mad - kid in kindergarten has late birthday

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in an area that did half grades in the period from the 1930s-1950s or so. I’ve never seen a full explanation for it, but the concept was that everyone was grouped in 6 month cohorts instead of year-long cohorts. It was before mandatory kindergarten.

I think it would be better for kids like the ones that are not quite ready for K but would be bored by the spring of a repeated PreK year, but I’m sure redshirting would mess that up, too. But anyway: imagine some kids starting K in September and others starting in Feb/March.

In the 1950s my mom sent me to private kindergarten at age 4, my birthday was in November. The next year she kept me home because I wasn't old enough for first grade at Chesterbrook in Fairfax. When I went to first grade the next year they moved me up to second grade within a month because I could already read. I was in a split class, first and second grade, and I did math with the first graders for awhile, but ultimately moved on to third after that year. That was a different era, obviously, but they did use some unique solutions. Being among the youngest in every grade was a total non issue for me.

I think "being the youngest" as only become an issue more recently as hyper-competitive parenting has come into vogue and the idea that your child might not be able to "compete" if they are a little younger has taken hold.

I remember I graduated high school with several people who turned 18 the summer or fall after graduation, and that group included top students and athletes who went on to impressive colleges and had great careers. I just don't remember there being an attitude that a summer birthday, and starting school on the younger side for the grade, was a liability.

I also can't think of a single person I graduated with who was already 18 when we started senior year. There might have been one in the grade above me? I do not think it was common. People started kindergarten at 5 and graduated high school at 17 or 18 and while of course there were kids who needed help with certain things (I do recall SpEd pullouts for things and I had a close friend who went to OT every week for years to help deal with ADD and other challenges) but the assumption was that there was a mean and then variations on the mean, and that was normal and fine. There wasn't this attitude like you better do whatever you can to make sure your kid comes out on top. It just wasn't conceptualized that way.

I have a youngest. It's made them work harder and put more into figuring it out. They had significant delays. Instead of complaining or holding back we spent many years in all kinds of therapies and supports and years later it paid off and child is fine. A child who needs SpEd would need it regardless of what grade they are in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When did doing the best thing for your own child become disadvantaging everyone else?

When doing the right thing for your kid has reverberations through high school. What do you think happens in high school senior year when the 17 year old and 18.25 year old are competing for same spot or playing time on the varsity team? If you don’t think this is a big deal, I encourage you to have your child go permanently compete against kids that are 1.25 years older in whatever EC your kid cares about. Please report back.

Again, there are legit reasons to redshirt. But when your redshirted kid shows up dominating in ECs because he’s competing down, well, that’s crappy.

How about competing against kids that had private tutors and private instructors throughout their lives? Or kids that were born super tall or super muscular? Life isn’t fair! I was a great swimmer throughout middle school. Won several state championships. Then I stopped growing and wasn’t tall enough for swimming anymore. What did I do wrong? I trained harder than anyone, but I am not tall… life in unfair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, a LOT of people redshirted young kids during Covid and I don’t blame anyone for doing what they thought was best for their kid. Others make their choice for a variety of other reasons.

Current kindergarteners were toddlers during COVID, school COVID closures have nothing to do with those redshirting choices.

That said, it's even odds that he got held back for developmental/behavioral/medical reasons, and not just parent choice. No way to know unless the parents have told you, so seems premature to be angry over it.

Exactly, and all schools have been fully in person for over two years.

Who cares what the reasons are? You may never hear the real reason so arguing over whether a supposed reason is legit or not is pointless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When did doing the best thing for your own child become disadvantaging everyone else?

When doing the right thing for your kid has reverberations through high school. What do you think happens in high school senior year when the 17 year old and 18.25 year old are competing for same spot or playing time on the varsity team? If you don’t think this is a big deal, I encourage you to have your child go permanently compete against kids that are 1.25 years older in whatever EC your kid cares about. Please report back.

Again, there are legit reasons to redshirt. But when your redshirted kid shows up dominating in ECs because he’s competing down, well, that’s crappy.

How about competing against kids that had private tutors and private instructors throughout their lives? Or kids that were born super tall or super muscular? Life isn’t fair! I was a great swimmer throughout middle school. Won several state championships. Then I stopped growing and wasn’t tall enough for swimming anymore. What did I do wrong? I trained harder than anyone, but I am not tall… life in unfair.

I love the PPs getting extra mad over the idea that some kids at private school might have a slight advantage over other over privileged kids at the same private school. Do they even hear themselves? Finally they found something their money can't fix and they are steamed over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When did doing the best thing for your own child become disadvantaging everyone else?

When doing the right thing for your kid has reverberations through high school. What do you think happens in high school senior year when the 17 year old and 18.25 year old are competing for same spot or playing time on the varsity team? If you don’t think this is a big deal, I encourage you to have your child go permanently compete against kids that are 1.25 years older in whatever EC your kid cares about. Please report back.

Again, there are legit reasons to redshirt. But when your redshirted kid shows up dominating in ECs because he’s competing down, well, that’s crappy.

If you think extending what is normally a 12 month age range by a few months, for a handful of kids who would otherwise be the youngest in their grade, is that much of a disadvantage to your own kid, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Those few months are actually a really big deal in all facets of life. And if a few months aren’t a big why redshirt in the first place? If it’s perfectly fine for 17 to go against 18.25, then it’s more than fine for 17.25 to go against 18. You can’t have it both ways.

Anyways, Malcolm Gladwell popularized the issue and showed made popular a study that showed those few extra months were in fact a big deal.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/allthemoms/2019/01/14/january-babies-more-likely-famous-and-other-reasons-for-them-to-brag/2571364002/#

If you don’t understand what a big difference it is to be 17 vs 18.25 in pretty much every area of human development, then I truly feel sorry for you and your kid.

Feel free to try this out for yourself: sign your kid up for ECs against kids that are one grade up from her true age and report back on the results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its not normal to have a 7 year old April birthday in first grade, but its even less normal to be mad at it.

+1

Btw op, I know someone who held her March kids back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When did doing the best thing for your own child become disadvantaging everyone else?

When doing the right thing for your kid has reverberations through high school. What do you think happens in high school senior year when the 17 year old and 18.25 year old are competing for same spot or playing time on the varsity team? If you don’t think this is a big deal, I encourage you to have your child go permanently compete against kids that are 1.25 years older in whatever EC your kid cares about. Please report back.

Again, there are legit reasons to redshirt. But when your redshirted kid shows up dominating in ECs because he’s competing down, well, that’s crappy.

By the time they’re 16+ the star athlete kids are gonna be star athlete kids. If your kid is not a star athlete by that age just accept it, rather than blaming the parents of Billy for waiting until Billy was six years old to start kindergarten. And you know that kids come in all shapes and sizes regardless of age, don’t you? I know a kid who has always been off the charts tall, even when looking at charts for kids two years older than him. I wonder if people assume he’s always the oldest on the team, when in reality he is often one of the youngest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When did doing the best thing for your own child become disadvantaging everyone else?

When doing the right thing for your kid has reverberations through high school. What do you think happens in high school senior year when the 17 year old and 18.25 year old are competing for same spot or playing time on the varsity team? If you don’t think this is a big deal, I encourage you to have your child go permanently compete against kids that are 1.25 years older in whatever EC your kid cares about. Please report back.

Again, there are legit reasons to redshirt. But when your redshirted kid shows up dominating in ECs because he’s competing down, well, that’s crappy.

How about competing against kids that had private tutors and private instructors throughout their lives? Or kids that were born super tall or super muscular? Life isn’t fair! I was a great swimmer throughout middle school. Won several state championships. Then I stopped growing and wasn’t tall enough for swimming anymore. What did I do wrong? I trained harder than anyone, but I am not tall… life in unfair.

You’re 100% right that life isn’t fair! Little immature hold back Johnny shouldn’t be allowed to play high school sports his senior year if he was held back. After all, life isn’t fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When did doing the best thing for your own child become disadvantaging everyone else?

When doing the right thing for your kid has reverberations through high school. What do you think happens in high school senior year when the 17 year old and 18.25 year old are competing for same spot or playing time on the varsity team? If you don’t think this is a big deal, I encourage you to have your child go permanently compete against kids that are 1.25 years older in whatever EC your kid cares about. Please report back.

Again, there are legit reasons to redshirt. But when your redshirted kid shows up dominating in ECs because he’s competing down, well, that’s crappy.

If you think extending what is normally a 12 month age range by a few months, for a handful of kids who would otherwise be the youngest in their grade, is that much of a disadvantage to your own kid, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Those few months are actually a really big deal in all facets of life. And if a few months aren’t a big why redshirt in the first place? If it’s perfectly fine for 17 to go against 18.25, then it’s more than fine for 17.25 to go against 18. You can’t have it both ways.

Anyways, Malcolm Gladwell popularized the issue and showed made popular a study that showed those few extra months were in fact a big deal.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/allthemoms/2019/01/14/january-babies-more-likely-famous-and-other-reasons-for-them-to-brag/2571364002/#

If you don’t understand what a big difference it is to be 17 vs 18.25 in pretty much every area of human development, then I truly feel sorry for you and your kid.

Feel free to try this out for yourself: sign your kid up for ECs against kids that are one grade up from her true age and report back on the results.

+1

Consistently, the argument in favor of redshirting has two facets that are directly contradictory:

1) It's just a few months, it doesn't matter, it doesn't impact other kids negatively, and you should just MYOB and not worry about.

2) Redshirting my child was essential to their success and being a few months older rather than a few months younger made all the difference in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does it bother you? And how does it even remotely affect your kid? May be the kid was sick and missed starting on time, may be his parents took the year off enjoyed their time living on the beach. Whatever reason, it doesn’t really affect you.

Not OP but redshirting impacts the other kids in the cohort. You can claim up and down that it's just a personal choice and no one else's business, but if it actually had no impact on other kids, no one would complain about it.

The reason redshirting is controversial is that a lot of us have had experiences of our on time kids being in classrooms that were dysfunctional, had behavioral issues, or where behavioral expectations did not make sense for kids were were enrolled on the schedule the school set out as "on time." And at root of this was a number of redshirted kids in the classroom. It changes the school environment.

Most parents (including those that redshirt), if given the option of sending their kid to a kindergarten classroom where a substantial number of the kids are more than a year older than their kid, would be opposed. I mean, isn't this exactly the reasoning behind a lot of redshirting choices? They don't want their kid to be significantly younger than the oldest kids in class.

Well guess what, I don't want that either. But redshirting parents put me in a situation where in order to get that, I would have to redshirt. And at that point, why not just have all the kids start K at 6? But then you get the same problem all over again.

Redshirting parents, other than situation where a child has a serious delay or other extenuating circumstance, are cheating. They are ensuring their kids don't have to be in a classroom with kids 9-10 months older than them, and in so doing, they are forcing other people's kids to be in a classroom with kids who are 13+ months older. It's selfish and antisocial and that's why people don't like it. So go ahead and reshirt, but don't expect use to pat you on the back for it.

I don’t necessarily disagree with you about it being selfish and antisocial. At the same time, my observation is that no one else but parents are looking out for our kids.

My daughter is a September birthday and we may not live in this area long term. She is also likely to be extremely petite (presently 15th percentile, her cousin fell off the chart last year, and I’m barely 5’ ft).

So, who is going to prioritize her safety if she’s four in a class with six year olds? No one more than her parents. Who is going to make sure she’s positioned well if we move to a state with an earlier cutoff? Definitely not going to be anyone else's’ concern.

And so this is one of the times where what is best for our child may have to take priority for us, because it certainly will be only us making that a priority.

Hate to break it to you, but physical issues can happen regardless of age. My daughter went on time (April birthday so started kindergarten at 5.5) and was literally dragged around the playground in her kindergarten year by her friend who is 2 months older but 3 inches taller and at least 15 lbs heavier. Friend is a nice enough kid but plays rough, and my daughter wouldn't stand up for herself. And in the same year she and two boys in her class were attacked (hit from behind) on the playground by a second grader who had some kind of issues. Stuff happens.

Anyway this is just not that common. Maybe there will be two six year olds in a class of 15 (or around here, 25-30) but it's not going to be the entire class.

+1. My DD was redshirted (late august birthday with a Sept 1st cutoff) and was pushed around and even hit once in 3rd grade by a much bigger girl who was a few months younger (maybe even 6 months younger). Some girls start developing around 9 or so and become much bigger quickly. My DD (currently in 5th) is a late bloomer and many of her younger classmates are wearing bras and getting periods while she is still thin like a stick. Aggressive kids are aggressive no matter what age they are… and around 9 or so they all start growing at different speeds.

Yes it can still happen. But how much harm an aggressive six year old can do an extra-small four year old is less than what they can do an extra-small six year old.

This is our pediatricians perspective as well as he has seen much worse playground injuries coming from the wider range of ages in kindergarten, paired with children in those ages having poor impulse control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When did doing the best thing for your own child become disadvantaging everyone else?

When doing the right thing for your kid has reverberations through high school. What do you think happens in high school senior year when the 17 year old and 18.25 year old are competing for same spot or playing time on the varsity team? If you don’t think this is a big deal, I encourage you to have your child go permanently compete against kids that are 1.25 years older in whatever EC your kid cares about. Please report back.

Again, there are legit reasons to redshirt. But when your redshirted kid shows up dominating in ECs because he’s competing down, well, that’s crappy.

Ha! This is silly. In extracurriculars this doesn’t matter. I skipped a grade and graduated with kids who were significantly older. My kid swims competitively. It doesn’t matter how old the kindergartners are, they’re still going to be ranked by birth year regardless of school year — maybe have your kid do that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When did doing the best thing for your own child become disadvantaging everyone else?

When doing the right thing for your kid has reverberations through high school. What do you think happens in high school senior year when the 17 year old and 18.25 year old are competing for same spot or playing time on the varsity team? If you don’t think this is a big deal, I encourage you to have your child go permanently compete against kids that are 1.25 years older in whatever EC your kid cares about. Please report back.

Again, there are legit reasons to redshirt. But when your redshirted kid shows up dominating in ECs because he’s competing down, well, that’s crappy.

By the time they’re 16+ the star athlete kids are gonna be star athlete kids. If your kid is not a star athlete by that age just accept it, rather than blaming the parents of Billy for waiting until Billy was six years old to start kindergarten. And you know that kids come in all shapes and sizes regardless of age, don’t you? I know a kid who has always been off the charts tall, even when looking at charts for kids two years older than him. I wonder if people assume he’s always the oldest on the team, when in reality he is often one of the youngest.

It’s not just about the star athlete kids. Indeed, I think the star athlete kids aren’t really impacted by the age thing. They are outliers to begin with. But it does make a difference for the marginal players. I have a friend with a son who was on a good varsity basketball team. His senior year he split the starting position with another player and split playing time (getting about 1/3 of the starts and playing time). Great story, right? Until you find out the other kid was 16 months older and was held back. By any reasonable metric, the younger kid was better on an age-adjusted basis but he missed out because his competitor wasn’t ready for kinder 13 years ago. Tough pill to swallow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When did doing the best thing for your own child become disadvantaging everyone else?

When doing the right thing for your kid has reverberations through high school. What do you think happens in high school senior year when the 17 year old and 18.25 year old are competing for same spot or playing time on the varsity team? If you don’t think this is a big deal, I encourage you to have your child go permanently compete against kids that are 1.25 years older in whatever EC your kid cares about. Please report back.

Again, there are legit reasons to redshirt. But when your redshirted kid shows up dominating in ECs because he’s competing down, well, that’s crappy.

If you think extending what is normally a 12 month age range by a few months, for a handful of kids who would otherwise be the youngest in their grade, is that much of a disadvantage to your own kid, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Those few months are actually a really big deal in all facets of life. And if a few months aren’t a big why redshirt in the first place? If it’s perfectly fine for 17 to go against 18.25, then it’s more than fine for 17.25 to go against 18. You can’t have it both ways.

Anyways, Malcolm Gladwell popularized the issue and showed made popular a study that showed those few extra months were in fact a big deal.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/allthemoms/2019/01/14/january-babies-more-likely-famous-and-other-reasons-for-them-to-brag/2571364002/#

If you don’t understand what a big difference it is to be 17 vs 18.25 in pretty much every area of human development, then I truly feel sorry for you and your kid.

Feel free to try this out for yourself: sign your kid up for ECs against kids that are one grade up from her true age and report back on the results.

Most sports for young kids are by age not grade. People already know this and live it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When did doing the best thing for your own child become disadvantaging everyone else?

When doing the right thing for your kid has reverberations through high school. What do you think happens in high school senior year when the 17 year old and 18.25 year old are competing for same spot or playing time on the varsity team? If you don’t think this is a big deal, I encourage you to have your child go permanently compete against kids that are 1.25 years older in whatever EC your kid cares about. Please report back.

Again, there are legit reasons to redshirt. But when your redshirted kid shows up dominating in ECs because he’s competing down, well, that’s crappy.

Ha! This is silly. In extracurriculars this doesn’t matter. I skipped a grade and graduated with kids who were significantly older. My kid swims competitively. It doesn’t matter how old the kindergartners are, they’re still going to be ranked by birth year regardless of school year — maybe have your kid do that?

Silly goose! You skipped a grade which means you were an . . . Outlier. By definition the age thing wouldn’t necessarily be detrimental to you. Yes, a lot of youth sports correct for this problem through age-based competition but there are many youth sports that are grade based and high school sports are exclusively grade based. What is your solution there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When did doing the best thing for your own child become disadvantaging everyone else?

When doing the right thing for your kid has reverberations through high school. What do you think happens in high school senior year when the 17 year old and 18.25 year old are competing for same spot or playing time on the varsity team? If you don’t think this is a big deal, I encourage you to have your child go permanently compete against kids that are 1.25 years older in whatever EC your kid cares about. Please report back.

Again, there are legit reasons to redshirt. But when your redshirted kid shows up dominating in ECs because he’s competing down, well, that’s crappy.

By the time they’re 16+ the star athlete kids are gonna be star athlete kids. If your kid is not a star athlete by that age just accept it, rather than blaming the parents of Billy for waiting until Billy was six years old to start kindergarten. And you know that kids come in all shapes and sizes regardless of age, don’t you? I know a kid who has always been off the charts tall, even when looking at charts for kids two years older than him. I wonder if people assume he’s always the oldest on the team, when in reality he is often one of the youngest.

It’s not just about the star athlete kids. Indeed, I think the star athlete kids aren’t really impacted by the age thing. They are outliers to begin with. But it does make a difference for the marginal players. I have a friend with a son who was on a good varsity basketball team. His senior year he split the starting position with another player and split playing time (getting about 1/3 of the starts and playing time). Great story, right? Until you find out the other kid was 16 months older and was held back. By any reasonable metric, the younger kid was better on an age-adjusted basis but he missed out because his competitor wasn’t ready for kinder 13 years ago. Tough pill to swallow.

I will bet neither made it to the NBA. So what? Was he banking on a full ride basketball scholarship? They should have seen this coming a mile away.