Redshirted and Regretted It?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Many parents posting here seem to never have had a child in public school in a grade level subject to NCLB testing. Testing for NCLB is minimum competency testing. The criterion referenced or subject testing equates to getting a D or even F in a course based on any given school districts chosen grading standards. In Fairfax County a child can get a D yet pass the Standards of Learning tests {SOL's} for the state.

[Anonymous]

I have son with a summer birthday and decided not to red shirt him while transferring to an independent that begins in third grade.

He has made a good transition and seems to demonstrate a maturity on par with his peers. However, they are so much older, in some cases, up to two years older.

We made this decision knowing this because he is physically large and quite bright. So far, so good but, I must admit to be flabergasted by 11 year olds in the 4th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I must admit to be flabergasted by 11 year olds in the 4th grade.

Could you please clarify this statement? Are you saying that some kids in your child's class started 4th grade at age 11? Or that maybe by the very end of the school year, some kids hit their 11th birthdays? How many kids are we talking here? Your post implied (to me at least) that we're talking about several 11-year-olds in 4th grade. Did I misunderstand? And how big is the class?

I ask because counting backward from 11 years old in 4th grade, that suggests they started pre-K at age 6, and K at age 7, and were not in 1st grade until age 8. On the back end, this suggests they would be 19 years old before even starting 12th grade. I have not seen such advanced ages from even the most vigorous anti-redshirters posting here. Also, starting children that late seems to be in violation of most states' compulsory-education laws.

Thanks in advance for the clarification.

[Anonymous]

I am not the PP, but have posted previously on this thread indicated that there are indeed 6 year-olds in pre-K, 7 year-olds in K and 19 year-olds in 12th grade.

This is and does happen, right now, today. It is not uncommon and it is ridiculous on so many levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP, but have posted previously on this thread indicated that there are indeed 6 year-olds in pre-K, 7 year-olds in K and 19 year-olds in 12th grade.

This is and does happen, right now, today. It is not uncommon and it is ridiculous on so many levels.

I flat out do not believe this unless you name where. What school has multiple 6 year-olds (plural!) at the beginning of their Pre-K year (i.e., in September)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP, but have posted previously on this thread indicated that there are indeed 6 year-olds in pre-K, 7 year-olds in K and 19 year-olds in 12th grade.

OK, I'll ask you to clarify too. Are you saying it is common to have children starting pre-K at 6, or are you saying just that some kids might turn 6 before they leave pre-K. The latter I see as possible and perhaps not too problematic. The former makes me raise my eyebrows (for a few different reasons).

[Anonymous]

If all you're saying is that some kids might reach the age of 19 before the end of senior year in high school, that does not concern me too much. I can remember at least 4-5 kids in my senior class from 20 years ago that hit 19 sometime before the end of the school year (about 6% of the class). I recall them being no smarter, no bigger, and no more advanced than anyone else.

[Anonymous]

11:44 here...the ones I am familiar with turned 6 (or corresponding age to grade) after school began in the Fall.

There are others in the same classes (again adjusting for age to grade) who barely turn 5 before the school year ends.

[Anonymous]

I'm curious, are the parents who express such dismay about "redshirted" kids just as outraged by younger kids that skipped a grade? Doesn't that carry the same issues for kids? Yes, the issues are faced by the family that "skipped" and not by you personally, but many of the objections to "redshirting" raised here are societal/policy ones (not personal to your family). So am I correct that you are just as deeply offended by kids skipping a grade?

[Anonymous]

I have already answered this before, but I am not offended by a kid skipping a grade. At the societal level, this is achievement in a society which is supposed to be based on achievement. From a social standpoint, if a family makes a choice for their child to be younger, it really only impact that child. The child will not be physically more mature, or driving first, or necessarily have the opportunity to be physically dominant on an athletic venue.

In the alternative, a redhsrited child, as a previous poster noted, is given the opportunity to excel, not against their age peer, but their grade peer. If they are gamed into being that much older, that much more mature than their grade peers, then what are you doing for that child, and what are you doing for that grade?

For the child, you are telling them that gaming the system to be the oldest for some sort of advantage is a good thing. You are telling them that no matter what, it is ok to be the "best" at something when in reality, they are probably like all of the other kids of their age, but are simply competing against kids younger than them.

For the class, you are, as the person who cited "Outliers" noted, basically not allowing all of the kids flourish in different areas where they should be allowed to because a few "chosen children" with whom the class is competing with are given "the gift of time" which at the younger ages amounts to a significant advantage across virtually all of the disciplines offered within the classroom setting. Is it fair to the rest of the kids in the class that there are a few kids who always seem to be really good at everything only because they are older?

And what are you telling that kid? You are telling them, "I didn't think you had what it takes to compete with your peers so I held you back so you could compete against your peers minus a year". I hope you feel good about yourself".

[Anonymous]

I'll respond in full later today, but your comment below about how any redshirted child is going to have "a significant advantage across virtually all of the disciplines" completely contradicts the common argument by anti-redshirters that research shows little advantage is gained by redshirted children. If you need citations to the dozens of time this argument pops up on this thread and others, I can supply them. Am I correct that you personally do not subscribe to that argument? And you believe that families who redshirt their children are giving the children a wonderful gift of being "really good at everything only because they are older"?

Anonymous wrote:a few "chosen children" with whom the class is competing with are given "the gift of time" which at the younger ages amounts to a significant advantage across virtually all of the disciplines offered within the classroom setting. Is it fair to the rest of the kids in the class that there are a few kids who always seem to be really good at everything only because they are older?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'll respond in full later today, but your comment below about how any redshirted child is going to have "a significant advantage across virtually all of the disciplines" completely contradicts the common argument by anti-redshirters that research shows little advantage is gained by redshirted children. If you need citations to the dozens of time this argument pops up on this thread and others, I can supply them. Am I correct that you personally do not subscribe to that argument? And you believe that families who redshirt their children are giving the children a wonderful gift of being "really good at everything only because they are older"?

Anonymous wrote:a few "chosen children" with whom the class is competing with are given "the gift of time" which at the younger ages amounts to a significant advantage across virtually all of the disciplines offered within the classroom setting. Is it fair to the rest of the kids in the class that there are a few kids who always seem to be really good at everything only because they are older?

The average redshirt male at exclusive private schools or upper middle class public schools was redshirted so they would be good at everything or at least social and athletic leaders. Most research is on the vast gamut of socio economic groups - children in poverty, children with disabilities. It includes children who would benefit from access to school . Not the specific subset commonly discussed on this forum.

Funny thing is that by high school things can even out and positions in the pecking order change as others mature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll respond in full later today, but your comment below about how any redshirted child is going to have "a significant advantage across virtually all of the disciplines" completely contradicts the common argument by anti-redshirters that research shows little advantage is gained by redshirted children. If you need citations to the dozens of time this argument pops up on this thread and others, I can supply them. Am I correct that you personally do not subscribe to that argument? And you believe that families who redshirt their children are giving the children a wonderful gift of being "really good at everything only because they are older"?

Anonymous wrote:a few "chosen children" with whom the class is competing with are given "the gift of time" which at the younger ages amounts to a significant advantage across virtually all of the disciplines offered within the classroom setting. Is it fair to the rest of the kids in the class that there are a few kids who always seem to be really good at everything only because they are older?

The average redshirt male at exclusive private schools or upper middle class public schools was redshirted so they would be good at everything or at least social and athletic leaders. Most research is on the vast gamut of socio economic groups - children in poverty, children with disabilities. It includes children who would benefit from access to school . Not the specific subset commonly discussed on this forum. Funny thing is that by high school things can even out and positions in the pecking order change as others mature.

So then you disagree with those anti-redshirters who claim that research proves no benefit to redshirting, correct? Your point is that all that research is likely not applicable in the context we're discussing here? Just to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with you -- in fact, I think you're probably right about the research not being applicable. I just want to make sure that you personally are not arguing the research both ways (i.e., you're not one of those anti-redshirters who posted earlier with claims that there is no benefit).

[Anonymous]

The average redshirt male at exclusive private schools or upper middle class public schools was redshirted so they would be good at everything or at least social and athletic leaders.

This is a stereotyped and much-hyped claim, and I'd be a little surprised if anyone posting on DCUM has proof of this.

Perhaps this is a definitional issue. I know some on DCUM note that "redshirted" kids are a particular subset of all those that are held back and thus older, and that "redshirted" kids should be defined as only those that were held back specifically to give them an unfair advantage. If that's the definition you're using, then maybe your claim makes logical sense: "the average kid held back to gain unfair advantage was held back so they could be good at everything."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP, but have posted previously on this thread indicated that there are indeed 6 year-olds in pre-K, 7 year-olds in K and 19 year-olds in 12th grade.

This is and does happen, right now, today. It is not uncommon and it is ridiculous on so many levels.

I flat out do not believe this unless you name where. What school has multiple 6 year-olds (plural!) at the beginning of their Pre-K year (i.e., in September)?

I'm with you PP. Until I hear people name schools and classes that can be verified, I don't believe this for a second. I personally have never witnessed a 7 year old Fall/Winter birthday in K. Maybe a kid that turns 7 in April or May... but not November. I think we've got some folks that are stretching the truth pretty liberally on this board. Until I see some data, I'm dismissing these comments.