Why is redshirting so common around here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.naeyc.org/dap/kindergarteners

Any mention here of standardized computer based tests or worksheets?

I like how the K age range stated is 5-6 -- not 4-5.

But with a September 1 cut-off, as in Maryland, the age range actually is 5-6. Currently, you would only start kindergarten at 4 if your birthday were in the last week of August or if you did early entrance to kindergarten. (If Peter Franchot has his way with the proposed Atlantic City law, you would only start at 4 if you did EEK.) And even then you would almost immediately turn 5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The majority of kids will rise to doing the work and behave in the environment (including many special needs kids).

Ever taught school? Ever taught needy kids? Ever taught K?

In most situations on this board, you are not talking about needy and those needy probably have parents who work with them at home. More kids than not do better with structure, routine and knowing what is expected them. A structured k environment is what is best which is why the majority of schools follow that. Why underestimate kids?

[Anonymous]

i think you were just in a very bad play-based program.
at our play based pre-k there was tons of learning, more so than we are seen doing at our supposedly very strong mcps elementary k program. they also had the most amazing games and building toys that taught DD more than any worksheet ever did so far in six months of k.

Anonymous wrote:
That is what you want for kids, but you are not looking at what is best for that particular child. My child did not do well in a play based program. Because of his delays, the teacher ignored him as he was quiet and kept to himself. It was a horrible situation. There were also several accidents on the playground (which is when we pulled him) due to their lack of attention of allowing the kids to just play vs. realize my child needs supervision as he is coordinated and will try things others may not at that same age. Play based when I observed the older classrooms was a joke. It looked to me like a holding cell for parents to work or SAHM's to have a break. They played with the same boring toy day after day with a 10 minute circle time. Most of the 4 year olds when I watched them being tested did not know their basics. If a child is just going for socialization, you can do that with activities and play dates. Children need to learn the rules, structure and how to thrive in a classroom. Teaching kids to sit and do organized for for 15-20 minute sessions is developmentally appropriate and sets them up for future success. (except they are rarely quiet when I come at random times to our school). That may be best for your child, but it was an epic failure for mine. If my child could choose his school over a play based or montessori, he'd choose his (well, actually he did as we looked at about 10 schools for this year and this is the one he picked).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.naeyc.org/dap/kindergarteners

Any mention here of standardized computer based tests or worksheets?

I like how the K age range stated is 5-6 -- not 4-5.

But with a September 1 cut-off, as in Maryland, the age range actually is 5-6. Currently, you would only start kindergarten at 4 if your birthday were in the last week of August or if you did early entrance to kindergarten. (If Peter Franchot has his way with the proposed Atlantic City law, you would only start at 4 if you did EEK.) And even then you would almost immediately turn 5.

We have Sept 30th in VA. And if a kid *just* turned 5 they are more of a 4-5 than a 5-6 in my mind.

Late summer/fall birthdays will always be either a little young or a little old (if red-shirted) compared to their peers. They will never be solidly in the middle like spring kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The majority of kids will rise to doing the work and behave in the environment (including many special needs kids).

Ever taught school? Ever taught needy kids? Ever taught K?

In most situations on this board, you are not talking about needy and those needy probably have parents who work with them at home. More kids than not do better with structure, routine and knowing what is expected them. A structured k environment is what is best which is why the majority of schools follow that. Why underestimate kids?

Structured K is best? According to whom? Unless you mean it's the best way to cram in a ton of content to prepare for standardized testing. Then, yes, it's "best".

[Anonymous]

Structured K is best? According to whom? Unless you mean it's the best way to cram in a ton of content to prepare for standardized testing. Then, yes, it's "best".

Sad, but true. Long for the days when kids could explore and learn about the world without having holes drilled in their heads to pour in information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The majority of kids will rise to doing the work and behave in the environment (including many special needs kids).

Ever taught school? Ever taught needy kids? Ever taught K?

In most situations on this board, you are not talking about needy [b]and those needy probably have parents who work with them at home. More kids than not do better with structure, routine and knowing what is expected them. A structured k environment is what is best which is why the majority of schools follow that. Why underestimate kids?

NP. Ok, this is telling. You really have no clue what's going on in needy schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
My husband was the youngest. And smartest (valedictorian, NMF, near perfect SATs). And went to Harvard and med school. And he is the one pushing to redshirt our child. He thinks the social aspect of school is as important and that he was at a distinct disadvantage.

Curious about this one - in what way? I was the poster that skipped K. I was always the youngest (sometimes by a year and a half) and among the brightest in my classes. I didn't really have social disadvantages from this. Maybe it was being female? I am also an extrovert by nature.

Not making an argument one way or another. Just curious about your husband's experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any rational anti-redshirting people? The ones posting here sound totally nutty.

I suspect that you think everyone who disagrees with you is nutty.

No, actually. I'd love to have a rational discussion of the implications of age in a classroom with an accurate description of the distribution of ages of children in the classrooms. I'd love to hear some anti-redshirts put forth cogent, calm arguments about why skewing the ages matters, if in fact such a skew statistically happens. I'd love to see numbers so I could get a sense as to whether redshirting has any significant statistical impact and if so, how. I'd love to see a clear-headed discussion of school structures and grades. Give me something coherent to work with, at least! But all I see here are frothy ramblings and broadly sweeping generalizations about 2+ year age differences and 19-year-old seniors.

I like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any rational anti-redshirting people? The ones posting here sound totally nutty.

I suspect that you think everyone who disagrees with you is nutty.

No, actually. I'd love to have a rational discussion of the implications of age in a classroom with an accurate description of the distribution of ages of children in the classrooms. I'd love to hear some anti-redshirts put forth cogent, calm arguments about why skewing the ages matters, if in fact such a skew statistically happens. I'd love to see numbers so I could get a sense as to whether redshirting has any significant statistical impact and if so, how. I'd love to see a clear-headed discussion of school structures and grades. Give me something coherent to work with, at least! But all I see here are frothy ramblings and broadly sweeping generalizations about 2+ year age differences and 19-year-old seniors.

I like you.

Multiple posters on this thread have posted very rational reasons against redshirting. You just choose to ignore them so you can keep justifying your selfish decision to give your kids an unnecessary leg up at the expense of other children. You want to pretend that your child's advantage is not a zero sum game, but of course it is. The curriculum gets modified toward older than average students, the expectations are shifted upwards for all children, and social development among kids who are potentially a year and a half apart can be very, very different with younger kids usually getting the shorter end of the stick. But you knew all that.

[Anonymous]

Multiple posters on this thread have posted very rational reasons against redshirting. You just choose to ignore them so you can keep justifying your selfish decision to give your kids an unnecessary leg up at the expense of other children. You want to pretend that your child's advantage is not a zero sum game, but of course it is. The curriculum gets modified toward older than average students, the expectations are shifted upwards for all children, and social development among kids who are potentially a year and a half apart can be very, very different with younger kids usually getting the shorter end of the stick. But you knew all that.

I was a K teacher. It totally depends on the kids. My kids were born later in the year, and it was not a decision. Had my son been born in August or September, I absolutely would have waited a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any rational anti-redshirting people? The ones posting here sound totally nutty.

I suspect that you think everyone who disagrees with you is nutty.

No, actually. I'd love to have a rational discussion of the implications of age in a classroom with an accurate description of the distribution of ages of children in the classrooms. I'd love to hear some anti-redshirts put forth cogent, calm arguments about why skewing the ages matters, if in fact such a skew statistically happens. I'd love to see numbers so I could get a sense as to whether redshirting has any significant statistical impact and if so, how. I'd love to see a clear-headed discussion of school structures and grades. Give me something coherent to work with, at least! But all I see here are frothy ramblings and broadly sweeping generalizations about 2+ year age differences and 19-year-old seniors.

I like you.

Multiple posters on this thread have posted very rational reasons against redshirting. You just choose to ignore them so you can keep justifying your selfish decision to give your kids an unnecessary leg up at the expense of other children. You want to pretend that your child's advantage is not a zero sum game, but of course it is. The curriculum gets modified toward older than average students, the expectations are shifted upwards for all children, and social development among kids who are potentially a year and a half apart can be very, very different with younger kids usually getting the shorter end of the stick. But you knew all that.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any rational anti-redshirting people? The ones posting here sound totally nutty.

I suspect that you think everyone who disagrees with you is nutty.

No, actually. I'd love to have a rational discussion of the implications of age in a classroom with an accurate description of the distribution of ages of children in the classrooms. I'd love to hear some anti-redshirts put forth cogent, calm arguments about why skewing the ages matters, if in fact such a skew statistically happens. I'd love to see numbers so I could get a sense as to whether redshirting has any significant statistical impact and if so, how. I'd love to see a clear-headed discussion of school structures and grades. Give me something coherent to work with, at least! But all I see here are frothy ramblings and broadly sweeping generalizations about 2+ year age differences and 19-year-old seniors.

I like you.

Multiple posters on this thread have posted very rational reasons against redshirting. You just choose to ignore them so you can keep justifying your selfish decision to give your kids an unnecessary leg up at the expense of other children. You want to pretend that your child's advantage is not a zero sum game, but of course it is. The curriculum gets modified toward older than average students, the expectations are shifted upwards for all children, and social development among kids who are potentially a year and a half apart can be very, very different with younger kids usually getting the shorter end of the stick. But you knew all that.

Can you prove school districts have changed their curriculum due to red shirting? I find that a bit far fetched. At most I would guess there are only one or two red shirted kids in a class which hardly seems worth changing an entire curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Multiple posters on this thread have posted very rational reasons against redshirting. You just choose to ignore them so you can keep justifying your selfish decision to give your kids an unnecessary leg up at the expense of other children. You want to pretend that your child's advantage is not a zero sum game, but of course it is. The curriculum gets modified toward older than average students, the expectations are shifted upwards for all children, and social development among kids who are potentially a year and a half apart can be very, very different with younger kids usually getting the shorter end of the stick. But you knew all that.

But there is evidence that it actually does not give the older kids an advantage.

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/youngest-kid-smartest-kid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My husband was the youngest. And smartest (valedictorian, NMF, near perfect SATs). And went to Harvard and med school. And he is the one pushing to redshirt our child. He thinks the social aspect of school is as important and that he was at a distinct disadvantage.

Curious about this one - in what way? I was the poster that skipped K. I was always the youngest (sometimes by a year and a half) and among the brightest in my classes. I didn't really have social disadvantages from this. Maybe it was being female? I am also an extrovert by nature.

Not making an argument one way or another. Just curious about your husband's experience.

He said it was difficult in sports because he was the smallest, which would have not been the case had they waited a year to send him. Same with dating girls. And he doesn't see sports as anything more than a social thing, but he believes for boys in particular, it is a big component to the social aspect of school. He also said he was immature compared to his classmates. Always screwing around, class clown, that sort of thing. He said had he not been really, really good at school, his teachers probably would have totally written him off as a screw up. Since he was really smart, he was given more leeway, but he doesn't want to rely on that being he case for our late summer birthday boy.