TO THE MOM WHO RED SHIRTED HER SON AND COMPLAINS HE'S NOT CHALLENGED

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ONLY reason red shirting is on my mind for my Aug boy is that so many people are doing this and he will be 15 months + younger than other kids. I HATE this. I won't do it for this reason but it's on my mind - if people kept to the cut off dates except for true special cases we would all be better off.

My sons preschool teacher used to teach K in NY. She said they met with all kids whose parents wanted to keep them back. If they passed the screening and the teachers felt they were ready then they went. Wish they did that here.

Calm down. There is no "epidemic." Your child will be in a class with plenty of other kids born in the summer and fall, plus a few who are 10-12 months older. The presence of a few redshirted kids won't hurt yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Once again: NOBODY is redshirting for athletic advantage or simply because the kid is an introvert. And just like kids used to skip grades, they also used to be held back. I am sorry that the visibility of another child's struggles bothers you so much, but maybe stop and think about what kind of person you are.

Except that they are. Look at the comments in this thread where people are openly suggesting they are redshirting because their kid is small or because of "social immaturity"

There are no parents redshirting *only* due to the size of their child. And if they do do it for immaturity it is after careful consideration and consultation (and probably for additional reasons other than "social immaturity" -- we just don't tell you judgy pants moms the whole story.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Once again: NOBODY is redshirting for athletic advantage or simply because the kid is an introvert. And just like kids used to skip grades, they also used to be held back. I am sorry that the visibility of another child's struggles bothers you so much, but maybe stop and think about what kind of person you are.

Except that they are. Look at the comments in this thread where people are openly suggesting they are redshirting because their kid is small or because of "social immaturity"

There are no parents redshirting *only* due to the size of their child. And if they do do it for immaturity it is after careful consideration and consultation (and probably for additional reasons other than "social immaturity" -- we just don't tell you judgy pants moms the whole story.)

If June/July is the unofficial cutoff, then there are plenty of parents who are redshirting for less reason than size or immaturity. Maybe your child has additional reasons beyond mere social immaturity. But all the other redshirted late summer and fall birthdays who are redshirted do not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why people do it. All the research shows that younger kids are better off in the long run starting on time. It challenges them and makes them develop a good work ethic and grit.

It makes sense too if you think about it. If you have a kid who is a little on the immature side, do you want him modeling his behavior on more mature peers or less mature peers?

No, there is plenty of research showing that being the youngest is detrimental and increases risk of adhd diagnoses.

Right, but someone has to be the youngest, so when parents hold their kid back to they aren't the youngest, and they are a summer birthday, the aggregate of that over years is now people are holding their March and February birthday kids back, so they won't be the youngest. Posters in this thread say it isn't happening, or that it isn't happening for cosmetic reasons, but it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They say boys are 6-12 months behind girls at young ages. So her son is really more like 5-11 months older than your DD.

BS

-- The mother of a daughter and a son

Yeah, barring any special needs, this is just due to lowered expectations for boys.

With SN, in many situations its probably better they go on time so they get the services they need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why people do it. All the research shows that younger kids are better off in the long run starting on time. It challenges them and makes them develop a good work ethic and grit.

It makes sense too if you think about it. If you have a kid who is a little on the immature side, do you want him modeling his behavior on more mature peers or less mature peers?

Please cite "all the research." Actual studies, please. I am very familiar with a lot of the academic work done in this area (the actual studies and research) and I would never write what you just did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter is 10 months older than the youngest kids in her class because she has a late-October birthday. It's been a struggle to keep her challenged.

Most of the boys I know who were red-shirted just weren't ready socially/emotionally for kindergarten at age barely-5. they were bright kids, and not small, but I can see why their parents made the choice they did.

So twenty years ago everyone was "socially/emotionally" ready for K and now suddenly we are raising a bunch of immature little kids? Nope. It's the parents who have their issues that are putting them on their poor little kids.

It's pretty well accepted that K has changed a lot in the last 20 years, so it follows that "readiness" would also change... But I guess some people pity children whose parents wait to send them in the hopes of making them healthier and happier...

what has changed? Serious question, people always say this but I think the opposite is true. K is so dumbed down now, what is challenging? I feel sorry for the almost 7 year olds that have to sit in a class reading K level reading books and using the calendar to count, checking the weather calendar...sitting in a circle like 5 year olds. Three kids have gone through and if anything it is EASIER than it has ever been. We did the private school route for one child so he can go "on time" Sept. birthday. Other two are summer bdays and never considered holding back. Even in their correct grade the challenge is very minimal. And PP, if you think holding back is going to make your kid happier and healthier you are a complete dumb ass.

You must have gone to some academic, gt kindergarten. I went to a half-day kindergarten where we sang songs, took a nap, played duck-duck-goose, made art, had lots of unstructured play and recess time, learned our letters and numbers and how to write them. Big emphasis on learning to listen, sit in a circle, and sharing. My kids by contrast, had full-day kindergarten with no naps, only one recess, and homework every night in kindergarten that included reading comprehension (answering questions about what they read) and math problems.

FWIW the only people I hear express regret about their decision with late summer birthdays are those who sent their children on time and think their kids really struggled esp. in middle school and beyond. My SIL and her husband have long regretted not keeping back their August son, who ended up having to take a break between high school and college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ONLY reason red shirting is on my mind for my Aug boy is that so many people are doing this and he will be 15 months + younger than other kids. I HATE this. I won't do it for this reason but it's on my mind - if people kept to the cut off dates except for true special cases we would all be better off.

My sons preschool teacher used to teach K in NY. She said they met with all kids whose parents wanted to keep them back. If they passed the screening and the teachers felt they were ready then they went. Wish they did that here.

He will be around plenty of kids born in Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, and Jul. Right? We are in FCPS, and I just don't see the epidemic of red-shirting that everyone is hollering about. Seems like we have at most 1 or maybe 2 kids per class. Doesn't affect much in the classroom dynamic.

Of course, now that I think about it, this may be because we are in an area with a very high percentage of central Asian and east Asian students. Stereo-typically speaking, those kids are pushed ahead (as in learning to read early, etc) rather than held back. I'm the PP with 3 kids in elementary and all 4 of the red-shirted kids in my kids' 3 classes are white.

This is true for my kids' school as well. In our area of FCPS, we simply don't have to deal with this issue.

Yep, I'm another PP who does not see the issue in our FCPS school (Chantilly/Centreville area). If it is indeed such a bid deal in your area (how many red-shirted kids are there in your kids' classrooms?), maybe you should move.

[Anonymous]

It should not be allowed absent proof of special needs such as a learning or social disorder. A cut off should be a cut off. Gaming the system is a disgrace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It should not be allowed absent proof of special needs such as a learning or social disorder. A cut off should be a cut off. Gaming the system is a disgrace.

PP again. It would not surprise me if colleges start to look unfavorably on older applicants in the future without some sort of explanation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should not be allowed absent proof of special needs such as a learning or social disorder. A cut off should be a cut off. Gaming the system is a disgrace.

PP again. It would not surprise me if colleges start to look unfavorably on older applicants in the future without some sort of explanation.

This already happens with some sports. If someone is fully grown during their recruiting junior season, they are often passed over for someone who is still has physical growth nd maturity, where the athletic ceiling is higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should not be allowed absent proof of special needs such as a learning or social disorder. A cut off should be a cut off. Gaming the system is a disgrace.

PP again. It would not surprise me if colleges start to look unfavorably on older applicants in the future without some sort of explanation.

I doubt that would happen. Not every college applicant is a high school senior. It is not unusual to apply after working a year or two or more.

If anything, colleges like applicants that are a little bit older because they are less like to have have problems adjusting to college life, less likely to fail out, more likely to settle into being serious and responsible students. Less trouble overall for the college to deal with.

[Anonymous]

And you don't see the difference between an applicant who is older because they have gained life experience and an applicant who is a senior in high school as a 19 year old because their parents didn't think they could hack it in kindergarten?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It should not be allowed absent proof of special needs such as a learning or social disorder. A cut off should be a cut off. Gaming the system is a disgrace.

how is it gaming the system again? I think you are projecting your own very unhealthy competitiveness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should not be allowed absent proof of special needs such as a learning or social disorder. A cut off should be a cut off. Gaming the system is a disgrace.

PP again. It would not surprise me if colleges start to look unfavorably on older applicants in the future without some sort of explanation.

I can tell you with extreme certainty that colleges are never going to ding an applicant because they started K a year late. What a stupid idea.