Do you consider redshirting cheating?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If redshirting is cheating, what about tutors? Afterall, not all families can afford them for their kid. Also, how about therapy. Not everyone gets that or can afford it. Seriously, when you are giving your child what they need to succeed in this world and it doesn't violate the rules, which red shirting does not in many places, then it's not cheating. What a crazy idea that you would withhold something that benefits your child just because everyone else doesn't do it.

What about private school?! Talk about cheating...

Trust funder here , we do public and they go on time. Frankly if they, with two educated parents and world travel and hugely varied experiences aren't "mature" enough for K, I've failed. Ironically its just such kids who are routinely redshirted.

Why isn't having a trust fund to pass on cheating? That seems far more impactful than whatever kindergarten start year your kid has.

The idea of a parent with a trust fund who is passing that trust fund on criticizing other parents for "cheating" because they redshirted is beyond laughable. My god, the privilege, it blinds.

NP - what are you talking about? You make zero sense. It's not PP's choice to have a trust fund. It's pure luck.

The jealousy, it blinds.

I don't need to be jealous of a trust fund. But the idea that somebody who is sitting on millions of dollars talking up what an awesome parent she is for "not cheating" is laughable. She can absolutely give away all the money she receives if she wants so stop with the idea that she's a helpless recipient of millions of dollars. I am sure she doesn't. I am sure, in fact, that she engages in activities that perpetuate this education gap she claims to be so concerned about far more than most of the parents on this thread who redshirted their kids.

[Anonymous]

When your child is that close to the line, they will fit in with either cohort.

There are days when I wish we had fought to send our October kid early (born to be oldest, considered making him youngest); on balance, it was the right decision to go on time.

Considering OP's child and mine are days on either side of the cut off, it's the same thing on the opposite end (OP's kid is born to be youngest, they are considering making him oldest), and the point is that the child will fit in with either cohort -- do what feels right for your child and your family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is education a competition? I would be less concerned that a redshirted child might edge out my child in acceptance at college, 13 years later, than an immature child might disrupt my child's education now.

Any cutoff date is by definition arbitrary. Regardless of the date that might be set, there will always be kids who qualify for Kindergarten who need an extra year and kids who aren't old enough to start, but are ready for it.

My child had severe speech problems requiring therapy. We redshirted DC. Do you consider this cheating? Does it make a difference that the school was in the process of moving the cutoff because they felt it should be set earlier in the year? In other words, the year DC should have entered kindergarten she was redshirted, but if DC was entering K now, the cutoff would dictate waiting another year because the school system decided kids in general should be older before starting K.

I think rather than worrying about "cheating", you should do what's best for your child, which as other posters have discussed, is not necessarily redshirting. If you feel your child isn't ready for Kindergarten, then by all means hold him back. On the other hand, if he is ready, then go ahead and start him. Holding a child who is otherwise ready is not doing them any favors. Only people who know your child can advise you. There are many factors to consider, but age should be the least of these.

Yes, the entitlement. Studies are showing pretty clearly that redshirting ends up being a disadvantage, so who is to determine whats actually "best"?

This has not actually been shown, but let's see the cite to the study you are misrepresenting.

NP here. Here's an analysis from edweekly that talks about the difficulties of studying the impacts of redshirting and recommends that parents only redshirt their children if: there is extreme developmental delay, outside of the normal range, to such an extent that another year’s development will potentially put the child in range of his classmates. Another is when a child is experiencing trauma, such as having a terminally ill parent or sibling.

http://educationnext.org/is-your-child-ready-kindergarten-redshirting-may-do-more-harm-than-good/

In his analysis, Gladwell overstates the benefits of redshirting to some degree. In fact, a balanced look at the research suggests that while children derive a short-term gain from being redshirted, that advantage dissipates quickly over time.

It is difficult to study the impacts of redshirting because students who are redshirted differ across a host of dimensions from those who start on time. As noted, children of more-educated parents are more likely to be redshirted; separating out the effects of the delayed school entry from those of other characteristics, such as family background, presents a challenge.

No one has conducted a true randomized trial related to redshirting. Instead, researchers have sought out opportunities to isolate the effects on student outcomes of the two variables that by definition change when a student is redshirted: age itself and the student’s age relative to those of classroom peers. Once these effects are known, one can simulate the impact of being redshirted by statistically aging a kindergarten entrant by one year, and predicting the impacts of absolute age and of relative age on his outcomes.

The research literature includes many serious attempts to estimate the impact of being one of the oldest students in a class or grade, using variation in students’ age or relative age that is driven by external factors. For example, a study by Todd Elder and Darren Lubotsky leverages cross-state differences in birthday cutoff dates for kindergarten entry. In some states, a child must turn five by December 1 to be eligible for kindergarten in a given year; in others, the cutoff date is September 1. In states with earlier cutoff dates, eligible children who enter on time (and not a year late or early) are, on average, older than their counterparts in states with later cutoffs. These differences in state policy allow researchers to estimate the impact of the child’s age at kindergarten entry.

Another study, co-authored by Elizabeth Cascio and Diane Schanzenbach, uses data from the well-known Project STAR experiment in which students were randomly assigned to classrooms prior to kindergarten entry. Project STAR was initially designed to study the effects of reductions in class size. The random assignment of students to classrooms, however, meant that pairs of children with the same birthday fell into different positions in their classroom age distribution by the luck of the draw.

Both studies find that the benefit of being older at the start of kindergarten declines sharply as children move through the school grades. In the early grades, an older child will tend to perform better on standardized tests than his younger peers simply by virtue of being older. This makes perfect sense—a redshirted kindergartner has been alive up to 20 percent longer than his on-time counterpart, which means his brain has had more time to develop and he has had that many more bedtime stories, puzzles, and family outings from which to build his general knowledge. This initial advantage in academic achievement dissipates sharply over time, however, and appears to vanish by high school when, as a 9th grader, the redshirted student is at most 7 percent older than his peers.

One benefit that redshirting might indeed confer has to do with grade retention and special education placement. Statistically, older children are less likely to be retained in a grade or to be diagnosed with learning disabilities such as ADHD. This may be because schools make judgments about retention and referrals based on a student’s relative achievement within a grade, and by virtue of their age, older students are less likely to have very low achievement. Most parents who are considering redshirting, however, have children who are not likely to perform at levels that would put them at risk for grade retention; thus, we would argue that the slightly decreased probability of retention afforded by redshirting should in most cases be given relatively little weight.

Both of us have stories of children who were redshirted and would likely have had a better school experience if they had enrolled on time. Larson tells the story of Joshua, a preschooler with a spring birthday who was on the low end of the normal developmental range in terms of work habits: he had trouble sitting still during circle time, for instance, and finishing multi-step projects. His parents decided to hold him back and give him an extra year of preschool. By fall, though, he had matured tremendously and clearly would have been flourishing in the kindergarten classroom. The following year, when he entered kindergarten at age six, Joshua was well ahead of his classmates and was often bored in class. Over subsequent years, he became demotivated and even developed behavioral problems. He was physically and emotionally more mature than his younger classmates and had trouble making friends.

You realize this is an opinion piece by authors who are not proponents of redshirting, not a research study, and does not actually find that kids are disadvantaged by redshirting.

You realize that the authors quoted a number of studies in this opinion piece that find minimal benefits for red shirting. But if you want your kid to be 2 heads taller than the other kids in the class, go ahead!

Oh sweetie, you have issues if this is what makes you angry and hostile. Do what you want for your own kid and don’t worry about other people’s kids.

I will add that if redshirting was actually detrimentally, it would not be widely encouraged by the best private schools. If the effect on college matriculation was negative, this would not be the case.

Sure, you can think whatever you want. But don't confuse your opinion with evidence. And the fact that redshirting is "widely encouraged by the best private schools" is further evidence that redshirting is a tool used by well-off parents to ensure their otherwise average kids will be more successful than they would have been had they followed the rules applied to everyone else.

[Anonymous]

agree

[Anonymous]

Sure, you can think whatever you want. But don't confuse your opinion with evidence. And the fact that redshirting is "widely encouraged by the best private schools" is further evidence that redshirting is a tool used by well-off parents to ensure their otherwise average kids will be more successful than they would have been had they followed the rules applied to everyone else.
[Report Post]

I could care less what "the best private schools" encourage. It's up to the parent to do what is best for their kids. Why does anyone care what the parent of an August kid decides? Is it because they think they are making the wrong decision by sending their own August kid on time. It just might be possible that both are the right decision.

[Anonymous]

We started our late-summer kid on time at age 5. She has always been one of the youngest kids in her class and will graduate HS at 17. Grade school was harder developmentally for her, because she couldn't sit as still as the red-shirted kids, her handwriting wasn't as neat as theirs, etc.

However, these early bumps in the road taught her to work harder for everything, and how to compete for what she wants. Nothing was handed to her in grade school; she had to work hard for it and find her own self-motivation to succeed. Now she's a top HS student going head-to-head with the red-shirted kids, and you can't tell she's the youngest one of all.

Starting your child on time has its benefits, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sure, you can think whatever you want. But don't confuse your opinion with evidence. And the fact that redshirting is "widely encouraged by the best private schools" is further evidence that redshirting is a tool used by well-off parents to ensure their otherwise average kids will be more successful than they would have been had they followed the rules applied to everyone else.
[Report Post]

I could care less what "the best private schools" encourage. It's up to the parent to do what is best for their kids. Why does anyone care what the parent of an August kid decides? Is it because they think they are making the wrong decision by sending their own August kid on time. It just might be possible that both are the right decision.

+1. They just don’t want their kids to be the youngest that’s why. We are all always trying to get the best for our kids. It would be unnatural otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure, you can think whatever you want. But don't confuse your opinion with evidence. And the fact that redshirting is "widely encouraged by the best private schools" is further evidence that redshirting is a tool used by well-off parents to ensure their otherwise average kids will be more successful than they would have been had they followed the rules applied to everyone else.

Personally, I find it amusing that private schools routinely advise or require redshirting and then tout that their academics are a year ahead. Doesn't that mean that the academics are actually age-appropriate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We started our late-summer kid on time at age 5. She has always been one of the youngest kids in her class and will graduate HS at 17. Grade school was harder developmentally for her, because she couldn't sit as still as the red-shirted kids, her handwriting wasn't as neat as theirs, etc.

However, these early bumps in the road taught her to work harder for everything, and how to compete for what she wants. Nothing was handed to her in grade school; she had to work hard for it and find her own self-motivation to succeed. Now she's a top HS student going head-to-head with the red-shirted kids, and you can't tell she's the youngest one of all.

Starting your child on time has its benefits, too.

Probably because there's a much smaller difference between 17-year-old and an 18-year-old than between a 5-year-old and a 6-year-old. (And when they're 95 and 96, respectively, in the independent living place, nobody will know the difference at all.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We started our late-summer kid on time at age 5. She has always been one of the youngest kids in her class and will graduate HS at 17. Grade school was harder developmentally for her, because she couldn't sit as still as the red-shirted kids, her handwriting wasn't as neat as theirs, etc.

However, these early bumps in the road taught her to work harder for everything, and how to compete for what she wants. Nothing was handed to her in grade school; she had to work hard for it and find her own self-motivation to succeed. Now she's a top HS student going head-to-head with the red-shirted kids, and you can't tell she's the youngest one of all.

Starting your child on time has its benefits, too.

Probably because there's a much smaller difference between 17-year-old and an 18-year-old than between a 5-year-old and a 6-year-old. (And when they're 95 and 96, respectively, in the independent living place, nobody will know the difference at all.)

There isn't a huge difference between 5-6. There are small differences, sometimes in size but my kid has small genetics so realistically he'll be short either way so holding him back isn't going to make a difference when he's a teen. At our private we had kids held back and pushed ahead so there was an almost 2 year age difference and that was noticeable. The older kids behavior was a huge issue with the younger ones. I think the only negative to being the youngest is my child is now getting exposed to language and other things it would have been nice to wait a year but we just talk about it and what the words mean and he is not to use them but its ok if he hears them. That though is also happening because of older siblings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, you can think whatever you want. But don't confuse your opinion with evidence. And the fact that redshirting is "widely encouraged by the best private schools" is further evidence that redshirting is a tool used by well-off parents to ensure their otherwise average kids will be more successful than they would have been had they followed the rules applied to everyone else.

Personally, I find it amusing that private schools routinely advise or require redshirting and then tout that their academics are a year ahead. Doesn't that mean that the academics are actually age-appropriate?

I have a younger child and he should be a grade below but he's testing at the end of the year above him so I cannot imagine academically holding him back as then he'd be testing two years ahead. Granted he could have easily gotten into gifted but I'd rather him be in his home school and in regular classes working at the level he should be at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My first grader has asked me why some kids in his class turn 7 at the same time as the kids in the older grade. What am I supposed to tell him? His mom thinks he’s shy?

The other kids are noticing.

I've actually noticed the opposite. My kids (4th and 5th grade) and their friends look up to the older (redshirted) kids. They wish they were the oldest kids.

My younger kid asks if they are dumb (not using those words). He thinks they aren't as smart and doesn't look up to them.

I agree 100%! When the “too old for the grade kid” is a high flyer, they think of course he is doing well-because he should be in the next grade! Nothing to admire there and it robs the top old kid of a real sense of accomplishment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We started our late-summer kid on time at age 5. She has always been one of the youngest kids in her class and will graduate HS at 17. Grade school was harder developmentally for her, because she couldn't sit as still as the red-shirted kids, her handwriting wasn't as neat as theirs, etc.

However, these early bumps in the road taught her to work harder for everything, and how to compete for what she wants. Nothing was handed to her in grade school; she had to work hard for it and find her own self-motivation to succeed. Now she's a top HS student going head-to-head with the red-shirted kids, and you can't tell she's the youngest one of all.

Starting your child on time has its benefits, too.

Probably because there's a much smaller difference between 17-year-old and an 18-year-old than between a 5-year-old and a 6-year-old. (And when they're 95 and 96, respectively, in the independent living place, nobody will know the difference at all.)

There isn't a huge difference between 5-6. There are small differences, sometimes in size but my kid has small genetics so realistically he'll be short either way so holding him back isn't going to make a difference when he's a teen. At our private we had kids held back and pushed ahead so there was an almost 2 year age difference and that was noticeable. The older kids behavior was a huge issue with the younger ones. I think the only negative to being the youngest is my child is now getting exposed to language and other things it would have been nice to wait a year but we just talk about it and what the words mean and he is not to use them but its ok if he hears them. That though is also happening because of older siblings.

Funny, in my children's classrooms the worst behavior has usually been from the youngest kids. Or maybe the more important point is that anecdotal stories are meaningless. My teenager DS was accidentally redshirted due to a switch in schools. He has told me that he's really glad it happened, FWIW. Also it has no impact on sports for him because he plays sports that go by birth year, so it's not that.

But i sure would not be excoriating parents who sent kids young or on time because of my own personal experiences, unlike the anti-redshirt parents, who apparently are quite sure their own personal experiences should be the most important thing in decision-making of others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My first grader has asked me why some kids in his class turn 7 at the same time as the kids in the older grade. What am I supposed to tell him? His mom thinks he’s shy?

The other kids are noticing.

I've actually noticed the opposite. My kids (4th and 5th grade) and their friends look up to the older (redshirted) kids. They wish they were the oldest kids.

My younger kid asks if they are dumb (not using those words). He thinks they aren't as smart and doesn't look up to them.

You need to teach your child some manners. Work on that.

My child has great manners but reality is something is off if kids are held back a year, especially when they are summer birthday kids.

Yes. This is what I’ve observed through my kids as well.

[Anonymous]

My child is best friends with a kid a full year different than them. People make too much of things.