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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not always. It depends when they learn to read and all that. Mine was reading very young, so if mine started reading at 3.5, and another started at 5, then started school at 6, they really don't have more exposure vs. a child who was an early reader and parents worked on academics plus strong preschool

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We considered skipping a grade (from oldest to youngest in grade) and we got a lot of advice that age in junior high/high school would be an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sounds like you think grouping by ability would be better than the arbitrary age grouping.

[Anonymous]

Seriously -- it is a puberty issue more than anything else. Go look at kids in the 7th, 8th and 9th grades. Heck, just call your local middle school, and ask the Principal -- "Can you tell which kids started K as 4s? The answer will be -- "Obviously Yes". Those kids will be way more immature, physically and emotionally, than their classmates. They will struggle with friendships, sports, and socially through high school. That is why you do not do it if you can avoid it at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seriously -- it is a puberty issue more than anything else. Go look at kids in the 7th, 8th and 9th grades. Heck, just call your local middle school, and ask the Principal -- "Can you tell which kids started K as 4s? The answer will be -- "Obviously Yes". Those kids will be way more immature, physically and emotionally, than their classmates. They will struggle with friendships, sports, and socially through high school. That is why you do not do it if you can avoid it at all.

This is exactly why I don't understand why redshirting is so uncommon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I assume pp means her child turned 5 in June and they sent her to k at age 5. Therefore, she is on the younger side for the class.

Op, it's already been said, but most kids will turn 6 in Kindergarten. Redshirting a fall birthday child means they would already be 6 when they enter K, and turn 7 right at the beginning of the school year. That seems like a significant difference--your 7 year old would be in class with 5 year olds. You're asking why people don't do that? Because it's not how we do school here. 7 year olds will have a hard time making friends with 5 year olds, or their maturity level will be brought down to the 5yo level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Redshirting a child doesn’t make them smarter, faster, or stronger. It’s just an optical illusion.

That "optical illusion" can open up a lot of doors in life.

Explain please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously -- it is a puberty issue more than anything else. Go look at kids in the 7th, 8th and 9th grades. Heck, just call your local middle school, and ask the Principal -- "Can you tell which kids started K as 4s? The answer will be -- "Obviously Yes". Those kids will be way more immature, physically and emotionally, than their classmates. They will struggle with friendships, sports, and socially through high school. That is why you do not do it if you can avoid it at all.

This is exactly why I don't understand why redshirting is so uncommon.

Wait. Pp. Starting K at age 4 = starting early.

Starting K at age 5 is normal.

Starting K at age 6 is redshirting.

So imo, the next logical step from. If 4 is too immune, why not start on time? Why jump to the conclusion that starting at 6 would be best?

[Anonymous]

Lord I have a lot of typos there.

If starting at age 4 makes for immature middle schoolers, then just start them on time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously -- it is a puberty issue more than anything else. Go look at kids in the 7th, 8th and 9th grades. Heck, just call your local middle school, and ask the Principal -- "Can you tell which kids started K as 4s? The answer will be -- "Obviously Yes". Those kids will be way more immature, physically and emotionally, than their classmates. They will struggle with friendships, sports, and socially through high school. That is why you do not do it if you can avoid it at all.

This is exactly why I don't understand why redshirting is so uncommon.

Wait. Pp. Starting K at age 4 = starting early.

Starting K at age 5 is normal.

Starting K at age 6 is redshirting.

So imo, the next logical step from. If 4 is too immune, why not start on time? Why jump to the conclusion that starting at 6 would be best?

For a kid with a fall, starting at them at 4 is starting them on time, while starting them at 6 is redshirting. Redshirting means starting K the year you turn 6 instead of the year you turn 5. What I'm asking is why almost every parent of fall-born kids send their kids to K at 4 instead of 5, when the the latter is more beneficial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lord I have a lot of typos there.

If starting at age 4 makes for immature middle schoolers, then just start them on time.

If a kid was born in the fall, starting at 4 would be starting on time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Redshirting a child doesn’t make them smarter, faster, or stronger. It’s just an optical illusion.

That "optical illusion" can open up a lot of doors in life.

Explain please.

Colleges and employers don't care about age, even though it makes a difference. No Ivy League is going to look at an 18 year old's application and go, "Well, this student's grades and test scores are off the chart, but that's only because they're a year older. If they were the same age as the other candidates, they wouldn't qualify for this university." No 6-figure-salary employer is going to look at the application of someone who graduated high school at 18 and college at 22 and go, "Well, this candidate is more qualified for our position than anyone else, but if had graduated high school at 17 and college at 21, this wouldn't be the case."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously -- it is a puberty issue more than anything else. Go look at kids in the 7th, 8th and 9th grades. Heck, just call your local middle school, and ask the Principal -- "Can you tell which kids started K as 4s? The answer will be -- "Obviously Yes". Those kids will be way more immature, physically and emotionally, than their classmates. They will struggle with friendships, sports, and socially through high school. That is why you do not do it if you can avoid it at all.

This is exactly why I don't understand why redshirting is so uncommon.

Wait. Pp. Starting K at age 4 = starting early.

Starting K at age 5 is normal.

Starting K at age 6 is redshirting.

So imo, the next logical step from. If 4 is too immune, why not start on time? Why jump to the conclusion that starting at 6 would be best?

For a kid with a fall, starting at them at 4 is starting them on time, while starting them at 6 is redshirting. Redshirting means starting K the year you turn 6 instead of the year you turn 5. What I'm asking is why almost every parent of fall-born kids send their kids to K at 4 instead of 5, when the the latter is more beneficial.

You are saying it's normal (on time) for a child who is born in Sept/Oct/Nov to start K at age 4 and turn 5 at the beginning of the school year. That's not typical where I live.

Everyone starts K the year they turn 6.

You are 100% certain that where you live, kids start K the year they turn 5?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Redshirting a child doesn’t make them smarter, faster, or stronger. It’s just an optical illusion.

That "optical illusion" can open up a lot of doors in life.

Explain please.

Colleges and employers don't care about age, even though it makes a difference. No Ivy League is going to look at an 18 year old's application and go, "Well, this student's grades and test scores are off the chart, but that's only because they're a year older. If they were the same age as the other candidates, they wouldn't qualify for this university." No 6-figure-salary employer is going to look at the application of someone who graduated high school at 18 and college at 22 and go, "Well, this candidate is more qualified for our position than anyone else, but if had graduated high school at 17 and college at 21, this wouldn't be the case."

+1 which is why redshirting is not going to " open doors. "

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I assume pp means her child turned 5 in June and they sent her to k at age 5. Therefore, she is on the younger side for the class.

Op, it's already been said, but most kids will turn 6 in Kindergarten. Redshirting a fall birthday child means they would already be 6 when they enter K, and turn 7 right at the beginning of the school year. That seems like a significant difference--your 7 year old would be in class with 5 year olds. You're asking why people don't do that? Because it's not how we do school here. 7 year olds will have a hard time making friends with 5 year olds, or their maturity level will be brought down to the 5yo level.

People need to be clear about their cut offs for their school district when asking questions. Otherwise, it makes these discussions confusing. In most places its August-September, sometimes later, and rarely 12/31. Where I live, like many places, it's 9/1. I have 2 kids with fall birthdays, after the 9/1 cutoff. They both will be/were 5 just about to turn 6 at the start of kindergarten, they are not too old, they are the correct age. And nobody is holding these kids back until they are 7. There are also no 4 year olds starting kindergarten in any of the states I've most recently lived in, this is just not common anymore as the cutoff gets earlier and earlier. . People are posting here like the rules in their state are the rules everywhere and there is a lot of regional variation and no "default" like June birthdays being among the oldest. That has never been true anywhere I have lived and I move around a lot.