Do you consider redshirting cheating?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks, I guess? It would be very odd were you to excoriate parents who sent their children on time in accordance with their local laws.

It's also odd to excoriate parents who send their children with a one-year delay in accordance with their local laws, and yet here we are.

Yes, we should all love each of our current laws and never work to change them when they become outdated in statistically significant numbers.

Look, its a question about redshirting. Would I ever "excoriate" a friend or fellow parent for doing this? No way, I don't care that much. I have no problem sharing my opinion on a forum when asked.

Given your responses here, it's clear you are lying when you claim you don't care much. Yet you almost certainly do almost nothing to change those issues you supposedly car about. Like most anti-redshirt posters on DCUM, a total hypocrite. Quelle surprise.

Yes, nothing hypocritical at all in a bunch of rich people getting all outraged when they are told that their decisions have repercussions.

+1 million!

[Anonymous]

The hypocrisy... for all the people that consider redshirting cheating, you better never spend a dime towards your kids other than the bare minimum that everyone in the country can afford

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's cheating because its something only UMC people can afford to do. Think the working class can afford another year of daycare to hold Larla back from Kindergarten? Nope.

Just like tutoring, language classes, private schools, and piano lessons

Exactly. That's why the anti-redshirt people on DCUM are such raging hypocrites. Also add buying houses in expensive districts, attending any charters whatsoever, and leaving their inbound school for middle school to the list. Those last have far more impact on the education gap than redshirting yet somehow I don't think DCUMs resident anti-redshirt hypocrites are willing to practice what they angrily preach and demand that others do.

Okay thats great that you feel this moral outrage, but again, statistically, the redshirted kids ARE coming from expensive districts and going to charters and privates and leaving IB schools. That is the issue that you seem incapable of even considering and I don't understand why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The hypocrisy... for all the people that consider redshirting cheating, you better never spend a dime towards your kids other than the bare minimum that everyone in the country can afford

Its just the opposite. My kids were born "cheaters" with wealth and educated married parents. Statistically they are already so far ahead that the idea of redshirting them seems outrageous. The large bulk of redshirted children are born into the same "third base".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's cheating because its something only UMC people can afford to do. Think the working class can afford another year of daycare to hold Larla back from Kindergarten? Nope.

Just like tutoring, language classes, private schools, and piano lessons

Exactly. That's why the anti-redshirt people on DCUM are such raging hypocrites. Also add buying houses in expensive districts, attending any charters whatsoever, and leaving their inbound school for middle school to the list. Those last have far more impact on the education gap than redshirting yet somehow I don't think DCUMs resident anti-redshirt hypocrites are willing to practice what they angrily preach and demand that others do.

Okay thats great that you feel this moral outrage, but again, statistically, the redshirted kids ARE coming from expensive districts and going to charters and privates and leaving IB schools. That is the issue that you seem incapable of even considering and I don't understand why?

Not the PP you were responding to, but what you don’t seem to grasp is that you can’t treat redshirting as immoral because not every parents can afford an extra year of daycare. If this is your logic then we should also say that any extra that parents pay out of pocket is immoral as well. How many kids can take yearly trips to Europe? How many kids can have extra curricular activities and summer camps that are expensive? Maybe we should just move to a communist country where everyone is the same and therefore can give the same to their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://mobile.edweek.org/c.jsp?cid=25920011&item=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.edweek.org%2Fv1%2Fblogs%2F85%2F%3Fuuid%3D32075


Here’s the thing. The wealth gap is bigger than ever. The achievement gap is bigger than ever. I have a lot of acquaintances and friends who openly state that they did read short for the advantage to their neurotypical child. With hardly any low income families redshirting what are we actually saying here? Do you think wealthy children of well educated parents are less bright? I dont. I think the statistics are moving quickly up because obviously there is an advantage. Now, as a general rule it’s normal and right of people to ave opinions about things that can or may impact them.

I do not think that the growing gaps between rich and poor are good for our country. If you can truly look at the stats and still make this just about “your” slower/smaller/whatever child, rather than noticing the systemic trends in redshirting, okay. I couldn’t.

Of course it is. We keep importing people from other countries with no education. We keep damaging our environment and making bad decisions on childbirth to where more children are born with defects or develop them through their environment. Meanwhile the internet and capitalism are helping wealthier people become wealthier. Any academic metric can be age normed. We already give more than twice the resources now to children who are ESOL and special-ed throughout the K-12 years. What else are you expecting be done?

[Anonymous]

I'm talking about public schools. Yes, a wealth disparity exists, yes its growing. Lets not pretend that we can wipe it out of existence by foregoing piano en masse, but we do have a different consideration when it comes to public education. A "rule" that only/mostly benefits the children who need it least, in public education, is a bad rule, IMO. I'm not attaching any morality to anyones decision, but to the concept as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://mobile.edweek.org/c.jsp?cid=25920011&item=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.edweek.org%2Fv1%2Fblogs%2F85%2F%3Fuuid%3D32075


Here’s the thing. The wealth gap is bigger than ever. The achievement gap is bigger than ever. I have a lot of acquaintances and friends who openly state that they did read short for the advantage to their neurotypical child. With hardly any low income families redshirting what are we actually saying here? Do you think wealthy children of well educated parents are less bright? I dont. I think the statistics are moving quickly up because obviously there is an advantage. Now, as a general rule it’s normal and right of people to ave opinions about things that can or may impact them.

I do not think that the growing gaps between rich and poor are good for our country. If you can truly look at the stats and still make this just about “your” slower/smaller/whatever child, rather than noticing the systemic trends in redshirting, okay. I couldn’t.

Of course it is. We keep importing people from other countries with no education. We keep damaging our environment and making bad decisions on childbirth to where more children are born with defects or develop them through their environment. Meanwhile the internet and capitalism are helping wealthier people become wealthier. Any academic metric can be age normed. We already give more than twice the resources now to children who are ESOL and special-ed throughout the K-12 years. What else are you expecting be done?

Our entire nation was founded by imported people from other countries. Yes, we also keep revolutionizing IVF and embryo adoption and genetic testing which is helping reduce defects and treat defects better than ever. The internet and capitalism are all humming along thanks to people with educations. Yes, it can be. Why does it have to be? Surely you don't advocate for having a 10 year old in first grade and just applying age metrics, right? So you'd support a rule at some age? Me too. Yes, we do.

I expect that in light of recent trends a legal change will happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When your child is that close to the line, they will fit in with either cohort.

There are days when I wish we had fought to send our October kid early (born to be oldest, considered making him youngest); on balance, it was the right decision to go on time.

Considering OP's child and mine are days on either side of the cut off, it's the same thing on the opposite end (OP's kid is born to be youngest, they are considering making him oldest), and the point is that the child will fit in with either cohort -- do what feels right for your child and your family.

Truth! Most kids who are redshirted will just be days behind other students. Are these Oct. students dumb, bored and disruptive (as anti redshirts have claimed on this thread)? No. We have an Oct. child and a Sept. child. It just seemed unnecessary to send the Sept. kid early. And based on our experience with our OCt. kid it definitely seemed like pushing ahead, not delaying. A few posters on here commented about a wasted year, but my kids learned SO much socially and emotionally in that year that transferred to elementary. It REALLY prepared her. Definitely NOT a waste (or delay) in any sense. It was expensive though, and not for everyone.

Another anti-redshirt comment that always gets me from having an Oct. kid is that the kid will get a false sense of accomplishment. In what reality does age solely corrolate to accomplishment on EVERYTHING?! My kids SUCK at sports, and are with other fall birthdays and spring kids too, as the older ones. They are usually just average if not below. Just not natural for them, But they work hard at it. Imagine if they were with kids a full year ahead, they would probably give up in frustration because the goal would be so unattainable. It could be like that for a younger child in school (or any aged child that struggles).



I'm sure she really did learn a lot in that year. I mean, if she didn't learn something in what is about 20% of her life experience, that would be so weird, don't you think? You just don't know what she could have learned in the more challenging grade. Maybe more!

How can you say it was not a delay? They will graduate from HS and college a year later than they would have. Thats a delay, right?

Not really when you consider the classmates graduating with her "on time" are only a week younger than she is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The hypocrisy... for all the people that consider redshirting cheating, you better never spend a dime towards your kids other than the bare minimum that everyone in the country can afford

The hypocrisy is pretending the law is meant to cover the parents redshirting so their kid will have an advantage over the on-time kids! It wasn’t meant to be used that way and we all know it.

[Anonymous]

Redshirting is cheating

Few kids are such extreme outliners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When your child is that close to the line, they will fit in with either cohort.

There are days when I wish we had fought to send our October kid early (born to be oldest, considered making him youngest); on balance, it was the right decision to go on time.

Considering OP's child and mine are days on either side of the cut off, it's the same thing on the opposite end (OP's kid is born to be youngest, they are considering making him oldest), and the point is that the child will fit in with either cohort -- do what feels right for your child and your family.

Truth! Most kids who are redshirted will just be days behind other students. Are these Oct. students dumb, bored and disruptive (as anti redshirts have claimed on this thread)? No. We have an Oct. child and a Sept. child. It just seemed unnecessary to send the Sept. kid early. And based on our experience with our OCt. kid it definitely seemed like pushing ahead, not delaying. A few posters on here commented about a wasted year, but my kids learned SO much socially and emotionally in that year that transferred to elementary. It REALLY prepared her. Definitely NOT a waste (or delay) in any sense. It was expensive though, and not for everyone.

Another anti-redshirt comment that always gets me from having an Oct. kid is that the kid will get a false sense of accomplishment. In what reality does age solely corrolate to accomplishment on EVERYTHING?! My kids SUCK at sports, and are with other fall birthdays and spring kids too, as the older ones. They are usually just average if not below. Just not natural for them, But they work hard at it. Imagine if they were with kids a full year ahead, they would probably give up in frustration because the goal would be so unattainable. It could be like that for a younger child in school (or any aged child that struggles).



I'm sure she really did learn a lot in that year. I mean, if she didn't learn something in what is about 20% of her life experience, that would be so weird, don't you think? You just don't know what she could have learned in the more challenging grade. Maybe more!

How can you say it was not a delay? They will graduate from HS and college a year later than they would have. Thats a delay, right?

Not really when you consider the classmates graduating with her "on time" are only a week younger than she is.

No, if a summer birthday kid is held, then your DC is graduating with kids who are a year younger but weren’t held. My DS was in a class with a February birthday kid who was held back and he was quite unpleasant about bragging how advanced he was, so he wasn’t wasn’t for academic reasons!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm talking about public schools. Yes, a wealth disparity exists, yes its growing. Lets not pretend that we can wipe it out of existence by foregoing piano en masse, but we do have a different consideration when it comes to public education. A "rule" that only/mostly benefits the children who need it least, in public education, is a bad rule, IMO. I'm not attaching any morality to anyones decision, but to the concept as a whole.

Some school districts have a 1-2 month window on either side of the cutoff date that are allowed without exceptions and otherwise the school needs to agree to the exception. Is this a rule that you're looking for? It already exists in some districts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm talking about public schools. Yes, a wealth disparity exists, yes its growing. Lets not pretend that we can wipe it out of existence by foregoing piano en masse, but we do have a different consideration when it comes to public education. A "rule" that only/mostly benefits the children who need it least, in public education, is a bad rule, IMO. I'm not attaching any morality to anyones decision, but to the concept as a whole.

Some school districts have a 1-2 month window on either side of the cutoff date that are allowed without exceptions and otherwise the school needs to agree to the exception. Is this a rule that you're looking for? It already exists in some districts.

That would solve a lot of the abuse!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, dear, IQ does not determine social aptitude. This truly surprises you? That your kids are different people?


No wonder you all hold your kids back.

They have very similar personalities. Other than a twin study, they are excellent subjects. And now knowing what I do, I wish I had redshirted the young one. I advise parents to really think about it if their kid is within a month of the cutoff.

Huh. I sent my older kid on time and my younger kid early. Now knowing what I do, I wish I had sent the older one early (except that I couldn't). I advise parents to really think about it if their kid is within a month of the cutoff.

Actually I don't advise parents, unless they ask me. I figure they can make their own decisions.

(I used to be mildly anti-delayed entry. But reading the delayed-entry threads on DCUM has made me a rabid supporter of the position that it's none of your business at what age other people send their children to kindergarten, as long as it's within the bounds of the law.)