Redshirting - now available in the UK!

[Anonymous]

At one point there will be 8 year olds in kindergarten. It's ridiculous.

I can't think of one red-shirted child in my child's class that has any sort of developmental delay. It's just that their parents want them to have an advantage over other children.

It's unfair to those of us whom have decided that we don't want to red-shirt our kids.

All of these parents say oh my kid is immature, yeah, five year olds are supposed to be immature. They just need to own it and admit that they want to give their kid a huge advantage and boost in self esteem by doing better in school than children whom are much younger than them. It's ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At one point there will be 8 year olds in kindergarten. It's ridiculous.

I can't think of one red-shirted child in my child's class that has any sort of developmental delay. It's just that their parents want them to have an advantage over other children.

It's unfair to those of us whom have decided that we don't want to red-shirt our kids.

All of these parents say oh my kid is immature, yeah, five year olds are supposed to be immature. They just need to own it and admit that they want to give their kid a huge advantage and boost in self esteem by doing better in school than children whom are much younger than them. It's ridiculous.

Eh the same thing was going on when I was in elementary school and I don't think the children have an advantage outside of sports. I don't think it's anymore advantageous than taking a gap year before stating your freshman year of college.

If anything I think it would suck to be so old when graduating high school and college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At one point there will be 8 year olds in kindergarten. It's ridiculous.

I can't think of one red-shirted child in my child's class that has any sort of developmental delay. It's just that their parents want them to have an advantage over other children.

It's unfair to those of us whom have decided that we don't want to red-shirt our kids.

All of these parents say oh my kid is immature, yeah, five year olds are supposed to be immature. They just need to own it and admit that they want to give their kid a huge advantage and boost in self esteem by doing better in school than children whom are much younger than them. It's ridiculous.

What's really bothering me about a lot of the anti-redshirting parents is that there reasons for being against redshirting have nothing to do with how it harms the redshirted child, but rather how it harms THEIR child. My son has an August birthday, and I saw absolutely no reason to redshirt him, as I felt he was ready and that holding holding him back would just make him bored and stunt his development. I also didn't want to delay his entry into the real world for no good reason. Not wanting him to have an unfair advantage over his classmates was NOT one of my reasons. If I thought that redshirting him would have benefited him somehow, I would have done it. As parents, it's our job to do what's best for our child, not other people's children. If you're against redshirting because you think it affects the redshirted child, then I'm all ears, but many of these parents made it clear that they felt redshirting would negatively affect their child, and didn't say anything about how it would negatively affect the redshirted child. If you don't think redshirting has any negative affect on the redshirted child, then it is selfish for you to be against it. If you feel like other parents redshirting puts your child at a disadvantage, you also have the option of redshirting. To sum it up, if you're against redshirting, you have to think of ways in which it negatively affects the redshirted child, and if you don't think redshirting has any negative affects on the redshirted child, you have no reason to be against it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At one point there will be 8 year olds in kindergarten. It's ridiculous.

I can't think of one red-shirted child in my child's class that has any sort of developmental delay. It's just that their parents want them to have an advantage over other children.

It's unfair to those of us whom have decided that we don't want to red-shirt our kids.

All of these parents say oh my kid is immature, yeah, five year olds are supposed to be immature. They just need to own it and admit that they want to give their kid a huge advantage and boost in self esteem by doing better in school than children whom are much younger than them. It's ridiculous.

What's really bothering me about a lot of the anti-redshirting parents is that there reasons for being against redshirting have nothing to do with how it harms the redshirted child, but rather how it harms THEIR child. My son has an August birthday, and I saw absolutely no reason to redshirt him, as I felt he was ready and that holding holding him back would just make him bored and stunt his development. I also didn't want to delay his entry into the real world for no good reason. Not wanting him to have an unfair advantage over his classmates was NOT one of my reasons. If I thought that redshirting him would have benefited him somehow, I would have done it. As parents, it's our job to do what's best for our child, not other people's children. If you're against redshirting because you think it affects the redshirted child, then I'm all ears, but many of these parents made it clear that they felt redshirting would negatively affect their child, and didn't say anything about how it would negatively affect the redshirted child. If you don't think redshirting has any negative affect on the redshirted child, then it is selfish for you to be against it. If you feel like other parents redshirting puts your child at a disadvantage, you also have the option of redshirting. To sum it up, if you're against redshirting, you have to think of ways in which it negatively affects the redshirted child, and if you don't think redshirting has any negative affects on the redshirted child, you have no reason to be against it.

Some people want to follow the rules. When someone points out that your rule-bending negatively affects them, the correct answer should
not be to tell them to bend the rules too.

[Anonymous]

Is this news?

I grew up in London and the rules are the same as here for redshirting (called hold backs though).

[Anonymous]

I don't get the snark either. I wish I'd either red shirted my child or had him do K twice. When he finished his K year, he had no idea what grade he was in, nor did he know the next grade was called first grade. All that he knew is that he went to school. He would never have noticed he did K twice or if he had entered it late. He simply had no idea how the world worked in way that other 5 and 6 year olds did, and that deficit persisted for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At one point there will be 8 year olds in kindergarten. It's ridiculous.

I can't think of one red-shirted child in my child's class that has any sort of developmental delay. It's just that their parents want them to have an advantage over other children.

It's unfair to those of us whom have decided that we don't want to red-shirt our kids.

All of these parents say oh my kid is immature, yeah, five year olds are supposed to be immature. They just need to own it and admit that they want to give their kid a huge advantage and boost in self esteem by doing better in school than children whom are much younger than them. It's ridiculous.

What's really bothering me about a lot of the anti-redshirting parents is that there reasons for being against redshirting have nothing to do with how it harms the redshirted child, but rather how it harms THEIR child. My son has an August birthday, and I saw absolutely no reason to redshirt him, as I felt he was ready and that holding holding him back would just make him bored and stunt his development. I also didn't want to delay his entry into the real world for no good reason. Not wanting him to have an unfair advantage over his classmates was NOT one of my reasons. If I thought that redshirting him would have benefited him somehow, I would have done it. As parents, it's our job to do what's best for our child, not other people's children. If you're against redshirting because you think it affects the redshirted child, then I'm all ears, but many of these parents made it clear that they felt redshirting would negatively affect their child, and didn't say anything about how it would negatively affect the redshirted child. If you don't think redshirting has any negative affect on the redshirted child, then it is selfish for you to be against it. If you feel like other parents redshirting puts your child at a disadvantage, you also have the option of redshirting. To sum it up, if you're against redshirting, you have to think of ways in which it negatively affects the redshirted child, and if you don't think redshirting has any negative affects on the redshirted child, you have no reason to be against it.

Some people want to follow the rules. When someone points out that your rule-bending negatively affects them, the correct answer should
not be to tell them to bend the rules too.

I just said that I didn't redshirt my son. But my reasons were because I felt it would harm him (he would be bored, his start in life would be delayed, he'd go through puberty before everybody, etc).