This age discrepancy due to "redshirting" is ridiculous

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This bugs me, too. In my children's school, there is one family with 4 children - all boys - and the parents redshirted them ALL. So, they are all much older than the rest of the kids in their respective classes and taller and larger and they just don't fit in well. She told me all about doing this and how she thought it was a great idea and I just couldn't bring myself to tell her how dumb it is. My kids started K at age 5 and they loved it and they are advanced academically. I think a child is either going to do well in school or not and starting them late is not going to help their chances of succeding academically anyways.

I agree, there's no need to start children in kindergarten before 5. Too many children start at 4, and that really seems to be a little too young.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a big difference between redshirting a child who is immature and redshirting a child who is not. If you are doing it just to make your child the best in the class--that is not a good reason.

Calling a 4-5 year old immature makes no sense when they have only lived for 4-5 years. K. is when they gain skills that they have not learned elsewhere. Maybe instead of holding back kids we should look at our parenting and teaching to better meet these kids needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If this were one or two kids, it really would get lost in the noise. But like I point out, at my kid's school, she's the youngest by 3 months, and she has a June birthday. It's ridiculous.

What school does your child go to?

A non-DC private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:cont. She felt her daughter--while academically fine--was hanging out with people who were older and more mature. Her daughter was not emotionally ready for some of the stuff in her life.

See, that's the tricky part. There are children who aren't redshirted when young because they don't appear to need additional time, and yet as they enter their teen years, or head into mid high school, it becomes apparent that they may need some additional supports. There's no mechanism to take care of the situation then. If redshirting is such a wonder for PK and K kids, why does it become terrible and tortuous for middle or high schoolers (with the possible exception of children entering some boarding schools)? If retaining a 3/4/5/6 year old for lack of academic or emotional maturity is a good thing, why can't the same be said for retaining a 13-16 yr old?

It seems to me that rather than merely redshirting very young children, we should be looking at ways to increase the flexibility within the school system if we're honestly looking at what's best for the child.

You know what's funny? My child has had to deal with children who were older and more mature than her, and starting phases she was not quite ready for. Of course, those children were in her same grade but would have been in the grade ahead had they not been redshirted. That said, some of the phases I don't think my child would have been ready for had she been middle-of-the-pack age wise, or even the oldest in grade.

[Anonymous]

If retaining a 3/4/5/6 year old for lack of academic or emotional maturity is a good thing, why can't the same be said for retaining a 13-16 yr old?

I know quite a few people (all boys except 1 girl) that repeat 8th or 9th or 10th grade. But actually, there is not such thing as repeating 9th since it is more like college and it comes down to having enough credits to graduate.

The ones that did 9th or 10th went to public then transferred to a private where there is more flexibility.

I also know this is done a lot with 3rd grade and 6th grade.

If I ruled the world I would have a place for 8/9 grade go to take HS classes with out the juniors/seniors around.

Then they could go to HS with some credits under their belt without the social life of HS. (Of course, middle school is no picnic for many kids)

[Anonymous]

Believe me, you wouldn't have wanted my just-turning-five- boy starting kindergarten with your child. He would have disrupted class the entire year. Now at the late end of 5 he is ready to sit down for more than 5 minutes at a time and is receptive to learning things. It's a win-win situation -- he won't have to feel like a bad boy for constantly getting time outs for not listening or feel stupid for not getting the academic stuff, and his classmates won't have their learning time interrupted by the disruptive kid running around, talking too much, wanting to play when he should be listening to a book during circle time, crying because he hated the work and probably needed a little nap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Believe me, you wouldn't have wanted my just-turning-five- boy starting kindergarten with your child. He would have disrupted class the entire year. Now at the late end of 5 he is ready to sit down for more than 5 minutes at a time and is receptive to learning things. It's a win-win situation -- he won't have to feel like a bad boy for constantly getting time outs for not listening or feel stupid for not getting the academic stuff, and his classmates won't have their learning time interrupted by the disruptive kid running around, talking too much, wanting to play when he should be listening to a book during circle time, crying because he hated the work and probably needed a little nap.

Is that what we want for Kindergarten, though? A place where a developmentally perfectly average child wouldn't function well, because the standards are higher than what the average child can manage?

If this change towards a more academic K had led to increased academic performance for our primary and secondary students, increasing readiness for college or life after high school, it might make sense. Those aren't the results I'm seeing. Why not keep K a place where perfectly average children - including those who still need a rest - can thrive?

My child could do seat work for hours from a very young age. It wasn't good or appropriate for her, however. She NEEDED to move around and play, not sit at a table. She would not have been stilted by not coloring an "A is for Apple" worksheet at 2, or copying the alphabet out at 3, or coloring in all the objects that started with 'T' at 4. Every single one of those activities could have been more appropriately accomplished in a kinetic way. Playing in the sandbox or with play dough for fine motor, having a treasure hunt outside for objects that begin with a certain sound, etc. It's just easier to sit children down at a table with worksheets ... as long as the parents hold out the children for whom sitting at a table with worksheets is likely to lead to frustrated misbehavior.

[Anonymous]

If I ruled the world I would have a place for 8/9 grade go to take HS classes with out the juniors/seniors around.

I went to a school like that--it was called "junior high" and it was 7, 8, and 9th grades. Wasn't perfect, either.

[Anonymous]

Is that what we want for Kindergarten, though? A place where a developmentally perfectly average child wouldn't function well, because the standards are higher than what the average child can manage?

If this change towards a more academic K had led to increased academic performance for our primary and secondary students, increasing readiness for college or life after high school, it might make sense. Those aren't the results I'm seeing. Why not keep K a place where perfectly average children - including those who still need a rest - can thrive?

As a former K teacher, I totally agree. Many of the kids I taught in K learned to read--it may have appeared unstructured-but it wasn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Believe me, you wouldn't have wanted my just-turning-five- boy starting kindergarten with your child. He would have disrupted class the entire year. Now at the late end of 5 he is ready to sit down for more than 5 minutes at a time and is receptive to learning things. It's a win-win situation -- he won't have to feel like a bad boy for constantly getting time outs for not listening or feel stupid for not getting the academic stuff, and his classmates won't have their learning time interrupted by the disruptive kid running around, talking too much, wanting to play when he should be listening to a book during circle time, crying because he hated the work and probably needed a little nap.

Is that what we want for Kindergarten, though? A place where a developmentally perfectly average child wouldn't function well, because the standards are higher than what the average child can manage?

If this change towards a more academic K had led to increased academic performance for our primary and secondary students, increasing readiness for college or life after high school, it might make sense. Those aren't the results I'm seeing. Why not keep K a place where perfectly average children - including those who still need a rest - can thrive?

My child could do seat work for hours from a very young age. It wasn't good or appropriate for her, however. She NEEDED to move around and play, not sit at a table. She would not have been stilted by not coloring an "A is for Apple" worksheet at 2, or copying the alphabet out at 3, or coloring in all the objects that started with 'T' at 4. Every single one of those activities could have been more appropriately accomplished in a kinetic way. Playing in the sandbox or with play dough for fine motor, having a treasure hunt outside for objects that begin with a certain sound, etc. It's just easier to sit children down at a table with worksheets ... as long as the parents hold out the children for whom sitting at a table with worksheets is likely to lead to frustrated misbehavior.

Sure, I agree -- it's not what I want for kindergarten, no way. But it is the reality, and so I kept him back until he was ready for the 1st grade environment that kindergarten has become.

[Anonymous]

The bottom line on this is that children are individuals and that some children do benefit from redshirting. Those parents who don't think it would be helpful to their child should send them to school and not worry about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If I ruled the world I would have a place for 8/9 grade go to take HS classes with out the juniors/seniors around.

I went to a school like that--it was called "junior high" and it was 7, 8, and 9th grades. Wasn't perfect, either.

You were,able to take HS level classes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Believe me, you wouldn't have wanted my just-turning-five- boy starting kindergarten with your child. He would have disrupted class the entire year. Now at the late end of 5 he is ready to sit down for more than 5 minutes at a time and is receptive to learning things. It's a win-win situation -- he won't have to feel like a bad boy for constantly getting time outs for not listening or feel stupid for not getting the academic stuff, and his classmates won't have their learning time interrupted by the disruptive kid running around, talking too much, wanting to play when he should be listening to a book during circle time, crying because he hated the work and probably needed a little nap.

Is that what we want for Kindergarten, though? A place where a developmentally perfectly average child wouldn't function well, because the standards are higher than what the average child can manage?

If this change towards a more academic K had led to increased academic performance for our primary and secondary students, increasing readiness for college or life after high school, it might make sense. Those aren't the results I'm seeing. Why not keep K a place where perfectly average children - including those who still need a rest - can thrive?

My child could do seat work for hours from a very young age. It wasn't good or appropriate for her, however. She NEEDED to move around and play, not sit at a table. She would not have been stilted by not coloring an "A is for Apple" worksheet at 2, or copying the alphabet out at 3, or coloring in all the objects that started with 'T' at 4. Every single one of those activities could have been more appropriately accomplished in a kinetic way. Playing in the sandbox or with play dough for fine motor, having a treasure hunt outside for objects that begin with a certain sound, etc. It's just easier to sit children down at a table with worksheets ... as long as the parents hold out the children for whom sitting at a table with worksheets is likely to lead to frustrated misbehavior.

Sure, I agree -- it's not what I want for kindergarten, no way. But it is the reality, and so I kept him back until he was ready for the 1st grade environment that kindergarten has become.

+1

If the kindergartens today looked like kindergartens of even 20 years ago, I think I would have sent my son on time. Instead, I read a lot of child development books analyzing what we know about what is associated with good outcomes for a 5-year-old boy and I visited my FCPS kindergarten and saw something very different. My son will continue to learn in his play-based private preschool but he is not ready for little desks and lectures. He would lose his opportunity to explore his own creative interests, would probably drive the teacher crazy and would learn to hate school from day one. I fail to see how that would be good for anyone.

[Anonymous]

You were,able to take HS level classes?

I took algebra in 8 and geometry in 9th. Foreign languages were offered, etc. This was long before AP classes were offered anywhere.

[Anonymous]

cont. 9th graders in high school now, generally take 9th grade classes. Biology, etc.