Why don’t schools make you just through some hoops for redshirting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people acting like these outliers are a huge problem? It's rare. If it's very common at your school then you and your school are not a fit. Move, if it's public go to a private, if it's private choose another one. The school is fully aware how old these kids are. Attacking people online doesn't change anything. It's also not those kids' faults a child is behind in reading. Keep your eyes on your own paper and get the outside supports your own kid needs before slinging mud at others.

Because DCUM anti-redshirters are actually insane, for the most part. They would be in the amusing insane category — so entirely divorced from reality it is funny — but they tend to berate and attack little children, as you have noticed, which just makes them disgusting instead.

Normal parents do not care about these things. They just don’t.

The issue is when you have a huge age range the bullies are generally even worse. We have that in hs where my 14 year old was in several classes with much older kids and they were nasty and targeted them as they were brighter and more talented. How do you think kids feel when they are much older and they younger kids outshine them and take away their spotlight. It’s not a good mix to have 14-15 year olds in with 17-18-19 year olds. Younger grades it’s no big deal but it is with classes and other 5jungs when kids get older. Many classes are mixed grade. So, you think your 17 year old sophomore will be ok with 14 year old freshman in algebra 2 or precal.

Your poor kid is really, really going to be in for a shock in college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a Sep 1 cut off. My kid’s kinder class of 20 kids has three 7 year olds. I’m just wondering why the schools don’t make it a little harder to hold back if you’re a school year birthday. I don’t even care about summer or late spring but socially it is a big gap for my own child to be with peers that much older. One is prone to bossing them around and teasing. Why don’t the schools require a medical reason for people holding kids who have birthdays that far from the cut off? I’m not talking about the kids who are 2m from the cutoff but kids who are 6+ months.

OP, public school funding is based on either enrollment or attendance depending on the state or district. That means public schools will do whatever it takes to get more butts in seats, including turning a blind eye to undesirable effects of excessive redshirting.

It is indeed a vast funding conspiracy that only brave anti-redshirters forge forward to disclose. You’ve discovered the secret. It’s probably Soros’ fault, somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people will always skew things to their kid's advantage. They are not good parents.

Right? Particularly those parents that buy houses in historically redlined districts, e.g. the “good” schools. They are not good parents or people. Glad you agree.

And don't even get me started on those who feed their kids *Gasp* healthy foods or sign them up for outside therapies, lessons, etc. when there so many people in this country who cannot do that!!

These are the same folks complaining about parents supplementing with outside sports, music, art and other special interests as well and want to pretend that the school stuff is equal.

Redshirting is not equal to external supplementation. In fact, it is far less harmful to other students than external supplementation. I thought all you anti-redshirters were screaming about how redshirting parents were doing things that harmed other kids (though in the case of redshirting, there isn’t evidence of that, unlike supplementation). But I guess the truth is that you are fine with harming other kids when it comes to doing something that advantages your own kid.

Such overt hypocrites, the lot of you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people will always skew things to their kid's advantage. They are not good parents.

Right? Particularly those parents that buy houses in historically redlined districts, e.g. the “good” schools. They are not good parents or people. Glad you agree.

And don't even get me started on those who feed their kids *Gasp* healthy foods or sign them up for outside therapies, lessons, etc. when there so many people in this country who cannot do that!!

These are the same folks complaining about parents supplementing with outside sports, music, art and other special interests as well and want to pretend that the school stuff is equal.

Redshirting is not equal to external supplementation. In fact, it is far less harmful to other students than external supplementation. I thought all you anti-redshirters were screaming about how redshirting parents were doing things that harmed other kids (though in the case of redshirting, there isn’t evidence of that, unlike supplementation). But I guess the truth is that you are fine with harming other kids when it comes to doing something that advantages your own kid.

Such overt hypocrites, the lot of you.

They are just mad their kids are shorter for a few months, apparently. And they are mad the schools aren't acting on this grave injustice.

[Anonymous]

I agree there should be conditions before a kid can be redshirted. It’s nearly impossible to move ahead so people shouldn’t be able to hold back without a medical note or at least a preschool teacher note.

When the kids get a bit older, they definitely think less of those kids whose parents “gave them the gift of time.” The redshirted kids stick out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree there should be conditions before a kid can be redshirted. It’s nearly impossible to move ahead so people shouldn’t be able to hold back without a medical note or at least a preschool teacher note.

When the kids get a bit older, they definitely think less of those kids whose parents “gave them the gift of time.” The redshirted kids stick out.

You wish. If that was remotely true this problem would resolve itself. Alas....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people acting like these outliers are a huge problem? It's rare. If it's very common at your school then you and your school are not a fit. Move, if it's public go to a private, if it's private choose another one. The school is fully aware how old these kids are. Attacking people online doesn't change anything. It's also not those kids' faults a child is behind in reading. Keep your eyes on your own paper and get the outside supports your own kid needs before slinging mud at others.

Because DCUM anti-redshirters are actually insane, for the most part. They would be in the amusing insane category — so entirely divorced from reality it is funny — but they tend to berate and attack little children, as you have noticed, which just makes them disgusting instead.

Normal parents do not care about these things. They just don’t.

The issue is when you have a huge age range the bullies are generally even worse. We have that in hs where my 14 year old was in several classes with much older kids and they were nasty and targeted them as they were brighter and more talented. How do you think kids feel when they are much older and they younger kids outshine them and take away their spotlight. It’s not a good mix to have 14-15 year olds in with 17-18-19 year olds. Younger grades it’s no big deal but it is with classes and other 5jungs when kids get older. Many classes are mixed grade. So, you think your 17 year old sophomore will be ok with 14 year old freshman in algebra 2 or precal.

Your poor kid is really, really going to be in for a shock in college.

Why is that? They are far more prepared now than most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree there should be conditions before a kid can be redshirted. It’s nearly impossible to move ahead so people shouldn’t be able to hold back without a medical note or at least a preschool teacher note.

When the kids get a bit older, they definitely think less of those kids whose parents “gave them the gift of time.” The redshirted kids stick out.

They are not gifting time as you cannot gift or change time. They are being forced to be kids for an extra year for their parents wants. So, instead of going to college at 18: they are stuck finishing high school and being left behind their age appropriate peers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people will always skew things to their kid's advantage. They are not good parents.

Right? Particularly those parents that buy houses in historically redlined districts, e.g. the “good” schools. They are not good parents or people. Glad you agree.

And don't even get me started on those who feed their kids *Gasp* healthy foods or sign them up for outside therapies, lessons, etc. when there so many people in this country who cannot do that!!

These are the same folks complaining about parents supplementing with outside sports, music, art and other special interests as well and want to pretend that the school stuff is equal.

Redshirting is not equal to external supplementation. In fact, it is far less harmful to other students than external supplementation. I thought all you anti-redshirters were screaming about how redshirting parents were doing things that harmed other kids (though in the case of redshirting, there isn’t evidence of that, unlike supplementation). But I guess the truth is that you are fine with harming other kids when it comes to doing something that advantages your own kid.

Such overt hypocrites, the lot of you.

How is supplementing harmful to other students? If you are holding back a child due to their needs, one should help with those needs. Not just ignore it and hope it goes away. I could see doing it for a child in daily speech and daily ot, for example, but not because a parent says they are immature as kids are not supposed to be mature at age five and they will not gain maturity being placed in a younger peer group. The expectations for them are dumped down but if you know there is an issue you are failing them as a parent by not getting them help as soon as you see the problem.

If others enrich their kids and you choose not to, that’s on you too. Not the kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think at this point people can see the anti-redshirters for what they are: aggressive hypocrites who attack little children. They always show who they are in the end. Every single time.

Are you trying to justify your choices? People are concerned with others holding back their kids as it is not developmentally appropriate for the held back kids nor the other kids in the classroom. If your kids have delays, send them on time and get them help. It's not a kid issue as the kids have no say, it's a parenting issue.

There are very few good reasons to hold back a child except significant special needs. And, really, those kids should go to school to get the therapies and supports.

Reality check. You can’t tell from looking at a kid if they have a special need. You have no idea what factors went in to a parent’s decision to hold back a kid. You’re making an assumption that because a child appears neurotypical and healthy, that the parents have no “developmentally appropriate” need to hold back.

I had a child with significant needs and the best thing we did was send them. My kid was in daily private therapies. If your child has delays they need help and one help is school. I don’t need to make assumptions, that was our situation. I quit my job and did 1-2 therapies a day and many other things to give my kid every chance to catch up. We did it for many years.

My August-born child had delays (fine motor, speech and language) and the IEP offered 20 minutes of speech 2x/week and 30 minutes of OT 3x/month. So for kids in a more self-contained setting/severe needs going to school to get the services might make sense, but for mine the "supports" were minimal

You are lucky as mine got 30 minutes of weekly group speech with 6-8 kids with unrelated needs and no OT. Our private evaluations recommended way more and even their screenings suggested my child needed more but that's all they would give. (though I suspect it was because we were doing so much privately). That honestly doesn't sound that minimal compared to what we go. I pulled my kid out of school early a few times a week or during lunch for private services till we could get them moved to after school which took years for slots to open up. You do what you have to do to help your kids.

Right, that's my point. Inevitably in these threads someone always brings out the "if your kid is delayed they need to be in school to get services!!"...I don't know exactly what they envision these services to be like but for all but the most severely delayed kids (e.g., usually in a self-contained SPED unit) the "services" aren't going to bridge the gap

We aren’t talking about kids who are that disabled they end up in self contained classrooms. You are making up stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole argument is crazy. Different states have different cut off dates in The US. In WY, child must be 5 by August 1st for example.

We started in VA, with a a late September birthday boy that was born premature. Did not send to school when he was 4, because:

1) Kid is a very active boy (still is) did not have the capability to stay seated for hours at 4
2) If you adjust the age for due date, child would not have made the cut off in VA
3) When kid started school we want to move to Maryland that has a September 1st cut off

Judge me away, child went at 5 and yes they will be 18 their most of their Senior year, just like the October and November birthdays AND ALL their September birthday friends in Maryland.

Focus on your child and let the parents worry about their kids.

What is actually crazy is your inability to read the OP or understand that no one is arguing someone in your position shouldn't be allowed to redshirt.

This thread was created because there is an increasing trend in SOME places (not all, as many school districts are more rigid about it) to redshirt kids who are nowhere near the cut-off and have no developmental reason or keeping them back.

Literally not a single comment on this thread has indicated that anyone is bothered by someone holding a September birthday back so he can start K at 5 instead of at 4. That's absolutely what I would do too, in that situation.

What some of you don't seem to get is that most of us are not "anti-redshirters," we're fine with redshirting as it has historically been done -- for kids with birthdays near the deadline who simply are not ready to start K.

This thread is about people who have kids whose birthdays are nowhere close to the deadline, but abuse liberal redshirting rules because they want their kid to be bigger and "more advanced" in school. It's a weird thing to do but it absolutely happens. My sister lives in a district like this. A lot of it is done by families who are obsessed with athletes and will tell you point blank that they do it to increase the odds that their kid will make varsity or get recruited by colleges (keep in mind the kids in question are 5 and 6 years old). It sucks because as many posters have explained on the thread, it creates large age ranges in grades that make it harder for teachers to teach to a median maturity level, can increase bullying and exclusion (even of kids who are "on target" age wise but may still be a year or more younger than some of these redshirted kids), and can wreak havoc when the kids go through puberty.

If you aren't in a district like this, great! Redshirting where you live is probably normal and people mainly do it for reasons like this PP, which make perfect sense.

But there are place where people are increasingly redshirting kids with spring and even winter birthdays for athletic and academic advantage and it's a real issue.

I dont buy that OP’s experience isn’t an outlier and I don’t think it’s part of a trend. I also don’t think OP is privy to any information about these three kids, their needs or background, in order to determine that there wasn’t a recent for the holding back - she simply has no idea. All she knows is their age.

As for sports, if that’s what your friends are saying it’s pretty uneducated. Most club sports and big tournaments go by birth year and that is where the college recruiting comes from. Lacrosse was one of the hold outs for class year, but changed to birth year recently.

It’s high school sports are by grade. That’s what

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole argument is crazy. Different states have different cut off dates in The US. In WY, child must be 5 by August 1st for example.

We started in VA, with a a late September birthday boy that was born premature. Did not send to school when he was 4, because:

1) Kid is a very active boy (still is) did not have the capability to stay seated for hours at 4
2) If you adjust the age for due date, child would not have made the cut off in VA
3) When kid started school we want to move to Maryland that has a September 1st cut off

Judge me away, child went at 5 and yes they will be 18 their most of their Senior year, just like the October and November birthdays AND ALL their September birthday friends in Maryland.

Focus on your child and let the parents worry about their kids.

What is actually crazy is your inability to read the OP or understand that no one is arguing someone in your position shouldn't be allowed to redshirt.

This thread was created because there is an increasing trend in SOME places (not all, as many school districts are more rigid about it) to redshirt kids who are nowhere near the cut-off and have no developmental reason or keeping them back.

Literally not a single comment on this thread has indicated that anyone is bothered by someone holding a September birthday back so he can start K at 5 instead of at 4. That's absolutely what I would do too, in that situation.

What some of you don't seem to get is that most of us are not "anti-redshirters," we're fine with redshirting as it has historically been done -- for kids with birthdays near the deadline who simply are not ready to start K.

This thread is about people who have kids whose birthdays are nowhere close to the deadline, but abuse liberal redshirting rules because they want their kid to be bigger and "more advanced" in school. It's a weird thing to do but it absolutely happens. My sister lives in a district like this. A lot of it is done by families who are obsessed with athletes and will tell you point blank that they do it to increase the odds that their kid will make varsity or get recruited by colleges (keep in mind the kids in question are 5 and 6 years old). It sucks because as many posters have explained on the thread, it creates large age ranges in grades that make it harder for teachers to teach to a median maturity level, can increase bullying and exclusion (even of kids who are "on target" age wise but may still be a year or more younger than some of these redshirted kids), and can wreak havoc when the kids go through puberty.

If you aren't in a district like this, great! Redshirting where you live is probably normal and people mainly do it for reasons like this PP, which make perfect sense.

But there are place where people are increasingly redshirting kids with spring and even winter birthdays for athletic and academic advantage and it's a real issue.

I dont buy that OP’s experience isn’t an outlier and I don’t think it’s part of a trend. I also don’t think OP is privy to any information about these three kids, their needs or background, in order to determine that there wasn’t a recent for the holding back - she simply has no idea. All she knows is their age.

As for sports, if that’s what your friends are saying it’s pretty uneducated. Most club sports and big tournaments go by birth year and that is where the college recruiting comes from. Lacrosse was one of the hold outs for class year, but changed to birth year recently.

It’s high school sports are by grade. That’s what

High school sports are irrelevant to recruiting for most sports. Football is the only big exception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people will always skew things to their kid's advantage. They are not good parents.

Right? Particularly those parents that buy houses in historically redlined districts, e.g. the “good” schools. They are not good parents or people. Glad you agree.

And don't even get me started on those who feed their kids *Gasp* healthy foods or sign them up for outside therapies, lessons, etc. when there so many people in this country who cannot do that!!

These are the same folks complaining about parents supplementing with outside sports, music, art and other special interests as well and want to pretend that the school stuff is equal.

Redshirting is not equal to external supplementation. In fact, it is far less harmful to other students than external supplementation. I thought all you anti-redshirters were screaming about how redshirting parents were doing things that harmed other kids (though in the case of redshirting, there isn’t evidence of that, unlike supplementation). But I guess the truth is that you are fine with harming other kids when it comes to doing something that advantages your own kid.

Such overt hypocrites, the lot of you.

How is supplementing harmful to other students? If you are holding back a child due to their needs, one should help with those needs. Not just ignore it and hope it goes away. I could see doing it for a child in daily speech and daily ot, for example, but not because a parent says they are immature as kids are not supposed to be mature at age five and they will not gain maturity being placed in a younger peer group. The expectations for them are dumped down but if you know there is an issue you are failing them as a parent by not getting them help as soon as you see the problem.

If others enrich their kids and you choose not to, that’s on you too. Not the kid.

There is a lot being written about this now. The essential theory is that outside tutoring drives inequity in classrooms (some argue substantially) because it provides those students with educated and wealthy parents a huge leg up on the curriculum. Then, kids who wouldn’t be behind according to the standards but who don’t supplement will be classified as “behind,” when in fact they are doing fine, just not taught all the subject matter ahead of time.

I didn’t do a deep dive for links but here is a short interview out of the Harvard School of Education that touches on some of the considerations:

https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/news/21/05/rapid-rise-private-tutoring

The role and impact of external tutoring and supplementary education is being widely discussed in education these days (unlike redshirting, which is a non-issue).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think at this point people can see the anti-redshirters for what they are: aggressive hypocrites who attack little children. They always show who they are in the end. Every single time.

Are you trying to justify your choices? People are concerned with others holding back their kids as it is not developmentally appropriate for the held back kids nor the other kids in the classroom. If your kids have delays, send them on time and get them help. It's not a kid issue as the kids have no say, it's a parenting issue.

There are very few good reasons to hold back a child except significant special needs. And, really, those kids should go to school to get the therapies and supports.

Reality check. You can’t tell from looking at a kid if they have a special need. You have no idea what factors went in to a parent’s decision to hold back a kid. You’re making an assumption that because a child appears neurotypical and healthy, that the parents have no “developmentally appropriate” need to hold back.

I had a child with significant needs and the best thing we did was send them. My kid was in daily private therapies. If your child has delays they need help and one help is school. I don’t need to make assumptions, that was our situation. I quit my job and did 1-2 therapies a day and many other things to give my kid every chance to catch up. We did it for many years.

My August-born child had delays (fine motor, speech and language) and the IEP offered 20 minutes of speech 2x/week and 30 minutes of OT 3x/month. So for kids in a more self-contained setting/severe needs going to school to get the services might make sense, but for mine the "supports" were minimal

You are lucky as mine got 30 minutes of weekly group speech with 6-8 kids with unrelated needs and no OT. Our private evaluations recommended way more and even their screenings suggested my child needed more but that's all they would give. (though I suspect it was because we were doing so much privately). That honestly doesn't sound that minimal compared to what we go. I pulled my kid out of school early a few times a week or during lunch for private services till we could get them moved to after school which took years for slots to open up. You do what you have to do to help your kids.

Right, that's my point. Inevitably in these threads someone always brings out the "if your kid is delayed they need to be in school to get services!!"...I don't know exactly what they envision these services to be like but for all but the most severely delayed kids (e.g., usually in a self-contained SPED unit) the "services" aren't going to bridge the gap

We aren’t talking about kids who are that disabled they end up in self contained classrooms. You are making up stuff.

ok. then what are you talking about? my child was delayed and not ready to go to kindergarten right as he turned 5. pp said he should be sent on time "to get help." the help that he would receive was very minimal and we did not feel that putting him into a situation he was totally not ready for, and get "help" for roughly one hour per week (of the ~32 he'd be in school), was appropriate. he stayed in his preschool for another year, and got that same help but while he was in a program that was developmentally appropriate for him. *shrug*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole argument is crazy. Different states have different cut off dates in The US. In WY, child must be 5 by August 1st for example.

We started in VA, with a a late September birthday boy that was born premature. Did not send to school when he was 4, because:

1) Kid is a very active boy (still is) did not have the capability to stay seated for hours at 4
2) If you adjust the age for due date, child would not have made the cut off in VA
3) When kid started school we want to move to Maryland that has a September 1st cut off

Judge me away, child went at 5 and yes they will be 18 their most of their Senior year, just like the October and November birthdays AND ALL their September birthday friends in Maryland.

Focus on your child and let the parents worry about their kids.

What is actually crazy is your inability to read the OP or understand that no one is arguing someone in your position shouldn't be allowed to redshirt.

This thread was created because there is an increasing trend in SOME places (not all, as many school districts are more rigid about it) to redshirt kids who are nowhere near the cut-off and have no developmental reason or keeping them back.

Literally not a single comment on this thread has indicated that anyone is bothered by someone holding a September birthday back so he can start K at 5 instead of at 4. That's absolutely what I would do too, in that situation.

What some of you don't seem to get is that most of us are not "anti-redshirters," we're fine with redshirting as it has historically been done -- for kids with birthdays near the deadline who simply are not ready to start K.

This thread is about people who have kids whose birthdays are nowhere close to the deadline, but abuse liberal redshirting rules because they want their kid to be bigger and "more advanced" in school. It's a weird thing to do but it absolutely happens. My sister lives in a district like this. A lot of it is done by families who are obsessed with athletes and will tell you point blank that they do it to increase the odds that their kid will make varsity or get recruited by colleges (keep in mind the kids in question are 5 and 6 years old). It sucks because as many posters have explained on the thread, it creates large age ranges in grades that make it harder for teachers to teach to a median maturity level, can increase bullying and exclusion (even of kids who are "on target" age wise but may still be a year or more younger than some of these redshirted kids), and can wreak havoc when the kids go through puberty.

If you aren't in a district like this, great! Redshirting where you live is probably normal and people mainly do it for reasons like this PP, which make perfect sense.

But there are place where people are increasingly redshirting kids with spring and even winter birthdays for athletic and academic advantage and it's a real issue.

Where are these places? I've lived and taught in pretty much every corner of the country and have never experienced it as a "real issue" or anything more than a major outlier for a spring/winter birthday to be redshirted.