Speak up (to your school) if you are worried about all the redshirting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Are you the one who posted about the bj's by 7th grade? That isn't true. Sophomores in high school with drivers licenses when most get them for or during junior year.

Did I miss a post? If you're saying what I think you're saying, it is true, according to reports from 7th and 8th graders I know from a k-8 co-ed school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Now, what if a child presents as significantly below grade level across the board? We're most likely looking at a PDD diagnosis and there is NO WAY holding him back will best support him. "

to the "teacher" who said this -- my daughter presents as below grade level across the board. she has s/l delays, she has pragmatic language issues, she has fine motor delays, she has general motor planning issues. SHE IS NOT PDD. this is from a dev ped with whom we have worked since she was a toddler. she is now kindergarten age, with a spring birthday. we are holding her back, at the recommendation of her teachers at her current school. it is a private school. her older sister is at a moco school, with her age group. in addition to the pressures of k's academic pace, taught like they're sending those kids thru a factory, with class sizes going through the roof, you think for a minute i want my delayed kid in one of those classes, even with the "supports"? are you kidding?

because "experts" like you think you know what's best for everyone? the quote above shows your ignorance. i can give you examples of kids like my daughter -- kids with more than one area of delay who do not have pdd. and for whom an extra year in an over pressured environment is like a gift from the lord above.

it's fine to have opinions -- to think that redshirting might be overused. but i don't think most parents WANT to keep their kids back. they make that choice for a reason. just like most parents don't want to medicate their kids. lots of people like you like to cite anecdotal evidence about parents who want to maximize their A- kids grades to an A+ with focalin. the reality is that it kills parents to drug their kids.

get off your high horse.

I'm on my high horse? I said "most likely", leaving open the possibility of situations JUST LIKE YOUR DAUGHTER! The most common diagnosis for a child presenting below grade level ACROSS THE BOARD is PDD. And it doesn't even sound like your daughter is "across the board", but just in several areas. So, you can read what I wrote and respond accurately OR you can just make a strawman's argument. It's your call. But only one of them demonstrates an intellectually honest approach to this conversation.

[Anonymous]

Teacher here-

Some people have brought up some interesting questions, particularly about how the changing nature of early childhood ed is impacting this. And they are absolutely right. The increased demands for K have led to many children who would otherwise be on grade level suddenly appearing below it. That is unfair to the children. But, redshirting does not fix it. It only makes it worse, actually. Because what happens is those older children go into K needing more from the curriculum, further exacerbating the acceleration process. It's a chicken-and-egg scenario. As the title of this thread implies, the best course of action is to speak up to the school. They are just a complicit in this as parents, if not moreso. Obviously, some parents would still attempt to redshirt, no matter what, but the schools and, yes, the teachers play a role in this. Personally, I've fought this at my school. And parents should as well. Playing along with it only makes it worse.

As I've said to my admin, if they are telling me that young 5's aren't ready for Kindergarten, then Kindergarten is the problem. I get that times have changed and that schools need to adjust, but accelerating a program so drastically that you need to change the age cut-off by up to 6 months in a single generation (as has happened in many areas, going from a December 31st cutoff date to June cutoff date in some areas) is just wrong-wrong-wrong. So, yes, we, the schools and teachers, have to own some of this as well. But those of us who do realize the problems with this trend, both in terms of what schools are doing and what parents are doing should stand up and say something, rather than play into it and ruin the system from within.

[Anonymous]

AnonymousI'm on my high horse? I said "most likely", leaving open the possibility of situations JUST LIKE YOUR DAUGHTER! The most common diagnosis for a child presenting below grade level ACROSS THE BOARD is PDD. And it doesn't even sound like your daughter is "across the board", but just in several areas. So, you can read what I wrote and respond accurately OR you can just make a strawman's argument. It's your call. But only one of them demonstrates an intellectually honest approach to this conversation.[/quote wrote:

Psychologist here. Actually, PDD (Pervasive Developmental Disorder) is not at all a common diagnosis for kids who are below grade level across the board. A kid with a PDD diagnosis will have significantly impaired social relationships, odd/narrow/stereotypical interests, and/or major problems with communication. It is an autism spectrum diagnosis, used for kids who display many autistic-like characteristics but not enough for full diagnosis. Academic levels don't enter into it.

There are many learning issues which may lead to depressed academic levels across subjects: ADHD, executive dysfunction, language impairments, even reading and writing disabilities. You can also see that pattern in youngsters with global cognitive delays.

I'm not sure how relevant this is to the redshirting topic, but I did want to clarify the one point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thought this interesting for the discussion:

Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget, well known for his pedagogical studies, formulated three stages of educational development- preoperational (ages 2-7), concrete operational (ages 7-12), and formal operational (age 12 and up). Piaget based this breakdown of thinking stages upon much research and personal observation.


During the stage Piaget dubbed, 'preoperational' children are preoccupied with magical thinking. During this time they are acquiring motor skills. They cannot conserve or utilize logical thinking. Therefore during this time much of what would be taught them during a regular school setting would be pointless.


During the 'concrete operational stage' is when school really should begin. This is when children begin to think logically.


Children who have not begun kindergarten until age 7 have suffered no damage other than being a little older than their classmates. But when a child first comes to school at the age of 7 his faculties are ready to learn. He has the hand eye coordination that he didn't have at age 5 so he learns much quicker. He doesn't develop a lifetime resentment toward learning by being pushed before he is ready. Children who start school at age 7 can not only catch up with their peers who started at 5, but can surpass them as well.

Teacher here..

That is a bit of s misrepresentation of Piaget's theory specifically and stage theory in general. First, while Piaget's theories are widely accepted, they are not without their faults or critics. Vygotzky's theory of constructivism demonstrated how children can move more quickly through stages based, to some extent, on the environment they are placed in. If a child is missing key experiences that would have happened between 5 and 7, to go with your example, they will still need to go through them. Will it take 2 years like it did the child who went through them organically? No. But to say that all 7-year-olds are in the same spot because they are on the cusp of a new stage is inaccurate. There are still skills and concepts that need to be learned. You are right that certain things will likely beyond the capability of students based on their stage. Some things they just won't be developmentally ready to learn, except in the most extreme cases.

Think of it this way: Your first day on a new job, despite being educated, trained, and qualified, will still have you behind the 8-ball with regard to employees who've been there for a few years. Will it take you a few years to catch up? Likely not. You have the facilities necessary to find success, but it will still take some time as you go through the learning curve. Will you move through it faster than someone with your prior training/experience? Definitely. You are the older child in that regard, in a higher stage. But you still need to go through the processes.

[Anonymous]

Exaggerate much? Now you're beginning to sound like a quack too...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're the type of poster that people are criticizing on this board. You claim to have "two close relatives" in the medical field who advocate pre-flunking all children with summer birthdays--regardless of whether they have a legitimate reason (i.e. developmental delay) or not. I think your "two close relatives" are quacks.

Anonymous wrote:Our DS (summer birthday) was red shirted last year. We are very happy with the decision.

Two close relatives have been doctors specializing in childhood development for decades and are very much in favor of red shirting for this age range, particularly given the nature of K these days, and the issues facing teenagers at increasingly younger ages. Sadly, our experience, and their significant experience, with teachers has been that most of them don't really know what the heck they are talking about most of the time. They'll give you their assessments, but have generally failed to study development (outside of beginner teacher education type courses) of kids outside of their class range. Not to say that there aren't highly gifted teachers, but it's hard to find one with the breadth of knowledge of development to advise on this or other non-subject-specific matters.

PP here. Yes, I both "claim," and do actually, have these close relatives. And, no, they are not "quacks." In their view, both the expectations placed on children these days in pre-K through at least second grade, and the increase in the complexity of issues facing teens at younger and younger ages, make red shirting a good choice. Not in order to have your child be the oldest in the class, but rather simply to delay these experiences until the child has had an additional year to develop, mainly psychologically. Sure, it would be great if schools would start teaching in a more developmentally-appropriate way, but they aren't, and I cannot control that. What I can control (to at least a small degree) is when my child addresses these challenges and "mature" issues.

FWIW, we are not "pre-flunking" our kids. We are fortunate in that my DH and I, and most of our respective families ("quacks" included), have done very well academically. While there are concerns that we have for our kids, and children may be very different from their parents and extended families, we don't have any reason to doubt that our kids will do very well in school. What I don't want is for our DS to face the issues facing teenagers any earlier than absolutely necessary (significant drug use, a majority of girls having admitted to giveing a blow job by seventh grade, etc.). We are acting like PARENTS and making choices about our children. We're still allowed to do that to some extent, I hear. I respect your choice and don't assume ill motives. I'd hope others would do the same.

[Anonymous]

teacher lost me completely with this idea that a child who is delayed across the board has PDD. Wow, you are uninformed. There are many reasons why children would be delayed across the board, yet you assume they ALL have a PDD. Not to mention that PDD often doesn't mean delays across the board. My son has a PDD and has no academic delays, is actually quite advanced in some areas.

Enough of this "I am a teacher and I know best." Obviously this isn't always true. You just keep coming back here, over and over again, to try to demonstrate your superiority on these issues to us silly little parents. Maybe we know our children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:teacher lost me completely with this idea that a child who is delayed across the board has PDD. Wow, you are uninformed. There are many reasons why children would be delayed across the board, yet you assume they ALL have a PDD. Not to mention that PDD often doesn't mean delays across the board. My son has a PDD and has no academic delays, is actually quite advanced in some areas.

Enough of this "I am a teacher and I know best." Obviously this isn't always true. You just keep coming back here, over and over again, to try to demonstrate your superiority on these issues to us silly little parents. Maybe we know our children.

Again, why don't you READ WHAT I WROTE! I said most kids who are delayed across the board... meaning, a kid who shows fine- and gross-motor, social/emotional, language, cognitive, etc, etc, etc. In my experiences, the most COMMON diagnosis is PDD. Does that mean more than half? No. There are a multitude of diagnoses that can present in a child described as such. IN MY EXPERIENCES, the most frequent one is PDD. Now, a psychologist posted above that this is not the case. And I'm open to hearing that my experiences are not the norm. But you want to use a single anecdote, one data point, and a misrepresentation of my ideas to refute my larger point.

Is it possible I'm wrong that PDD is the most common diagnosis? Absolutely. I am not specifically trained in special-needs, though I do have ample experience working with students with special needs. That being said, the larger point I was attempting to make, since people here seem to prefer to nitpick holes in arguments to avoid considering another point of view, is that students who present so far below grade level as to consider red-shirting likely have needs (such as PDD among a host of others) that won't be "corrected" by simply waiting an extra year. The student either needs support in his "normal" classroom OR needs a different learning environment. Simply being older won't address the issues. It may make things easier, but it doesn't support the underlying issues that are leading to struggles in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP-


Now, what if a child presents as significantly below grade level across the board? We're most likely looking at a PDD diagnosis and there is NO WAY holding him back will best support him.
]

This is what you wrote. This is where you are wrong:

1. You are not "most likely" looking at a PDD diagnosis in this situation. And if you change "most likely" to "most common" you are still wrong. If we are talking mainstream classroom, we are not talking kids who have MR along with a PDD, we're talking high functioning kids. And while they may have delays on motor function, they will also have areas in which they are not at all delayed and maybe even advanced. So if a child is below grade level across the board, a PDD is the LEAST likely reason.

2. A child with a PDD is actually the one most likely to benefit from being held back (in spite of your screaming caps -- NO WAY which are WAY Wrong) because the core deficits for such a child are social and they can really struggle socially (which will affect everything else) if they are on the young end of their class. Holding a child with a PDD back is actually, often, the best way to support him.

Teach, you are the worst kind of ideologue because you are so set on clubbing everyone over the head with your opinion, even when your opinion is just dead wrong. You don't know what you are talking about here. Step back and acknowledge that.

[Anonymous]

I think what all of the above says is that these issues are complicated, very specific to an individual situation, and subject to varying views among the experts. What this also means is that there is NO single or simple answer. It is a judgment call that depends on a wide variety of factors. So, as has been said before, redshirting is an issue for the specific parents and school to deal with. They are the only ones with the information; it is their decision to make. It is NOT anyone else's decision to make!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think what all of the above says is that these issues are complicated, very specific to an individual situation, and subject to varying views among the experts. What this also means is that there is NO single or simple answer. It is a judgment call that depends on a wide variety of factors. So, as has been said before, redshirting is an issue for the specific parents and school to deal with. They are the only ones with the information; it is their decision to make. It is NOT anyone else's decision to make!!

NP here. While I agree that the majority of these issues are individualized and best addressed by teachers, administrators, and parents, I do think that in a place like DC, where some people are willing to do anything to get themselves or their kids ahead, this is an issue that needs to be discussed more openly. If one family can't decide that their bright but just past the age cut off kid can't start K "early" to. perhaps, avoid boredom, why should another family be able to start their kid "late" just because the parents want their kid to have some advantage (then or later in life)? Redshirting because of a close call with timing is one thing, but I do worry about the parents who just don't bother to apply in what would be the age appropriate year and then are in the same applicant pool with my appropriately aged kid, who may not do as well in a play date or the like in comparison. yes, the school can certainly deny that child admission, but it is unlikely if the child is bright and articulate and all the other things K'ers are supposed to be. I realize life isn't always fair, but I'd like to think that we should at least aim for fair at the kindergarten level.

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure why people are trying to dump on the teacher. What she said makes perfect sense to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:teacher lost me completely with this idea that a child who is delayed across the board has PDD. Wow, you are uninformed. There are many reasons why children would be delayed across the board, yet you assume they ALL have a PDD. Not to mention that PDD often doesn't mean delays across the board. My son has a PDD and has no academic delays, is actually quite advanced in some areas.

Enough of this "I am a teacher and I know best." Obviously this isn't always true. You just keep coming back here, over and over again, to try to demonstrate your superiority on these issues to us silly little parents. Maybe we know our children.

Again, why don't you READ WHAT I WROTE! I said most kids who are delayed across the board... meaning, a kid who shows fine- and gross-motor, social/emotional, language, cognitive, etc, etc, etc. In my experiences, the most COMMON diagnosis is PDD. Does that mean more than half? No. There are a multitude of diagnoses that can present in a child described as such. IN MY EXPERIENCES, the most frequent one is PDD. Now, a psychologist posted above that this is not the case. And I'm open to hearing that my experiences are not the norm. But you want to use a single anecdote, one data point, and a misrepresentation of my ideas to refute my larger point.

Is it possible I'm wrong that PDD is the most common diagnosis? Absolutely. I am not specifically trained in special-needs, though I do have ample experience working with students with special needs. That being said, the larger point I was attempting to make, since people here seem to prefer to nitpick holes in arguments to avoid considering another point of view, is that students who present so far below grade level as to consider red-shirting likely have needs (such as PDD among a host of others) that won't be "corrected" by simply waiting an extra year. The student either needs support in his "normal" classroom OR needs a different learning environment. Simply being older won't address the issues. It may make things easier, but it doesn't support the underlying issues that are leading to struggles in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP-


Now, what if a child presents as significantly below grade level across the board? We're most likely looking at a PDD diagnosis and there is NO WAY holding him back will best support him.
]

This is what you wrote. This is where you are wrong:

1. You are not "most likely" looking at a PDD diagnosis in this situation. And if you change "most likely" to "most common" you are still wrong. If we are talking mainstream classroom, we are not talking kids who have MR along with a PDD, we're talking high functioning kids. And while they may have delays on motor function, they will also have areas in which they are not at all delayed and maybe even advanced. So if a child is below grade level across the board, a PDD is the LEAST likely reason.

2. A child with a PDD is actually the one most likely to benefit from being held back (in spite of your screaming caps -- NO WAY which are WAY Wrong) because the core deficits for such a child are social and they can really struggle socially (which will affect everything else) if they are on the young end of their class. Holding a child with a PDD back is actually, often, the best way to support him.

Teach, you are the worst kind of ideologue because you are so set on clubbing everyone over the head with your opinion, even when your opinion is just dead wrong. You don't know what you are talking about here. Step back and acknowledge that.

I wonder if we are using the term PDD in the same way. I am, admitedly, not using a particularly clinical definition but rather how I have had the term explained to me by learning specialists in my schools. If you are the same psychologist as before, than I will defer to your expertise on this area and acknowledge we were likely talking past each other, with much of what I was saying coming across as bunk.

In the way in which I was using it, I was referring to children who presented as significantly developmentally delayed across the board. It sounds like you are referring to something very different. Either I have come to understand this term incorrectly based on the experiences I've had OR there is some other form of PDD that is known only within the circles I've worked.

My larger point still stands: parents are seeking to hold back children who shouldn't be. Absent a special-needs diagnosis, children should be in the appropriate age class. If a child has needs that hamper him/her from functioning in the age-typical classroom, either they need additional support in that room or a different learning environment. Holding the child back will do nothing but mistake natural maturity and development for actual progress on their needs. A child who is learning disabled is not going to get supported simply by being older. A child with severe language issues is not going to get support simply by being older. They may avoid some struggles, but that is not the same thing as being armed to thrive.

Many of the same parents who seek to redshirt also balk at any insinuation that there are any real needs their children possess. They want to use their child's potential struggles (since many are never even observed enough to require intervention) to justify manipulating the system to their own advantage, yet also want to avoid the (shameful) stigma that often attaches itself to having special needs. Not only does this smell of arrogance and privilege, but does nothing to ultimately serve their child, which is what ultimately matters.

The fact remains, children learn best when they are in a developmentally appropriate program, that balances supporting children where they are and stretching them within their zone of proximal development. Schools/teachers are too blame when programs are too challenging for children. And parents are to blame when they unnecessarily seek to have their child placed in a group they are too old for to avoid the necessary struggles that facilitate learning. The biggest problem is that one problem exacerbates the other and, until the system is put in check, we'll continue to see overly-large age ranges stretching the bounds of sanity for students, teachers, parents alike and ultimately eroding the system we have.

[Anonymous]

Thank you for your thoughtful and well-reasoned post. You hit the nail right on the head.



NP here. While I agree that the majority of these issues are individualized and best addressed by teachers, administrators, and parents, I do think that in a place like DC, where some people are willing to do anything to get themselves or their kids ahead, this is an issue that needs to be discussed more openly. If one family can't decide that their bright but just past the age cut off kid can't start K "early" to. perhaps, avoid boredom, why should another family be able to start their kid "late" just because the parents want their kid to have some advantage (then or later in life)? Redshirting because of a close call with timing is one thing, but I do worry about the parents who just don't bother to apply in what would be the age appropriate year and then are in the same applicant pool with my appropriately aged kid, who may not do as well in a play date or the like in comparison. yes, the school can certainly deny that child admission, but it is unlikely if the child is bright and articulate and all the other things K'ers are supposed to be. I realize life isn't always fair, but I'd like to think that we should at least aim for fair at the kindergarten level.

[Anonymous]

I have a question about redshirting/holding back/preflunking (or whatever else people want to call it). Is there an age limit on entering a child into K? I understand that all privates accept 5 year olds and some even accept 6 year olds for K. But would schools accept my DC's K application if we wanted DC to enter at 7 years old--or perhaps 8 years old?