Since people are now redshirting spring bday kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Best countries don't even begin to teach reading until 7. Holding back preschoolers is a GOOD practice under today's high pressure environment.

+1

Why the rush?

I don't GAF if my kids are the oldest or youngest. I wanted them to wait for school until it was more age-appropriate. Sounds corny, but it really is the gift of time.

The only people who are comparing ages or worried about "the competition" are the hysterical anti-redshirters. MYOB, ignorant twits.

School is age appropriate. What is wrong with you to think its not? We wonder why the current generations of young people behave like they do and its because of parenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Best countries don't even begin to teach reading until 7. Holding back preschoolers is a GOOD practice under today's high pressure environment.

+1

Why the rush?

I don't GAF if my kids are the oldest or youngest. I wanted them to wait for school until it was more age-appropriate. Sounds corny, but it really is the gift of time.

The only people who are comparing ages or worried about "the competition" are the hysterical anti-redshirters. MYOB, ignorant twits.

School is age appropriate. What is wrong with you to think its not? We wonder why the current generations of young people behave like they do and its because of parenting.

LOL. I'm a gen xer and my brother was redshirted (summer bday). This is a practice as old as time, especially for boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if some of the angst of the anti redshirters is economic. Academic redshirting is done by those who can afford it if they see the need. People who can't afford another year of childcare may feel bitter about this.

I'm not a fan of redshirting, but it's not due to economic anxiety (we have a child in private, one that doesn't allow redshirting, AFAIK). It actually doesn't personally affect my situation at all. But I don't like it from a societal perspective, because once more and more people do it, it's becomes a slippery slope as to how far schools and curricula will have to adjust for older and older kids, not to mention teachers as they scramble to accommodate a wider range of ages in their lesson plans.

Finally, I do think it's an unfair advantage that a small percentage of affluent, mostly white families use to position their children in the top of the class academically and athletically (here, I'm not referring to legitimate developmental delays, recommendations of pediatricians, etc.). I think it also may exacerbate the achievement gap in some situations, when middle/lower SES minority families can't afford to do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if some of the angst of the anti redshirters is economic. Academic redshirting is done by those who can afford it if they see the need. People who can't afford another year of childcare may feel bitter about this.

Given how many of them are whining about private schools that they're apparently forced against their will to apply to, I am going to go with no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Best countries don't even begin to teach reading until 7. Holding back preschoolers is a GOOD practice under today's high pressure environment.

+1

Why the rush?

I don't GAF if my kids are the oldest or youngest. I wanted them to wait for school until it was more age-appropriate. Sounds corny, but it really is the gift of time.

The only people who are comparing ages or worried about "the competition" are the hysterical anti-redshirters. MYOB, ignorant twits.

It's hard to MYOB when your business is effecting my non-redshirted august child. Easy to tell others to do that when you're on the perceived top of the chain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if some of the angst of the anti redshirters is economic. Academic redshirting is done by those who can afford it if they see the need. People who can't afford another year of childcare may feel bitter about this.

Given how many of them are whining about private schools that they're apparently forced against their will to apply to, I am going to go with no.

If they were wealthy they wouldn't be whining about needing to apply for private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if some of the angst of the anti redshirters is economic. Academic redshirting is done by those who can afford it if they see the need. People who can't afford another year of childcare may feel bitter about this.

So what if it is? The angst of actual redshirters is economic as well? They want to advantage their own children by giving them an extra year

Shrug. They advantage their kids in many ways. Private tutors, private lessons, elite camps, pricey extracurriculars. That's why people want to be rich... So they can afford what money can buy.

Okay... but that's not an argument as to whether they should be doing it or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if some of the angst of the anti redshirters is economic. Academic redshirting is done by those who can afford it if they see the need. People who can't afford another year of childcare may feel bitter about this.

So what if it is? The angst of actual redshirters is economic as well? They want to advantage their own children by giving them an extra year

Shrug. They advantage their kids in many ways. Private tutors, private lessons, elite camps, pricey extracurriculars. That's why people want to be rich... So they can afford what money can buy.

Okay... but that's not an argument as to whether they should be doing it or not.

Sure it is. It's allowed, and they can afford it. They shouldn't have to defend it anymore than they should have to defend paying for private music lessons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if some of the angst of the anti redshirters is economic. Academic redshirting is done by those who can afford it if they see the need. People who can't afford another year of childcare may feel bitter about this.

I'm not a fan of redshirting, but it's not due to economic anxiety (we have a child in private, one that doesn't allow redshirting, AFAIK). It actually doesn't personally affect my situation at all. But I don't like it from a societal perspective, because once more and more people do it, it's becomes a slippery slope as to how far schools and curricula will have to adjust for older and older kids, not to mention teachers as they scramble to accommodate a wider range of ages in their lesson plans.

Finally, I do think it's an unfair advantage that a small percentage of affluent, mostly white families use to position their children in the top of the class academically and athletically (here, I'm not referring to legitimate developmental delays, recommendations of pediatricians, etc.). I think it also may exacerbate the achievement gap in some situations, when middle/lower SES minority families can't afford to do the same.

Wow. It's like you are trying to demonstrate the point about the lack of self-reflection from anti redshirt people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if some of the angst of the anti redshirters is economic. Academic redshirting is done by those who can afford it if they see the need. People who can't afford another year of childcare may feel bitter about this.

So what if it is? The angst of actual redshirters is economic as well? They want to advantage their own children by giving them an extra year

Shrug. They advantage their kids in many ways. Private tutors, private lessons, elite camps, pricey extracurriculars. That's why people want to be rich... So they can afford what money can buy.

Okay... but that's not an argument as to whether they should be doing it or not.

Sure it is. It's allowed, and they can afford it. They shouldn't have to defend it anymore than they should have to defend paying for private music lessons.

Again, just because something's allowed doesn't mean we should allow it or that it's a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if some of the angst of the anti redshirters is economic. Academic redshirting is done by those who can afford it if they see the need. People who can't afford another year of childcare may feel bitter about this.

So what if it is? The angst of actual redshirters is economic as well? They want to advantage their own children by giving them an extra year

Shrug. They advantage their kids in many ways. Private tutors, private lessons, elite camps, pricey extracurriculars. That's why people want to be rich... So they can afford what money can buy.

Okay... but that's not an argument as to whether they should be doing it or not.

Sure it is. It's allowed, and they can afford it. They shouldn't have to defend it anymore than they should have to defend paying for private music lessons.

Again, just because something's allowed doesn't mean we should allow it or that it's a good thing.

Cool, sounds like an argument for socialism. Good luck with that. You should also be rude to parents who pay for extracurriculars and tutors because it's "unfair." Sounds like something an immature girl would do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parents who redshirt for unnecessary reasons will later deal with the consequences. They will have a very old senior in HS living in their house and giving them h*ll. They already had to pay for one more year of a nanny, daycare, preschool, and they will have one less year of contributing to retirement.

I wasn’t held back and now I’m so glad. Maybe it was harder in early elementary school but later on it was so much better to have not been redshirted.

And the kids get an extra year of childhood - is it really that bad.

Right? And if they are like my husband and I, they will spend their senior year taking college classes and graduate college in three years. DH didn’t even live at home the last year of high school. Just lived on campus.

See, the HS kid no longer living at home is a big issue for me. This is part of the problem. Kids turn 18 their junior year instead of senior year is a big deal.

That’s not just “being a kid an extra year” you can’t just think of it in one phase of their lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if some of the angst of the anti redshirters is economic. Academic redshirting is done by those who can afford it if they see the need. People who can't afford another year of childcare may feel bitter about this.

I'm not a fan of redshirting, but it's not due to economic anxiety (we have a child in private, one that doesn't allow redshirting, AFAIK). It actually doesn't personally affect my situation at all. But I don't like it from a societal perspective, because once more and more people do it, it's becomes a slippery slope as to how far schools and curricula will have to adjust for older and older kids, not to mention teachers as they scramble to accommodate a wider range of ages in their lesson plans.

Finally, I do think it's an unfair advantage that a small percentage of affluent, mostly white families use to position their children in the top of the class academically and athletically (here, I'm not referring to legitimate developmental delays, recommendations of pediatricians, etc.). I think it also may exacerbate the achievement gap in some situations, when middle/lower SES minority families can't afford to do the same.

Wow. It's like you are trying to demonstrate the point about the lack of self-reflection from anti redshirt people.

Can you please expand on this? Do you typically see a moose and shout “squirrel!” in total confidence that saying black is white is a failsafe strategy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if some of the angst of the anti redshirters is economic. Academic redshirting is done by those who can afford it if they see the need. People who can't afford another year of childcare may feel bitter about this.

So what if it is? The angst of actual redshirters is economic as well? They want to advantage their own children by giving them an extra year

Shrug. They advantage their kids in many ways. Private tutors, private lessons, elite camps, pricey extracurriculars. That's why people want to be rich... So they can afford what money can buy.

Okay... but that's not an argument as to whether they should be doing it or not.

Sure it is. It's allowed, and they can afford it. They shouldn't have to defend it anymore than they should have to defend paying for private music lessons.

Again, just because something's allowed doesn't mean we should allow it or that it's a good thing.

Cool, sounds like an argument for socialism. Good luck with that. You should also be rude to parents who pay for extracurriculars and tutors because it's "unfair." Sounds like something an immature girl would do.

#boymom!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if some of the angst of the anti redshirters is economic. Academic redshirting is done by those who can afford it if they see the need. People who can't afford another year of childcare may feel bitter about this.

So what if it is? The angst of actual redshirters is economic as well? They want to advantage their own children by giving them an extra year

Shrug. They advantage their kids in many ways. Private tutors, private lessons, elite camps, pricey extracurriculars. That's why people want to be rich... So they can afford what money can buy.

Okay... but that's not an argument as to whether they should be doing it or not.

Sure it is. It's allowed, and they can afford it. They shouldn't have to defend it anymore than they should have to defend paying for private music lessons.

Again, just because something's allowed doesn't mean we should allow it or that it's a good thing.

Cool, sounds like an argument for socialism. Good luck with that. You should also be rude to parents who pay for extracurriculars and tutors because it's "unfair." Sounds like something an immature girl would do.

Nice debate skills. SOCIALISM! No one has implied in this thread that parents should not give their kids advantages. This is about one specific kind of advantage and whether that specific advantage is proper or not.