Redshirted and Regretted It?

[Anonymous]

Redshirted boys at our school at least, either had an issue that was cause for concern, or the parents wanted to give their son an imagined advantage over others, and couldn't handle the thought of their boy being the youngest.

I know one Big 3 school that does not redshirt and will do so only when it is truly necessary. I applaud that school for resisting that temptation. But, this school does tend to admit A LOT of fall birthdays.

It seems to me that many of the private schools (whether they redshirt or not) have basically shifted the age ranges from July 1st-July 31st. There may be an outlier on either end, but the critical mass seems to fit into that 13 month range. In my kids' classes over the years the age range does not look like a normal bell curve - it looks more like a downward sloping hill.

It may seem like helicopter parenting but, at least in private schools, it's not the parent's choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I know one Big 3 school that does not redshirt and will do so only when it is truly necessary.

Never, not in pre-K, not in K, not in whatever the next entry year is (Fourth?)? Not even for linguistic reasons or with children applying from public or from an international school? I can't imagine any school never redshirting.

[Anonymous]

This is my post.
Never, not in pre-K, not in K, not in whatever the next entry year is (Fourth?)? Not even for linguistic reasons or with children applying from public or from an international school? I can't imagine any school never redshirting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:By dissing redshirting, people are disagreeing with educators at some of the top day schools in the country. Interesting that these people know better.

The school wants nice fat tuition checks. The only ones I know who are redshirts with financial benefits are high school athletic recruits. And they are well connected plus less than a handful. Educators don't want or need to have a group of boys that have an even larger sense of entitlement. The redshirts hang out together throughout the years since most are similar- prents and kids looking for athletic and social dominance. The latter results in bullying. Some parents hold back large [and some aggressive] boys . Evn see redshirts from various classes participating in the same party circuit. For other than smaller late summer birthdays this has absolutely nothing to do with education and academia.

Yes- redshirting for others does have positives but not for the classroom or the group as a whole. It intensifies social dynamics.

[Anonymous]

So redshirting is the root cause of this, and none of these traits would have existed if the child had not been redshirted? I found that hard to believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By dissing redshirting, people are disagreeing with educators at some of the top day schools in the country. Interesting that these people know better.

The school wants nice fat tuition checks. The only ones I know who are redshirts with financial benefits are high school athletic recruits. And they are well connected plus less than a handful. Educators don't want or need to have a group of boys that have an even larger sense of entitlement. The redshirts hang out together throughout the years since most are similar- prents and kids looking for athletic and social dominance. The latter results in bullying. Some parents hold back large [and some aggressive] boys . Evn see redshirts from various classes participating in the same party circuit. For other than smaller late summer birthdays this has absolutely nothing to do with education and academia.

Yes- redshirting for others does have positives but not for the classroom or the group as a whole. It intensifies social dynamics.

Oh my God, you are such a hysterical nutcase. This is hilarious. And you have how many studies to back up this little fantasy of yours? None? Okay, how about a case history or two? Also none? I see. Perhaps you're just off your meds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By dissing redshirting, people are disagreeing with educators at some of the top day schools in the country. Interesting that these people know better.

The school wants nice fat tuition checks. The only ones I know who are redshirts with financial benefits are high school athletic recruits. And they are well connected plus less than a handful. Educators don't want or need to have a group of boys that have an even larger sense of entitlement. The redshirts hang out together throughout the years since most are similar- prents and kids looking for athletic and social dominance. The latter results in bullying. Some parents hold back large [and some aggressive] boys . Evn see redshirts from various classes participating in the same party circuit. For other than smaller late summer birthdays this has absolutely nothing to do with education and academia.

Yes- redshirting for others does have positives but not for the classroom or the group as a whole. It intensifies social dynamics.

Oh my God, you are such a hysterical nutcase. This is hilarious. And you have how many studies to back up this little fantasy of yours? None? Okay, how about a case history or two? Also none? I see. Perhaps you're just off your meds?

Meds? Fantasy? Sorry I'm just filling you all in on social circuits.

[Anonymous]

It seems to me that there is a white elephant that is being missed in all these discussions. Isn't the issue that schools play fast and loose with the admissions policy and what you end up with is a select number of students, more often than not, male, wealthy and athletic that are "competing" in classrooms, athletic fields and socially with "peers" who are up to 18 months younger. Starting when and for whatever reasons becomes secondary--of course these children are advantaged. Read no further than Malcolm Gladwell's new book "Outliers" in which the first chapter richly articulates how older kids have a hefty competitive advantage. So for all those "red-shirting" parents who feel they are doing something good for their child, there are equal numbers of parents who are dealing with the backlash of having a child in the "appropriate" grade and who are disadvantaged because they are 12+ months younger than their classmates.

For me the answer is presented by Gladwell, when children are with true peers, then each one has the opportunity to flourish with their talents. Not every child is going to excel in every area . . . forcing some kids to be "older" only results in choosing winner and losers based on age. Why not allow every child the opportunity to succeed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems to me that there is a white elephant that is being missed in all these discussions. Isn't the issue that schools play fast and loose with the admissions policy and what you end up with is a select number of students, more often than not, male, wealthy and athletic that are "competing" in classrooms, athletic fields and socially with "peers" who are up to 18 months younger. Starting when and for whatever reasons becomes secondary--of course these children are advantaged. Read no further than Malcolm Gladwell's new book "Outliers" in which the first chapter richly articulates how older kids have a hefty competitive advantage. So for all those "red-shirting" parents who feel they are doing something good for their child, there are equal numbers of parents who are dealing with the backlash of having a child in the "appropriate" grade and who are disadvantaged because they are 12+ months younger than their classmates.

For me the answer is presented by Gladwell, when children are with true peers, then each one has the opportunity to flourish with their talents. Not every child is going to excel in every area . . . forcing some kids to be "older" only results in choosing winner and losers based on age. Why not allow every child the opportunity to succeed?

Gladwell's answer (in response to the "Canadian hockey team phenomenon") was actually to break classes down into small age ranges.... as his whole point was that when there is a 12 month age range the younger kids are at a significant disadvantage. So let me ask... if one child is born on Aug 15, and one on Sept 15... should the Sept 15 birthday be entitled to a significant advantage (as noted by Gladwell) simply becausehe was lucky enough to be born past the Sept 1 cut off date??? The issue for K, when most people redshirt, is the K curriculum (especially in the top independent schools) has become so advanced that a young 5 year old boy often has simply not yet developed the motor and processing skills needed to keep up. What redshirt parents are arguing for is the ability to make a decision for what is best for a summer birthday child... are they ready to start the advanced K curriculum or not? By the time all the kids are 6, these motor/processing development issues have largely resolved themselves.

By the way, I'm in full agreement with others on this board that redshirting a non-summer birthday should not be allowed in 99% of the cases, unless it is for non-age related development issues (which is really "repeating" a grade)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems to me that there is a white elephant that is being missed in all these discussions. Isn't the issue that schools play fast and loose with the admissions policy and what you end up with is a select number of students, more often than not, male, wealthy and athletic that are "competing" in classrooms, athletic fields and socially with "peers" who are up to 18 months younger. Starting when and for whatever reasons becomes secondary--of course these children are advantaged. Read no further than Malcolm Gladwell's new book "Outliers" in which the first chapter richly articulates how older kids have a hefty competitive advantage. So for all those "red-shirting" parents who feel they are doing something good for their child, there are equal numbers of parents who are dealing with the backlash of having a child in the "appropriate" grade and who are disadvantaged because they are 12+ months younger than their classmates.

For me the answer is presented by Gladwell, when children are with true peers, then each one has the opportunity to flourish with their talents. Not every child is going to excel in every area . . . forcing some kids to be "older" only results in choosing winner and losers based on age. Why not allow every child the opportunity to succeed?

Gladwell's answer (in response to the "Canadian hockey team phenomenon") was actually to break classes down into small age ranges.... as his whole point was that when there is a 12 month age range the younger kids are at a significant disadvantage. So let me ask... if one child is born on Aug 15, and one on Sept 15... should the Sept 15 birthday be entitled to a significant advantage (as noted by Gladwell) simply becausehe was lucky enough to be born past the Sept 1 cut off date??? The issue for K, when most people redshirt, is the K curriculum (especially in the top independent schools) has become so advanced that a young 5 year old boy often has simply not yet developed the motor and processing skills needed to keep up. What redshirt parents are arguing for is the ability to make a decision for what is best for a summer birthday child... are they ready to start the advanced K curriculum or not? By the time all the kids are 6, these motor/processing development issues have largely resolved themselves.

By the way, I'm in full agreement with others on this board that redshirting a non-summer birthday should not be allowed in 99% of the cases, unless it is for non-age related development issues (which is really "repeating" a grade)

I think there is pretty good consensus on DCUM now that holding back a summer birthday child (for the right reasons) is not really redshirting... and is an appropriate decision for parents and schools to make. Our issue is really the Sept-April birthday kids who's parents are gaming the system.

[Anonymous]

Agreed AND that too many independent schools in particular are unwilling to tell certain parents that their children are simply not ready and/or suitable for the school, so the "solution" is to hold them back--which only creates more issues.

And as another potential thread is why is it that these schools ARE adopting curriculums that are 2 years developmentally advanced? As I have seen with my older son, it serves very little purpose for those boys who are more "activity" oriented and pushes them toward academic failure when they simply need more activity . . .

[Anonymous]

Poster 18:00--- I completely disagree with your assertion that there is general consensus that holding back summer bdays is not really redshirting. Redshirting is redshirting. That is, holding back a child who otherwise makes the age cut-off whether that child has a July bday or an April bday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agreed AND that too many independent schools in particular are unwilling to tell certain parents that their children are simply not ready and/or suitable for the school, so the "solution" is to hold them back--which only creates more issues.

And as another potential thread is why is it that these schools ARE adopting curriculums that are 2 years developmentally advanced? As I have seen with my older son, it serves very little purpose for those boys who are more "activity" oriented and pushes them toward academic failure when they simply need more activity . . .

The schools are pushing the curriculum ahead b/c they mistakenly think it is appropriate (even though many early childhood specialists agree that it is not developmentally appropriate to be expecting 5 yr olds to be reading for the end of K like many public schools expect them to be). Some children are ready for it; some aren't. The ones that aren't suffer for it. Many states have tests beginning in 3rd grade to fulfill NCLB legislation so if they can get those K kids reading right off the bat, they are not "wasting" a year in K by doing more developmentally appropriate activities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Poster 18:00--- I completely disagree with your assertion that there is general consensus that holding back summer bdays is not really redshirting. Redshirting is redshirting. That is, holding back a child who otherwise makes the age cut-off whether that child has a July bday or an April bday.

I believe you are in the (vocal) minority on that issue.

[Anonymous]

I think summer birthdays are a tricky case and I certainly am ok with some flexibility on the part of parents and administrators where placement is concerned for kids whose birthdays fall in the June to September window.

Many of the egregious cases I have seen are for kids whose birthdays fall between December and May, so to that extent, I agree with 23:26.

I also want to note that 15:53 makes an excellent point regarding the backlash that parents feel when their children are in a class with kids that much older. I was wondering if she could follow up with firsthand examples?