Enough is enough with the redshirting!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a September birthday. We’re redshirting. Because I think it’s irresponsible and totally unsupported by science to put a 4 y/o at a desk all day— and no European school does so. The best schools in the world start kids at six.

So here’s my hottake: *not* redshirting your kid is bad parenting. Stop being cheap and send your kids when it’s developmentally appropriate not when a district arbitrarily tells you is the earliest possible moment.

See yourself out of the discussion. This isn’t about that.

No, it’s about people whining that other parents made more developmentally appropriate choices for their kids and they saved a few thousand dollars on another year of preK and now they don’t like the outcomes of their choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-oldest-kids-in-the-class-may-get-an-edge-in-college-admissions-1503052268

That says oldest in class and doesn’t stratify by whether that’s natural or redshirting.

So no.

There is always going to be an older group in any K class and yes, that older group shows an advantage.

It doesn’t follow that those who redshirt have the same benefits or more as those naturally older kids.

So much weird gaslighting. Just say it’s an advantage. That’s the annoying part. The denying it’s an advantage in any way.

It may be an advantage to be the oldest but it is a huge disadvantage to send a not ready very young kid to kindergarten. Shouldn’t be surprising which side parents err on.

That’s fine for a summer kid but a winter? It’s scary for most kids to go to K. No one is totally ready.

I don’t know any winter redshirted kids.

That’s what the discussion is about, 10 year olds in Third in December.

I just don’t think this is happening in large enough numbers to make a big stink about it. Redshirting of winter birthdays (so they turn 7 in K, 10 in 3rd grade, 19 senior year of HS, etc.) is very rare. Even with COVID closures messing everything up. The vast majority of redshirted kids have summer birthdays close to the cutoff and are thus 6 all of K, 18 all of senior year of HS, etc.

I think in certain private schools and areas it’s getting pushed back further and further. That’s the point of the discussion. There needs to be some sort of understanding from parents that their kids might just go and not be the best at everything. This seems like anxiety over kids succeeding more than anything. It’s not rational to want to hold back a kid who is already older for the year even if they do have adhd. They can benefit from services.

That seems to apply equally to the parents who send their kids as early as possible and then freak out they’re not in gifted math. The rules specify a range of dates in which to start. Choose the one that works for you and let others choose what works for them but unless someone is outside the allowed range, it’s still “on time”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a September birthday. We’re redshirting. Because I think it’s irresponsible and totally unsupported by science to put a 4 y/o at a desk all day— and no European school does so. The best schools in the world start kids at six.

So here’s my hottake: *not* redshirting your kid is bad parenting. Stop being cheap and send your kids when it’s developmentally appropriate not when a district arbitrarily tells you is the earliest possible moment.

See yourself out of the discussion. This isn’t about that.

No, it’s about people whining that other parents made more developmentally appropriate choices for their kids and they saved a few thousand dollars on another year of preK and now they don’t like the outcomes of their choices.

This is a UC area. Money isn't a huge factor. I think it's odd you keep bringing that up. I have a June 1 kid. I got guidance from the prek director and his teacher of the same school we attended. He wasn't 4 and we aren't talking about 4 year olds or summer birthdays. We are discussing people who are fall/winter, so already early for the year and holding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-oldest-kids-in-the-class-may-get-an-edge-in-college-admissions-1503052268

That says oldest in class and doesn’t stratify by whether that’s natural or redshirting.

So no.

There is always going to be an older group in any K class and yes, that older group shows an advantage.

It doesn’t follow that those who redshirt have the same benefits or more as those naturally older kids.

So much weird gaslighting. Just say it’s an advantage. That’s the annoying part. The denying it’s an advantage in any way.

It may be an advantage to be the oldest but it is a huge disadvantage to send a not ready very young kid to kindergarten. Shouldn’t be surprising which side parents err on.

That’s fine for a summer kid but a winter? It’s scary for most kids to go to K. No one is totally ready.

I don’t know any winter redshirted kids.

That’s what the discussion is about, 10 year olds in Third in December.

its not even winter yet. So the kids are actually 9?

2 kids are ten in my child’s 3rd grade class already

Are you OP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a September birthday. We’re redshirting. Because I think it’s irresponsible and totally unsupported by science to put a 4 y/o at a desk all day— and no European school does so. The best schools in the world start kids at six.

So here’s my hottake: *not* redshirting your kid is bad parenting. Stop being cheap and send your kids when it’s developmentally appropriate not when a district arbitrarily tells you is the earliest possible moment.

See yourself out of the discussion. This isn’t about that.

No, it’s about people whining that other parents made more developmentally appropriate choices for their kids and they saved a few thousand dollars on another year of preK and now they don’t like the outcomes of their choices.

This is a UC area. Money isn't a huge factor. I think it's odd you keep bringing that up. I have a June 1 kid. I got guidance from the prek director and his teacher of the same school we attended. He wasn't 4 and we aren't talking about 4 year olds or summer birthdays. We are discussing people who are fall/winter, so already early for the year and holding.

I don’t “keep” bringing it up it’s my first post mentioning it.

Summer/Fall/Winter is irrelevant. You’re all playing by exactly the same rules unless you’re falsifying a birth certificate or something. The rules say you CAN start your child by X and you MUST start your child by Y. You interpreted the rules
to start when you could. Others will start when they must. You don’t get to complain about the outcome of other permitted choices because your kid isn’t doing as well as his PreK teacher thought he would.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-oldest-kids-in-the-class-may-get-an-edge-in-college-admissions-1503052268

That says oldest in class and doesn’t stratify by whether that’s natural or redshirting.

So no.

There is always going to be an older group in any K class and yes, that older group shows an advantage.

It doesn’t follow that those who redshirt have the same benefits or more as those naturally older kids.

So much weird gaslighting. Just say it’s an advantage. That’s the annoying part. The denying it’s an advantage in any way.

It may be an advantage to be the oldest but it is a huge disadvantage to send a not ready very young kid to kindergarten. Shouldn’t be surprising which side parents err on.

That’s fine for a summer kid but a winter? It’s scary for most kids to go to K. No one is totally ready.

I don’t know any winter redshirted kids.

That’s what the discussion is about, 10 year olds in Third in December.

its not even winter yet. So the kids are actually 9?

2 kids are ten in my child’s 3rd grade class already

Are you OP?

Yes and this is what the thread is about. A lot of people came in and derailed it. My point was it's gotten way way out of hand. There are appropriate birthdays to do this and then there are ... not..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-oldest-kids-in-the-class-may-get-an-edge-in-college-admissions-1503052268

That says oldest in class and doesn’t stratify by whether that’s natural or redshirting.

So no.

There is always going to be an older group in any K class and yes, that older group shows an advantage.

It doesn’t follow that those who redshirt have the same benefits or more as those naturally older kids.

So much weird gaslighting. Just say it’s an advantage. That’s the annoying part. The denying it’s an advantage in any way.

It may be an advantage to be the oldest but it is a huge disadvantage to send a not ready very young kid to kindergarten. Shouldn’t be surprising which side parents err on.

That’s fine for a summer kid but a winter? It’s scary for most kids to go to K. No one is totally ready.

I don’t know any winter redshirted kids.

That’s what the discussion is about, 10 year olds in Third in December.

its not even winter yet. So the kids are actually 9?

2 kids are ten in my child’s 3rd grade class already

Are you OP?

Yes and this is what the thread is about. A lot of people came in and derailed it. My point was it's gotten way way out of hand. There are appropriate birthdays to do this and then there are ... not..

I don’t think many know 10yr old 3rd graders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a September birthday. We’re redshirting. Because I think it’s irresponsible and totally unsupported by science to put a 4 y/o at a desk all day— and no European school does so. The best schools in the world start kids at six.

So here’s my hottake: *not* redshirting your kid is bad parenting. Stop being cheap and send your kids when it’s developmentally appropriate not when a district arbitrarily tells you is the earliest possible moment.

See yourself out of the discussion. This isn’t about that.

No, it’s about people whining that other parents made more developmentally appropriate choices for their kids and they saved a few thousand dollars on another year of preK and now they don’t like the outcomes of their choices.

This is a UC area. Money isn't a huge factor. I think it's odd you keep bringing that up. I have a June 1 kid. I got guidance from the prek director and his teacher of the same school we attended. He wasn't 4 and we aren't talking about 4 year olds or summer birthdays. We are discussing people who are fall/winter, so already early for the year and holding.

I don’t “keep” bringing it up it’s my first post mentioning it.

Summer/Fall/Winter is irrelevant. You’re all playing by exactly the same rules unless you’re falsifying a birth certificate or something. The rules say you CAN start your child by X and you MUST start your child by Y. You interpreted the rules
to start when you could. Others will start when they must. You don’t get to complain about the outcome of other permitted choices because your kid isn’t doing as well as his PreK teacher thought he would.

He is actually doing well, across the board. I mentioned he's doing fine academically, socially and he plays up a year in an age based sport (soccer). Not sure where you got that. It is still annoying though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-oldest-kids-in-the-class-may-get-an-edge-in-college-admissions-1503052268

That says oldest in class and doesn’t stratify by whether that’s natural or redshirting.

So no.

There is always going to be an older group in any K class and yes, that older group shows an advantage.

It doesn’t follow that those who redshirt have the same benefits or more as those naturally older kids.

So much weird gaslighting. Just say it’s an advantage. That’s the annoying part. The denying it’s an advantage in any way.

It may be an advantage to be the oldest but it is a huge disadvantage to send a not ready very young kid to kindergarten. Shouldn’t be surprising which side parents err on.

That’s fine for a summer kid but a winter? It’s scary for most kids to go to K. No one is totally ready.

I don’t know any winter redshirted kids.

That’s what the discussion is about, 10 year olds in Third in December.

I just don’t think this is happening in large enough numbers to make a big stink about it. Redshirting of winter birthdays (so they turn 7 in K, 10 in 3rd grade, 19 senior year of HS, etc.) is very rare. Even with COVID closures messing everything up. The vast majority of redshirted kids have summer birthdays close to the cutoff and are thus 6 all of K, 18 all of senior year of HS, etc.

I think in certain private schools and areas it’s getting pushed back further and further. That’s the point of the discussion.

The whole point about choosing private school is that the administration is more attentive to listening to parents so if that’s the case, then speak up about your concerns. Or go to a different private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a September birthday. We’re redshirting. Because I think it’s irresponsible and totally unsupported by science to put a 4 y/o at a desk all day— and no European school does so. The best schools in the world start kids at six.

So here’s my hottake: *not* redshirting your kid is bad parenting. Stop being cheap and send your kids when it’s developmentally appropriate not when a district arbitrarily tells you is the earliest possible moment.

See yourself out of the discussion. This isn’t about that.

No, it’s about people whining that other parents made more developmentally appropriate choices for their kids and they saved a few thousand dollars on another year of preK and now they don’t like the outcomes of their choices.

This is a UC area. Money isn't a huge factor. I think it's odd you keep bringing that up. I have a June 1 kid. I got guidance from the prek director and his teacher of the same school we attended. He wasn't 4 and we aren't talking about 4 year olds or summer birthdays. We are discussing people who are fall/winter, so already early for the year and holding.

I don’t “keep” bringing it up it’s my first post mentioning it.

Summer/Fall/Winter is irrelevant. You’re all playing by exactly the same rules unless you’re falsifying a birth certificate or something. The rules say you CAN start your child by X and you MUST start your child by Y. You interpreted the rules
to start when you could. Others will start when they must. You don’t get to complain about the outcome of other permitted choices because your kid isn’t doing as well as his PreK teacher thought he would.

He is actually doing well, across the board. I mentioned he's doing fine academically, socially and he plays up a year in an age based sport (soccer). Not sure where you got that. It is still annoying though.

What is annoying about other people following the same rules you did? If your son is doing well, it has no impact, and if he’s doing less well than you would have liked then revisit the decision about what grade he belongs in. No one is doing anything to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-oldest-kids-in-the-class-may-get-an-edge-in-college-admissions-1503052268

That says oldest in class and doesn’t stratify by whether that’s natural or redshirting.

So no.

There is always going to be an older group in any K class and yes, that older group shows an advantage.

It doesn’t follow that those who redshirt have the same benefits or more as those naturally older kids.

So much weird gaslighting. Just say it’s an advantage. That’s the annoying part. The denying it’s an advantage in any way.

It may be an advantage to be the oldest but it is a huge disadvantage to send a not ready very young kid to kindergarten. Shouldn’t be surprising which side parents err on.

That’s fine for a summer kid but a winter? It’s scary for most kids to go to K. No one is totally ready.

I don’t know any winter redshirted kids.

That’s what the discussion is about, 10 year olds in Third in December.

its not even winter yet. So the kids are actually 9?

2 kids are ten in my child’s 3rd grade class already

Are you OP?

Yes and this is what the thread is about. A lot of people came in and derailed it. My point was it's gotten way way out of hand. There are appropriate birthdays to do this and then there are ... not..

And those birthdays have already been identified by the school or district.
Your opinion is completely irrelevent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-oldest-kids-in-the-class-may-get-an-edge-in-college-admissions-1503052268

That says oldest in class and doesn’t stratify by whether that’s natural or redshirting.

So no.

There is always going to be an older group in any K class and yes, that older group shows an advantage.

It doesn’t follow that those who redshirt have the same benefits or more as those naturally older kids.

So much weird gaslighting. Just say it’s an advantage. That’s the annoying part. The denying it’s an advantage in any way.

It may be an advantage to be the oldest but it is a huge disadvantage to send a not ready very young kid to kindergarten. Shouldn’t be surprising which side parents err on.

That’s fine for a summer kid but a winter? It’s scary for most kids to go to K. No one is totally ready.

I don’t know any winter redshirted kids.

That’s what the discussion is about, 10 year olds in Third in December.

No, a redshirted kid is 9 in third not 10. OP is talking about an odd situation of double held back kids.

No, kids with October-November 2015 birthdates are very much in third grade because they were redshirted or repeated. They were not held back twice. And some school systems have an August 31 cutoff, so there are September 2015 kids as well. None of those kids were held back twice. They should have started kindergarten fall 2020 and first grade in fall 2021. Instead they did kindergarten in fall 2021.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two ten year olds in my child’s third grade class. When will a school draw a line with this?

In practical terms, how does this impact you?

I'm not someone who redshirted BTW.

I'm not someone who redshirted either, but holy moly isn't it obvious? If there are still many developmental differences at this age, it can badly affect kids that are on the younger side emotionally, socially, physically, mentally, academically, etc. and it must be frustrating if they are in the grade they are supposed to be, and other kids are not.

DP but my kids go to Montessori where there are three grades per class. Never any issues with younger kids being negatively impacted by the mere presence of older kids.

That’s a completely different environment and learning style which I’m positive you already know.

Sure, but it doesn’t change the fundamental nature of kids, and the PP I responded to rather dramatically said this:

“it can badly affect kids that are on the younger side emotionally, socially, physically, mentally, academically, etc.”

Maybe they should back up that claim with specifics. Or admit their outrage is pure competitiveness.

And I repeat, it's a completely different learning environment, so it doesn't apply. At all. 5 year olds in Montessori mixed age classes are not expected to act like their 8 year old classmates. They do different work than them. They aren't compared to them, when their drawings get hung up in a line down the hallway. I could go on, but if you don't get it, you don't get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two ten year olds in my child’s third grade class. When will a school draw a line with this?

In practical terms, how does this impact you?

I'm not someone who redshirted BTW.

In practical terms, my kids school offers advanced math and ELA to the top 25% of the grade. And that group is like, every single red shirted kid plus maybe 10 others. (Not NP). My kid is fine and is in the advanced group anyways, but you shouldn’t take an advanced spot away from a child if you were made to repeat K or held back from K voluntarily. You’re not an advanced and gifted learner you’re just supposed to be in the next grade up.

But they are doing the same academics as the other kids. They haven’t had an extra year of learning just an extra year of playing in preschool.

And their brains are a full year more mature. There is a reason that (most) kids can’t learn to read at age 3 but (most) kids can learn to read at age 6. Their brains have developed. There is a reason why my August kids cogat score said he was 99th percentile for age but 94th percentile for grade.

JFC. Love how you had to include the specific numbers, mom. How many months old was your snowflake when he rolled over? Walked? Talked? I’ll bet you have always monitored how he stacks up against his peers

That is a weird reply. I'm pointing out that my child would have been chosen for GT if done by age, but it was done by grade, and he missed the cut off because he was young. If I'd held him back a year, he'd have been in GT. That's the point. The redshirted kids can "look" very gifted when in reality, they aren't. They're just being compared to a younger cohort. And the OP's question was "how does it affect you", and I'm answering. They are taking a finite resource from other children by purposely holding them back to compete with younger, smaller, children in school and in sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure you can do it but why do you want a way older kid in the grade? It’s just annoying

A ten year old doesn’t make sense. Redshirting gets you to 9 years old not 10 unless they are ten for like, a week in June or something.

+1

A 10yo 3rd grader is not even redshirting- it is well beyond that. Nearly all redshirted 3rd graders would be 9 for the whole school year (unless possibly they have a May-June birthday or something).

Are you sure these kids do not have other special needs or circumstances? Or had to repeat K, maybe? I do know a family whose child is one year behind in school (so he would’ve turned 10 in Jan of 3rd grade) - but that is because he had cancer when he was preschool/K age and they started him a year late in the first place.

Pretty sure I do not know any other kids who turned 10 during the school year in 3rd grade- and we know a lot who were redshirted.

At Gilman (har har!) they have a pre first grade that a lot of the younger boys do after K. I know a boy in 4th grade there who is turning 11 within the next 1-2 months. So that child turned 10 mid way through 3rd.

A pre first grade is the same as a pre junior K and still just adding one year making them 9 not 10.

Read my entire post and you will understand the math.