chose not to send my five year old to kindergarten. Why? It's none of your business. I had a reason and it wasn't to gain a competitive advantage over your kid. We don't approach education as a competition. It's pitiful to see adults worrying about another child having an advantage in kindergarten. What are you afraid is going to happen to your child?

+1

What are YOU afraid is going to happen to YOUR child if they start on time?

+1 I think CA started requiring a Ped's note or possibly from Prek teacher if you want to hold the child back. This should be the norm.

2 years ago NY started requiring permission from the principle for a child to be held back from K.

and we would have had no problem obtaining permission. not every kid was held back for some kind of advantage.

We get it, and we do not disagree. But I posted earlier, that many children are held back because the parents think it would be to their advantage. The reason this affects my child, is because my summer boy would no longer be just one year younger than his peers. Instead, he will be with children more than one year older, which is not what is intended by the cut off dates. My child will be significantly shorter, or perhaps SEEM less well behaved in Kindergarten, when in reality is the age he is supposed to be. But he will be compared to other children more than one year older, SOME (I understand this is not the case with all) who are completely normal/typical children who could have just as well done Kindergarten the year before.