Do you consider redshirting cheating?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Truth! Most kids who are redshirted will just be days behind other students. Are these Oct. students dumb, bored and disruptive (as anti redshirts have claimed on this thread)? No. We have an Oct. child and a Sept. child. It just seemed unnecessary to send the Sept. kid early. And based on our experience with our OCt. kid it definitely seemed like pushing ahead, not delaying. A few posters on here commented about a wasted year, but my kids learned SO much socially and emotionally in that year that transferred to elementary. It REALLY prepared her. Definitely NOT a waste (or delay) in any sense. It was expensive though, and not for everyone.

Another anti-redshirt comment that always gets me from having an Oct. kid is that the kid will get a false sense of accomplishment. In what reality does age solely corrolate to accomplishment on EVERYTHING?! My kids SUCK at sports, and are with other fall birthdays and spring kids too, as the older ones. They are usually just average if not below. Just not natural for them, But they work hard at it. Imagine if they were with kids a full year ahead, they would probably give up in frustration because the goal would be so unattainable. It could be like that for a younger child in school (or any aged child that struggles).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Truth! Most kids who are redshirted will just be days behind other students. Are these Oct. students dumb, bored and disruptive (as anti redshirts have claimed on this thread)? No. We have an Oct. child and a Sept. child. It just seemed unnecessary to send the Sept. kid early. And based on our experience with our OCt. kid it definitely seemed like pushing ahead, not delaying. A few posters on here commented about a wasted year, but my kids learned SO much socially and emotionally in that year that transferred to elementary. It REALLY prepared her. Definitely NOT a waste (or delay) in any sense. It was expensive though, and not for everyone.

Another anti-redshirt comment that always gets me from having an Oct. kid is that the kid will get a false sense of accomplishment. In what reality does age solely corrolate to accomplishment on EVERYTHING?! My kids SUCK at sports, and are with other fall birthdays and spring kids too, as the older ones. They are usually just average if not below. Just not natural for them, But they work hard at it. Imagine if they were with kids a full year ahead, they would probably give up in frustration because the goal would be so unattainable. It could be like that for a younger child in school (or any aged child that struggles).



I'm sure she really did learn a lot in that year. I mean, if she didn't learn something in what is about 20% of her life experience, that would be so weird, don't you think? You just don't know what she could have learned in the more challenging grade. Maybe more!

How can you say it was not a delay? They will graduate from HS and college a year later than they would have. Thats a delay, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Thanks, I guess? It would be very odd were you to excoriate parents who sent their children on time in accordance with their local laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks, I guess? It would be very odd were you to excoriate parents who sent their children on time in accordance with their local laws.

It's also odd to excoriate parents who send their children with a one-year delay in accordance with their local laws, and yet here we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A fourth-grader who started kindergarten "on time" has spent four years in school. In contrast, a fourth-grader who started kindergarten one year later than "on time" has spent four years in school. Whereas a fourth-grader who started kindergarten one year earlier than"on time" has spent four years in school.

In other words, all fourth-graders (except those who repeated a grade) have spent exactly the same amount of time in school, regardless of their age. So unless you think that a 10-year-old fourth-grader by definition has more academic knowledge than an 9-year-old fourth grader, it's irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks, I guess? It would be very odd were you to excoriate parents who sent their children on time in accordance with their local laws.

It's also odd to excoriate parents who send their children with a one-year delay in accordance with their local laws, and yet here we are.

Yes, we should all love each of our current laws and never work to change them when they become outdated in statistically significant numbers.

Look, its a question about redshirting. Would I ever "excoriate" a friend or fellow parent for doing this? No way, I don't care that much. I have no problem sharing my opinion on a forum when asked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A fourth-grader who started kindergarten "on time" has spent four years in school. In contrast, a fourth-grader who started kindergarten one year later than "on time" has spent four years in school. Whereas a fourth-grader who started kindergarten one year earlier than"on time" has spent four years in school.

In other words, all fourth-graders (except those who repeated a grade) have spent exactly the same amount of time in school, regardless of their age. So unless you think that a 10-year-old fourth-grader by definition has more academic knowledge than an 9-year-old fourth grader, it's irrelevant.

Well that makes perfect sense! Why go beyond preschool at all, really, when its just about years enrolled by your argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A fourth-grader who started kindergarten "on time" has spent four years in school. In contrast, a fourth-grader who started kindergarten one year later than "on time" has spent four years in school. Whereas a fourth-grader who started kindergarten one year earlier than"on time" has spent four years in school.

In other words, all fourth-graders (except those who repeated a grade) have spent exactly the same amount of time in school, regardless of their age. So unless you think that a 10-year-old fourth-grader by definition has more academic knowledge than an 9-year-old fourth grader, it's irrelevant.

Well that makes perfect sense! Why go beyond preschool at all, really, when its just about years enrolled by your argument.

What? PP was just saying that red-shirted or not - kids in the same grade have had the same amount of schooling. Is this not correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A fourth-grader who started kindergarten "on time" has spent four years in school. In contrast, a fourth-grader who started kindergarten one year later than "on time" has spent four years in school. Whereas a fourth-grader who started kindergarten one year earlier than"on time" has spent four years in school.

In other words, all fourth-graders (except those who repeated a grade) have spent exactly the same amount of time in school, regardless of their age. So unless you think that a 10-year-old fourth-grader by definition has more academic knowledge than an 9-year-old fourth grader, it's irrelevant.

Well that makes perfect sense! Why go beyond preschool at all, really, when its just about years enrolled by your argument.

Given your hilariously stupid response, perhaps YOU never progressed beyond preschool?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Thanks, I guess? It would be very odd were you to excoriate parents who sent their children on time in accordance with their local laws.

Luckily for you parents who redshirt are in accordance with local laws too!

[Anonymous]

I have one kid who is right before the cutoff (so the youngest) and one kid who is right after the cutoff (so the oldest). Things are so much easier for the oldest. Socially, school expectations, leadership, all of it. And they have tested IQs that are within 5 points of each other.

[Anonymous]

Yes, dear, IQ does not determine social aptitude. This truly surprises you? That your kids are different people?


No wonder you all hold your kids back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks, I guess? It would be very odd were you to excoriate parents who sent their children on time in accordance with their local laws.

It's also odd to excoriate parents who send their children with a one-year delay in accordance with their local laws, and yet here we are.

Yes, we should all love each of our current laws and never work to change them when they become outdated in statistically significant numbers.

Look, its a question about redshirting. Would I ever "excoriate" a friend or fellow parent for doing this? No way, I don't care that much. I have no problem sharing my opinion on a forum when asked.

Given your responses here, it's clear you are lying when you claim you don't care much. Yet you almost certainly do almost nothing to change those issues you supposedly car about. Like most anti-redshirt posters on DCUM, a total hypocrite. Quelle surprise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, dear, IQ does not determine social aptitude. This truly surprises you? That your kids are different people?


No wonder you all hold your kids back.

They have very similar personalities. Other than a twin study, they are excellent subjects. And now knowing what I do, I wish I had redshirted the young one. I advise parents to really think about it if their kid is within a month of the cutoff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks, I guess? It would be very odd were you to excoriate parents who sent their children on time in accordance with their local laws.

It's also odd to excoriate parents who send their children with a one-year delay in accordance with their local laws, and yet here we are.

Yes, we should all love each of our current laws and never work to change them when they become outdated in statistically significant numbers.

Look, its a question about redshirting. Would I ever "excoriate" a friend or fellow parent for doing this? No way, I don't care that much. I have no problem sharing my opinion on a forum when asked.

Given your responses here, it's clear you are lying when you claim you don't care much. Yet you almost certainly do almost nothing to change those issues you supposedly car about. Like most anti-redshirt posters on DCUM, a total hypocrite. Quelle surprise.

Yes, nothing hypocritical at all in a bunch of rich people getting all outraged when they are told that their decisions have repercussions.