mad - kid in kindergarten has late birthday

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This may come as a shock to people, but sports are not the primary goal of school attendance. Most kids are not going to be sports superstars and the odds that any of these posters children (redshirted or not) are recruited college athletes (much less professionals) are extremely low. What they will all certainly need, however, is a solid education and enough social skills to get along with each other and eventually integrate into their community.

Kids aren’t widgets. Just as kids grow at different rates, and have different strengths and weaknesses, they may be ready for K at different times. For a few, starting early may make sense and they should have that opportunity. For most, starting “on time” probably works best. Some may need extra time, for a variety of reasons, to be ready. It is in society’s best interest to maximize every child’s opportunity for success, and redshirting is only one tool (of many) to facilitate this process. Moreover, redshirting a child who isn’t ready for school helps their classmates. Instead of having a child who can’t sit still, interrupts the teacher, and generally is disruptive, an extra year to mature may mean they are more ready to focus and participate, allowing their classmates to do the same.

It’s not a magic wand that automatically confers an “advantage”. Because everyone has various strengths and weaknesses, redshirting will almost always have drawbacks and parents have to carefully balance the pros and cons. A child who doesn’t have a need for redshirting will probably come out worse for it, rather than being advantaged.

I had a June birthday and went to school “on time”. I never fit in with my peers and by the time I graduated my friend circles (both in and out of school) were with younger kids. In K, they were learning to read and because I couldn’t get it no matter how hard I tried while everyone else did, I was convinced I was stupid. Thankfully, my mom persevered and it finally clicked the following summer, I think because I was finally developmentally ready. After that breakthrough, I did well academically, eventually ending up in a magnet school, but if it hadn’t been for my mother, I would have probably given up on school in K. The problem I had wasn’t that there might be a few older redshirted kids who outpaced everyone. Honestly, I had no idea who was the oldest and by how much. The problem was that I was out of sync with EVERYONE. It worked out okay, but looking back, redshirting would have put me with my peers. (By the way, there was no question of athletic advantage. Even if I’d been redshirted twice, I still would have been the last one picked for teams.)

This is a very thoughtful post.

However, I think there is a fundamental disconnect here. I have no problem with redshirting where merited. But not everyone who redshirts does it because their child is truly not ready for K. I wish that was the case. Then I don't think you'd get people complaining about it. There are people who redshirt simply so their kid will not be the smallest or the youngest, and those factors are considered independent of actual readiness factors like emotional regulation, social skills, and academic preparedness. I know I will be told "that doesn't happen" or "there may have been issues you don't know about." But no -- I am talking about family members and people I know well, who will tell you point blank that the reason they redshirted their child is because they didn't want them to be the smallest or youngest. Not because of other readiness factors.

Someone upthread mentioned that Malcolm Gladwell book popularizing this notion of how age cut offs can have longterm impacts on success, and this is absolutely part of the issue. Not just with sports. Since that book came out, there are a lot more high SES, well-educated parents who view redshirting as a way to confer an advantage on their kids. This is also what has led to the creep in redshirting, from just kids on the younger end of the spectrum with maturity issues or developmental delays, to kids squarely in the middle of the age cohort with no apparent concerns.

Private schools often redshirt aggressively in order to ensure that all entering kindergarteners are at a relatively advanced reading level, which allows them to accelerate all students. I know of a number of privates that do not permit kids to start K until they are reading, for instance. It's a private, they can do what they want, but it's also an aggressive, and highly competitive stance meant to make those children more competitive throughout their academic careers.

I would LOVE if there was no debate around redshirting because it was something that only happened for kids who genuinely just needed more time. But in reality, it's not viewed this way, and many people (and schools) view it as a tool for winning a race that many of us don't even want to be in. The truth is that peer cohorts do matter for kids, and what other parents choose to do can impact your child. So you can expect to see more debates around redshirting, more complaining, more hand-wringing. And that's not because people just randomly hate redshirting as a concept. It's because of how it is being used by growing number of families in the name of competition.

"Redshirting where merited" is what it comes down to. The theme running through the anti-redshirt posts is that there should be some "merit" threshold and the perception that this is usually/typically not satisfied but rather a case of sharp elbows that should be regulated. This is a sandcastle of assumptions about what is going on with a particular kid, and what is in the heart of the parents. The sentiment seems to be that the decision should be taken out of the parents' hands and instead placed in . . . whose hands? The schools? Are they qualified, and do they have the capacity? And wouldn't they be just as inclined to hold back a disruptive kid as the parents? And, what would be enough to justify the hold-back? Not everything that is a need rises to the level of a diagnosis, and some diagnoses are only arrived at years later. The solutions seem worse than the ill being railed against. So, instead, we're addressing this with quiet seething and passive aggression that may feel justified but only if you choose to believe a narrative about the kids and parents that is unsupportable with objective evidence. None of us knows the full story about someone else's family. Why choose to believe the worst? Why not just leave the decision to the people best positioned to make decisions about their kid: the parents?

The answer to the bolded question, on a theoretical level, is that this a family-style meal, not a buffet -- a parent's choice to red shirt does in fact affect other children, so what is best for their child shouldn't really be the be all and end all, only consideration. Even if it's done for the "with merit" reasons, it affects others. Not so terrible to have someone thinking of the group as a whole weigh in...

To your other point about the "redshirting WITHOUT merit" phenomenon being over-stated...I agree. I think there are sadly SOME nutter hyper-competitive parents who do this, but I think the hand wringers on this thread have convinced themselves it's more prevalent than it is.

I can certainly agree that hyper-competitive parenting is a thing, particularly in the DMV. In fact, I comment on it regularly in my house as I see my kids' friends heavily scheduled lives, and wonder how that pressure will affect my kids. I also can buy that there are some parents that might view redshirting as part of that. It just wasn't my experience at all, and it wasn't the experience of other families that I've discussed this with. However, I could certainly see someone looking at my family and thinking they know the reason why we gave him a preschool "victory lap" (sorry, that's what we call it in my house) because my kid now seems perfectly normal and is advanced academically. I know my own truth. I thought hard about whether it was right for him. I visited a classroom and consulted with the school, his teachers, and an outside education expert. No one suggested that I risked harming other children in allowing him another year of preschool, and no one suggested (and I never considered) that this was an opportunity for a leg up. So, I do find it hard to reconcile my lived experience with the caricature of the red-shirting parent being painted here, and the insistence this caricature accounts for most of red-shirting. It feels more like a lot of people wanting to believe the worst about other people. But, I supposed I've just summed up DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don’t get the anger, at all. Or the back and forth about parents having to justify redshirting. It has been well established, time and again, teachers are teaching set curriculum aimed to the lowest denominator in class. Age is not at all a factor in what is taught. Honestly, the more kids in class that are well behaved and proficient at what is being taught, the better off the entire class is

Often the lowest denominator is that held back kid who is 6+ and no reading. And, often they aren't better behaved as they act out to hide what's going on.

Then what’s the problem with them being in kindergarten? Why would OP be “mad” about this?

It causes a developmental skew and it's also an issue if a 6 year old isn't reading. If you have a 5 year old, the teachers generally look to the oldest in terms of development and often teachers do not understand these younger kids are developmentally appropriate for their age and have unreasonable expectations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don’t get the anger, at all. Or the back and forth about parents having to justify redshirting. It has been well established, time and again, teachers are teaching set curriculum aimed to the lowest denominator in class. Age is not at all a factor in what is taught. Honestly, the more kids in class that are well behaved and proficient at what is being taught, the better off the entire class is

Often the lowest denominator is that held back kid who is 6+ and no reading. And, often they aren't better behaved as they act out to hide what's going on.

Then what’s the problem with them being in kindergarten? Why would OP be “mad” about this?

It causes a developmental skew and it's also an issue if a 6 year old isn't reading. If you have a 5 year old, the teachers generally look to the oldest in terms of development and often teachers do not understand these younger kids are developmentally appropriate for their age and have unreasonable expectations.

Somebody call a whambulance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it op. My late-August birthday girl was called a baby and told she belonged in pre-k because she was still 5 in the late spring of her kindergarten year, by the 7 year olds in the class. Blatant red-shirting skews the dynamics.

I hate this. Redshirt a summer birthday if you feel they aren't ready, but kids with a birthday during the year should not be redshirted at parent discretion (it should be the school's call) and if you do hold a kid like this back, teachers should be proactive about shutting down this kind of teasing/bullying. It happened to my kid too (early August birthday and a full 2 months before the cutoff of September 30th) and it was really frustrating because the attitude of some parents seems to be "if you don't like it, you should redshirt." But that's nuts. You should be able to send a child who is prepared on time and not assume they will get harassed by redshirted kids for being too small.

I have a late summer birthday who was sent ahead, despite being a month younger than the cutoff date. She passed the readiness interview and the school took her early (private school). She is small for her age and was called a baby in K by some of the kids. Luckily the other kids’ parents and the teachers shut that down pretty quickly. Everyone thought she was ready, despite being very young and small for her age. Fast forward a few years - she’s a straight A student and socially well adjusted. I debated if I made the right call not to hold her with her age. Turns out the other kids come from good families that don’t put up with child antics and neither do the teachers. I am grateful for this. Redshirting should be a decision for the school and parents; it is very unique to the children involved. (I send her to a competitive private that normally recommends to redshirt - but not always).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don’t get the anger, at all. Or the back and forth about parents having to justify redshirting. It has been well established, time and again, teachers are teaching set curriculum aimed to the lowest denominator in class. Age is not at all a factor in what is taught. Honestly, the more kids in class that are well behaved and proficient at what is being taught, the better off the entire class is

Often the lowest denominator is that held back kid who is 6+ and no reading. And, often they aren't better behaved as they act out to hide what's going on.

Then what’s the problem with them being in kindergarten? Why would OP be “mad” about this?

It causes a developmental skew and it's also an issue if a 6 year old isn't reading. If you have a 5 year old, the teachers generally look to the oldest in terms of development and often teachers do not understand these younger kids are developmentally appropriate for their age and have unreasonable expectations.

Are you under the impression that teachers first learn about child development “on the job”?

Many of you are creating problems in your minds where there aren’t any. I am old, but back in my day kids used to actually be held back at any point throughout their education if they were failing to meet the standards to advance to the next grade. Some students were even held back more than once! But schools cannot or will not do this anymore, so who can blame parents for trying to make the right call for their child with the information they have right at the beginning. Better to err on the side of being a little old for the grade rather than set them up for failure for the next 13 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it op. My late-August birthday girl was called a baby and told she belonged in pre-k because she was still 5 in the late spring of her kindergarten year, by the 7 year olds in the class. Blatant red-shirting skews the dynamics.

I hate this. Redshirt a summer birthday if you feel they aren't ready, but kids with a birthday during the year should not be redshirted at parent discretion (it should be the school's call) and if you do hold a kid like this back, teachers should be proactive about shutting down this kind of teasing/bullying. It happened to my kid too (early August birthday and a full 2 months before the cutoff of September 30th) and it was really frustrating because the attitude of some parents seems to be "if you don't like it, you should redshirt." But that's nuts. You should be able to send a child who is prepared on time and not assume they will get harassed by redshirted kids for being too small.

I have a late summer birthday who was sent ahead, despite being a month younger than the cutoff date. She passed the readiness interview and the school took her early (private school). She is small for her age and was called a baby in K by some of the kids. Luckily the other kids’ parents and the teachers shut that down pretty quickly. Everyone thought she was ready, despite being very young and small for her age. Fast forward a few years - she’s a straight A student and socially well adjusted. I debated if I made the right call not to hold her with her age. Turns out the other kids come from good families that don’t put up with child antics and neither do the teachers. I am grateful for this. Redshirting should be a decision for the school and parents; it is very unique to the children involved. (I send her to a competitive private that normally recommends to redshirt - but not always).

Agree it should be a joint decision by the school and the parents. I think it should be at a parents discretion for a child near the cut off (within 2 months or so) but otherwise it should be a consultation with the school.

One element at play is that unless you have older children, I think parents don't always understand what it means to be ready for kindergarten. It can be hard to look at your 4 year old or just-turned 5 year old and imagine them in elementary school in a few months. But the vast majority of 5 yr olds are totally fine starting kindergarten on time. It's also common for children to have stuff they need to work on, and that doesn't make them unready. I had a kid who started reading on her own the summer before K, but who was very young for her grade and maybe even a little socially immature for her age. To be perfectly honest, there was no "right" answer for her, because sending on time made sense academically but was more of a challenge socially, but holding her back might have eased some of the social stuff but potentially also been a mess because her preschool classroom definitely couldn't support where she was at academically. I think situations like this are more common than we are willing to admit.

Which is why I think it's important that these decisions be made with the school in all cases except kids truly on the cusp in terms of birthday. And yes, I guess that means I don't totally trust other parents to do what's right. I don't! People make mistakes all the time with parenting and since this is a decision that will impact the overall make up of grade cohorts, I don't think it should just be at the parents discretion. There was a PP flipping out about this and the idea that you might need an assessment or consultation with the school in order to be allowed to redshirt, and I just don't understand why that would be an issue. I think it would be clarifying. My kids have taken all kind of placement screenings in life -- I find it useful because usually the school or activity is much better positioned to make sure my kid is in the appropriate level in terms of both readiness and challenge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When did doing the best thing for your own child become disadvantaging everyone else?

When doing the right thing for your kid has reverberations through high school. What do you think happens in high school senior year when the 17 year old and 18.25 year old are competing for same spot or playing time on the varsity team? If you don’t think this is a big deal, I encourage you to have your child go permanently compete against kids that are 1.25 years older in whatever EC your kid cares about. Please report back.

Again, there are legit reasons to redshirt. But when your redshirted kid shows up dominating in ECs because he’s competing down, well, that’s crappy.

By the time they’re 16+ the star athlete kids are gonna be star athlete kids. If your kid is not a star athlete by that age just accept it, rather than blaming the parents of Billy for waiting until Billy was six years old to start kindergarten. And you know that kids come in all shapes and sizes regardless of age, don’t you? I know a kid who has always been off the charts tall, even when looking at charts for kids two years older than him. I wonder if people assume he’s always the oldest on the team, when in reality he is often one of the youngest.

It’s not just about the star athlete kids. Indeed, I think the star athlete kids aren’t really impacted by the age thing. They are outliers to begin with. But it does make a difference for the marginal players. I have a friend with a son who was on a good varsity basketball team. His senior year he split the starting position with another player and split playing time (getting about 1/3 of the starts and playing time). Great story, right? Until you find out the other kid was 16 months older and was held back. By any reasonable metric, the younger kid was better on an age-adjusted basis but he missed out because his competitor wasn’t ready for kinder 13 years ago. Tough pill to swallow.

I will bet neither made it to the NBA. So what? Was he banking on a full ride basketball scholarship? They should have seen this coming a mile away.

Funny you say that. The older kid went on to play four years of low level college basketball. Perhaps if the younger kid spent his age 18 year in that solid high school program he gets the same thing? But that’s beside the point. Fairness isn’t just reserved for star athletes destined for the NBA. Literally tens of thousands of kids each year find meaning and development from high school sports. It should be as fair as possible for ALL kids.

Life isn’t fair. But we use things like age categories to try to level the playing field. But what is meant to be a shield protecting fairness has been gamed as a sword by much of the holdback crowd.

Again, if you people really don’t believe this is a big deal, go sign your kid up to compete against kids that are a year older and report back the results.

But you don’t believe that. That’s why you’re not mentioning the kid who didn’t get to play at all because everyone else on the team was at least six months older than him. One of those super late summer birthdays, got into kindergarten just before the cutoff. It’s not fair for kid A to be older than kid B (unfair advantage!) but it’s perfectly fine for kid B to be older than kid C. Because you are mom B and you don’t care about “fairness” you care about your own kid and what is best for him. Obviously.

You’re misreading this. My kid is kid C with the late summer birthday. I’m not mentioning kid B in my posts because you have to have cutoffs somewhere in an educational system organized around age. But when parents intentionally start moving a kid from one cohort to another, that’s where the issue of fairness down the road comes up.

Are you at a public school or private? Let's talk about fairness after you answer that question. Then we can talk about household income, height, private tutors, expensive basketball camps and clubs, stable household, food security, height and all the other ways your kid is already winning at life. Then we can talk about basketball. Basketball?!

The level of tone deafness of some of the posters on thread is almost painful. If the worst thing that ever happens to their kid is that he doesn't get on the basketball team at his private school, they should count their lucky stars.

We did what was best for our kid. And our choice made no difference to anyone else's lives.

The kid made the basketball team. But didn't get as much play time as mommy wanted. That's the real tragedy here, apparently.

Yeah, that PP must be a total nightmare in person. Sitting there in this stew of resentment, because she thinks parents are holding their kids back in order to screw over her kid's chances of starting on their basketball team. It totally believe she doesn't spend her time gossiping and backbiting. Not.

A high school mean girl who never grew up. She's out there somewhere right now, making some service worker's life hell.

[Anonymous]

I get it OP. We sent our late July DD on time and I get annoyed at how many people redshirted their kids. I expected SOME summer redshirting, but I'd say 75%+ of summer birthday kids were redshirted. And I've been blown away by redshirting of March-May birthdays.

We have not run across a child younger than DD in her grade and her birthday is 5-6 weeks before the cut off.

There's a 15 month spread in ages in her grade, which is pretty crazy. I get irked too when parents brag about their kids being "above grade level" but they should quite literally be in the grade above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This may come as a shock to people, but sports are not the primary goal of school attendance. Most kids are not going to be sports superstars and the odds that any of these posters children (redshirted or not) are recruited college athletes (much less professionals) are extremely low. What they will all certainly need, however, is a solid education and enough social skills to get along with each other and eventually integrate into their community.

Kids aren’t widgets. Just as kids grow at different rates, and have different strengths and weaknesses, they may be ready for K at different times. For a few, starting early may make sense and they should have that opportunity. For most, starting “on time” probably works best. Some may need extra time, for a variety of reasons, to be ready. It is in society’s best interest to maximize every child’s opportunity for success, and redshirting is only one tool (of many) to facilitate this process. Moreover, redshirting a child who isn’t ready for school helps their classmates. Instead of having a child who can’t sit still, interrupts the teacher, and generally is disruptive, an extra year to mature may mean they are more ready to focus and participate, allowing their classmates to do the same.

It’s not a magic wand that automatically confers an “advantage”. Because everyone has various strengths and weaknesses, redshirting will almost always have drawbacks and parents have to carefully balance the pros and cons. A child who doesn’t have a need for redshirting will probably come out worse for it, rather than being advantaged.

I had a June birthday and went to school “on time”. I never fit in with my peers and by the time I graduated my friend circles (both in and out of school) were with younger kids. In K, they were learning to read and because I couldn’t get it no matter how hard I tried while everyone else did, I was convinced I was stupid. Thankfully, my mom persevered and it finally clicked the following summer, I think because I was finally developmentally ready. After that breakthrough, I did well academically, eventually ending up in a magnet school, but if it hadn’t been for my mother, I would have probably given up on school in K. The problem I had wasn’t that there might be a few older redshirted kids who outpaced everyone. Honestly, I had no idea who was the oldest and by how much. The problem was that I was out of sync with EVERYONE. It worked out okay, but looking back, redshirting would have put me with my peers. (By the way, there was no question of athletic advantage. Even if I’d been redshirted twice, I still would have been the last one picked for teams.)

This is a very thoughtful post.

However, I think there is a fundamental disconnect here. I have no problem with redshirting where merited. But not everyone who redshirts does it because their child is truly not ready for K. I wish that was the case. Then I don't think you'd get people complaining about it. There are people who redshirt simply so their kid will not be the smallest or the youngest, and those factors are considered independent of actual readiness factors like emotional regulation, social skills, and academic preparedness. I know I will be told "that doesn't happen" or "there may have been issues you don't know about." But no -- I am talking about family members and people I know well, who will tell you point blank that the reason they redshirted their child is because they didn't want them to be the smallest or youngest. Not because of other readiness factors.

Someone upthread mentioned that Malcolm Gladwell book popularizing this notion of how age cut offs can have longterm impacts on success, and this is absolutely part of the issue. Not just with sports. Since that book came out, there are a lot more high SES, well-educated parents who view redshirting as a way to confer an advantage on their kids. This is also what has led to the creep in redshirting, from just kids on the younger end of the spectrum with maturity issues or developmental delays, to kids squarely in the middle of the age cohort with no apparent concerns.

Private schools often redshirt aggressively in order to ensure that all entering kindergarteners are at a relatively advanced reading level, which allows them to accelerate all students. I know of a number of privates that do not permit kids to start K until they are reading, for instance. It's a private, they can do what they want, but it's also an aggressive, and highly competitive stance meant to make those children more competitive throughout their academic careers.

I would LOVE if there was no debate around redshirting because it was something that only happened for kids who genuinely just needed more time. But in reality, it's not viewed this way, and many people (and schools) view it as a tool for winning a race that many of us don't even want to be in. The truth is that peer cohorts do matter for kids, and what other parents choose to do can impact your child. So you can expect to see more debates around redshirting, more complaining, more hand-wringing. And that's not because people just randomly hate redshirting as a concept. It's because of how it is being used by growing number of families in the name of competition.

"Redshirting where merited" is what it comes down to. The theme running through the anti-redshirt posts is that there should be some "merit" threshold and the perception that this is usually/typically not satisfied but rather a case of sharp elbows that should be regulated. This is a sandcastle of assumptions about what is going on with a particular kid, and what is in the heart of the parents. The sentiment seems to be that the decision should be taken out of the parents' hands and instead placed in . . . whose hands? The schools? Are they qualified, and do they have the capacity? And wouldn't they be just as inclined to hold back a disruptive kid as the parents? And, what would be enough to justify the hold-back? Not everything that is a need rises to the level of a diagnosis, and some diagnoses are only arrived at years later. The solutions seem worse than the ill being railed against. So, instead, we're addressing this with quiet seething and passive aggression that may feel justified but only if you choose to believe a narrative about the kids and parents that is unsupportable with objective evidence. None of us knows the full story about someone else's family. Why choose to believe the worst? Why not just leave the decision to the people best positioned to make decisions about their kid: the parents?

The answer to the bolded question, on a theoretical level, is that this a family-style meal, not a buffet -- a parent's choice to red shirt does in fact affect other children, so what is best for their child shouldn't really be the be all and end all, only consideration. Even if it's done for the "with merit" reasons, it affects others. Not so terrible to have someone thinking of the group as a whole weigh in...

To your other point about the "redshirting WITHOUT merit" phenomenon being over-stated...I agree. I think there are sadly SOME nutter hyper-competitive parents who do this, but I think the hand wringers on this thread have convinced themselves it's more prevalent than it is.

I can certainly agree that hyper-competitive parenting is a thing, particularly in the DMV. In fact, I comment on it regularly in my house as I see my kids' friends heavily scheduled lives, and wonder how that pressure will affect my kids. I also can buy that there are some parents that might view redshirting as part of that. It just wasn't my experience at all, and it wasn't the experience of other families that I've discussed this with. However, I could certainly see someone looking at my family and thinking they know the reason why we gave him a preschool "victory lap" (sorry, that's what we call it in my house) because my kid now seems perfectly normal and is advanced academically. I know my own truth. I thought hard about whether it was right for him. I visited a classroom and consulted with the school, his teachers, and an outside education expert. No one suggested that I risked harming other children in allowing him another year of preschool, and no one suggested (and I never considered) that this was an opportunity for a leg up. So, I do find it hard to reconcile my lived experience with the caricature of the red-shirting parent being painted here, and the insistence this caricature accounts for most of red-shirting. It feels more like a lot of people wanting to believe the worst about other people. But, I supposed I've just summed up DCUM.

Some kids really enjoy sports and activities. Mine is in a ton and would do more if they can fit it in. We encourage all interests as it’s better to try and explore than never gave the opportunity when it might have a good outcome. I feel bad for your kids if you don’t then then have the opportunity to be successful and given the chance. Your child is not advanced if you held them back a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get it OP. We sent our late July DD on time and I get annoyed at how many people redshirted their kids. I expected SOME summer redshirting, but I'd say 75%+ of summer birthday kids were redshirted. And I've been blown away by redshirting of March-May birthdays.

We have not run across a child younger than DD in her grade and her birthday is 5-6 weeks before the cut off.

There's a 15 month spread in ages in her grade, which is pretty crazy. I get irked too when parents brag about their kids being "above grade level" but they should quite literally be in the grade above.

Above grade level and being held back make no sense. Then put them in the right grade level so they can be challenged appropriately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don’t get the anger, at all. Or the back and forth about parents having to justify redshirting. It has been well established, time and again, teachers are teaching set curriculum aimed to the lowest denominator in class. Age is not at all a factor in what is taught. Honestly, the more kids in class that are well behaved and proficient at what is being taught, the better off the entire class is

Often the lowest denominator is that held back kid who is 6+ and no reading. And, often they aren't better behaved as they act out to hide what's going on.

Then what’s the problem with them being in kindergarten? Why would OP be “mad” about this?

It causes a developmental skew and it's also an issue if a 6 year old isn't reading. If you have a 5 year old, the teachers generally look to the oldest in terms of development and often teachers do not understand these younger kids are developmentally appropriate for their age and have unreasonable expectations.

What are you talking about? There is a range of development. Some 5 yr olds are perfectly behaved and reading, some aren’t. Same for 6. It is range and not about age. A 6 yr old working on reading progress is perfectly appropriate for kindergarten. Even some first graders aren’t proficient readers, and that is also in the range of normal. It sounds like you are just looking for something to complain about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it op. My late-August birthday girl was called a baby and told she belonged in pre-k because she was still 5 in the late spring of her kindergarten year, by the 7 year olds in the class. Blatant red-shirting skews the dynamics.

I hate this. Redshirt a summer birthday if you feel they aren't ready, but kids with a birthday during the year should not be redshirted at parent discretion (it should be the school's call) and if you do hold a kid like this back, teachers should be proactive about shutting down this kind of teasing/bullying. It happened to my kid too (early August birthday and a full 2 months before the cutoff of September 30th) and it was really frustrating because the attitude of some parents seems to be "if you don't like it, you should redshirt." But that's nuts. You should be able to send a child who is prepared on time and not assume they will get harassed by redshirted kids for being too small.

I have a late summer birthday who was sent ahead, despite being a month younger than the cutoff date. She passed the readiness interview and the school took her early (private school). She is small for her age and was called a baby in K by some of the kids. Luckily the other kids’ parents and the teachers shut that down pretty quickly. Everyone thought she was ready, despite being very young and small for her age. Fast forward a few years - she’s a straight A student and socially well adjusted. I debated if I made the right call not to hold her with her age. Turns out the other kids come from good families that don’t put up with child antics and neither do the teachers. I am grateful for this. Redshirting should be a decision for the school and parents; it is very unique to the children involved. (I send her to a competitive private that normally recommends to redshirt - but not always).

Agree it should be a joint decision by the school and the parents. I think it should be at a parents discretion for a child near the cut off (within 2 months or so) but otherwise it should be a consultation with the school.

One element at play is that unless you have older children, I think parents don't always understand what it means to be ready for kindergarten. It can be hard to look at your 4 year old or just-turned 5 year old and imagine them in elementary school in a few months. But the vast majority of 5 yr olds are totally fine starting kindergarten on time. It's also common for children to have stuff they need to work on, and that doesn't make them unready. I had a kid who started reading on her own the summer before K, but who was very young for her grade and maybe even a little socially immature for her age. To be perfectly honest, there was no "right" answer for her, because sending on time made sense academically but was more of a challenge socially, but holding her back might have eased some of the social stuff but potentially also been a mess because her preschool classroom definitely couldn't support where she was at academically. I think situations like this are more common than we are willing to admit.

Which is why I think it's important that these decisions be made with the school in all cases except kids truly on the cusp in terms of birthday. And yes, I guess that means I don't totally trust other parents to do what's right. I don't! People make mistakes all the time with parenting and since this is a decision that will impact the overall make up of grade cohorts, I don't think it should just be at the parents discretion. There was a PP flipping out about this and the idea that you might need an assessment or consultation with the school in order to be allowed to redshirt, and I just don't understand why that would be an issue. I think it would be clarifying. My kids have taken all kind of placement screenings in life -- I find it useful because usually the school or activity is much better positioned to make sure my kid is in the appropriate level in terms of both readiness and challenge.

ITA.

I'm skeptical of anyone who balks at the idea of involving the ES in the decision to redshirt. If you are doing it because you are concerned about child's readiness -- not to confer a competitive advantage by being older and bigger -- then you should welcome school's input. I agree that so many parents really don't know what Kindergarten readiness looks like -- Kindergarten is in very large part for working on SEL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it op. My late-August birthday girl was called a baby and told she belonged in pre-k because she was still 5 in the late spring of her kindergarten year, by the 7 year olds in the class. Blatant red-shirting skews the dynamics.

I hate this. Redshirt a summer birthday if you feel they aren't ready, but kids with a birthday during the year should not be redshirted at parent discretion (it should be the school's call) and if you do hold a kid like this back, teachers should be proactive about shutting down this kind of teasing/bullying. It happened to my kid too (early August birthday and a full 2 months before the cutoff of September 30th) and it was really frustrating because the attitude of some parents seems to be "if you don't like it, you should redshirt." But that's nuts. You should be able to send a child who is prepared on time and not assume they will get harassed by redshirted kids for being too small.

I have a late summer birthday who was sent ahead, despite being a month younger than the cutoff date. She passed the readiness interview and the school took her early (private school). She is small for her age and was called a baby in K by some of the kids. Luckily the other kids’ parents and the teachers shut that down pretty quickly. Everyone thought she was ready, despite being very young and small for her age. Fast forward a few years - she’s a straight A student and socially well adjusted. I debated if I made the right call not to hold her with her age. Turns out the other kids come from good families that don’t put up with child antics and neither do the teachers. I am grateful for this. Redshirting should be a decision for the school and parents; it is very unique to the children involved. (I send her to a competitive private that normally recommends to redshirt - but not always).

Agree it should be a joint decision by the school and the parents. I think it should be at a parents discretion for a child near the cut off (within 2 months or so) but otherwise it should be a consultation with the school.

One element at play is that unless you have older children, I think parents don't always understand what it means to be ready for kindergarten. It can be hard to look at your 4 year old or just-turned 5 year old and imagine them in elementary school in a few months. But the vast majority of 5 yr olds are totally fine starting kindergarten on time. It's also common for children to have stuff they need to work on, and that doesn't make them unready. I had a kid who started reading on her own the summer before K, but who was very young for her grade and maybe even a little socially immature for her age. To be perfectly honest, there was no "right" answer for her, because sending on time made sense academically but was more of a challenge socially, but holding her back might have eased some of the social stuff but potentially also been a mess because her preschool classroom definitely couldn't support where she was at academically. I think situations like this are more common than we are willing to admit.

Which is why I think it's important that these decisions be made with the school in all cases except kids truly on the cusp in terms of birthday. And yes, I guess that means I don't totally trust other parents to do what's right. I don't! People make mistakes all the time with parenting and since this is a decision that will impact the overall make up of grade cohorts, I don't think it should just be at the parents discretion. There was a PP flipping out about this and the idea that you might need an assessment or consultation with the school in order to be allowed to redshirt, and I just don't understand why that would be an issue. I think it would be clarifying. My kids have taken all kind of placement screenings in life -- I find it useful because usually the school or activity is much better positioned to make sure my kid is in the appropriate level in terms of both readiness and challenge.

ITA.

I'm skeptical of anyone who balks at the idea of involving the ES in the decision to redshirt. If you are doing it because you are concerned about child's readiness -- not to confer a competitive advantage by being older and bigger -- then you should welcome school's input. I agree that so many parents really don't know what Kindergarten readiness looks like -- Kindergarten is in very large part for working on SEL.

What you're missing is that with private schools it's often at the suggestion of the school. You all need to make up your minds about who you're mad at here. The schools love kids ready to hit the ground running and learning even if that means fewer 4 year olds and more kids about to turn 6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it op. My late-August birthday girl was called a baby and told she belonged in pre-k because she was still 5 in the late spring of her kindergarten year, by the 7 year olds in the class. Blatant red-shirting skews the dynamics.

I hate this. Redshirt a summer birthday if you feel they aren't ready, but kids with a birthday during the year should not be redshirted at parent discretion (it should be the school's call) and if you do hold a kid like this back, teachers should be proactive about shutting down this kind of teasing/bullying. It happened to my kid too (early August birthday and a full 2 months before the cutoff of September 30th) and it was really frustrating because the attitude of some parents seems to be "if you don't like it, you should redshirt." But that's nuts. You should be able to send a child who is prepared on time and not assume they will get harassed by redshirted kids for being too small.

I have a late summer birthday who was sent ahead, despite being a month younger than the cutoff date. She passed the readiness interview and the school took her early (private school). She is small for her age and was called a baby in K by some of the kids. Luckily the other kids’ parents and the teachers shut that down pretty quickly. Everyone thought she was ready, despite being very young and small for her age. Fast forward a few years - she’s a straight A student and socially well adjusted. I debated if I made the right call not to hold her with her age. Turns out the other kids come from good families that don’t put up with child antics and neither do the teachers. I am grateful for this. Redshirting should be a decision for the school and parents; it is very unique to the children involved. (I send her to a competitive private that normally recommends to redshirt - but not always).

Agree it should be a joint decision by the school and the parents. I think it should be at a parents discretion for a child near the cut off (within 2 months or so) but otherwise it should be a consultation with the school.

One element at play is that unless you have older children, I think parents don't always understand what it means to be ready for kindergarten. It can be hard to look at your 4 year old or just-turned 5 year old and imagine them in elementary school in a few months. But the vast majority of 5 yr olds are totally fine starting kindergarten on time. It's also common for children to have stuff they need to work on, and that doesn't make them unready. I had a kid who started reading on her own the summer before K, but who was very young for her grade and maybe even a little socially immature for her age. To be perfectly honest, there was no "right" answer for her, because sending on time made sense academically but was more of a challenge socially, but holding her back might have eased some of the social stuff but potentially also been a mess because her preschool classroom definitely couldn't support where she was at academically. I think situations like this are more common than we are willing to admit.

Which is why I think it's important that these decisions be made with the school in all cases except kids truly on the cusp in terms of birthday. And yes, I guess that means I don't totally trust other parents to do what's right. I don't! People make mistakes all the time with parenting and since this is a decision that will impact the overall make up of grade cohorts, I don't think it should just be at the parents discretion. There was a PP flipping out about this and the idea that you might need an assessment or consultation with the school in order to be allowed to redshirt, and I just don't understand why that would be an issue. I think it would be clarifying. My kids have taken all kind of placement screenings in life -- I find it useful because usually the school or activity is much better positioned to make sure my kid is in the appropriate level in terms of both readiness and challenge.

ITA.

I'm skeptical of anyone who balks at the idea of involving the ES in the decision to redshirt. If you are doing it because you are concerned about child's readiness -- not to confer a competitive advantage by being older and bigger -- then you should welcome school's input. I agree that so many parents really don't know what Kindergarten readiness looks like -- Kindergarten is in very large part for working on SEL.

What you're missing is that with private schools it's often at the suggestion of the school. You all need to make up your minds about who you're mad at here. The schools love kids ready to hit the ground running and learning even if that means fewer 4 year olds and more kids about to turn 6.

I can only speak for myself, but I was talking about public school...I know private school is very different on this front.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it op. My late-August birthday girl was called a baby and told she belonged in pre-k because she was still 5 in the late spring of her kindergarten year, by the 7 year olds in the class. Blatant red-shirting skews the dynamics.

I hate this. Redshirt a summer birthday if you feel they aren't ready, but kids with a birthday during the year should not be redshirted at parent discretion (it should be the school's call) and if you do hold a kid like this back, teachers should be proactive about shutting down this kind of teasing/bullying. It happened to my kid too (early August birthday and a full 2 months before the cutoff of September 30th) and it was really frustrating because the attitude of some parents seems to be "if you don't like it, you should redshirt." But that's nuts. You should be able to send a child who is prepared on time and not assume they will get harassed by redshirted kids for being too small.

I have a late summer birthday who was sent ahead, despite being a month younger than the cutoff date. She passed the readiness interview and the school took her early (private school). She is small for her age and was called a baby in K by some of the kids. Luckily the other kids’ parents and the teachers shut that down pretty quickly. Everyone thought she was ready, despite being very young and small for her age. Fast forward a few years - she’s a straight A student and socially well adjusted. I debated if I made the right call not to hold her with her age. Turns out the other kids come from good families that don’t put up with child antics and neither do the teachers. I am grateful for this. Redshirting should be a decision for the school and parents; it is very unique to the children involved. (I send her to a competitive private that normally recommends to redshirt - but not always).

Agree it should be a joint decision by the school and the parents. I think it should be at a parents discretion for a child near the cut off (within 2 months or so) but otherwise it should be a consultation with the school.

One element at play is that unless you have older children, I think parents don't always understand what it means to be ready for kindergarten. It can be hard to look at your 4 year old or just-turned 5 year old and imagine them in elementary school in a few months. But the vast majority of 5 yr olds are totally fine starting kindergarten on time. It's also common for children to have stuff they need to work on, and that doesn't make them unready. I had a kid who started reading on her own the summer before K, but who was very young for her grade and maybe even a little socially immature for her age. To be perfectly honest, there was no "right" answer for her, because sending on time made sense academically but was more of a challenge socially, but holding her back might have eased some of the social stuff but potentially also been a mess because her preschool classroom definitely couldn't support where she was at academically. I think situations like this are more common than we are willing to admit.

Which is why I think it's important that these decisions be made with the school in all cases except kids truly on the cusp in terms of birthday. And yes, I guess that means I don't totally trust other parents to do what's right. I don't! People make mistakes all the time with parenting and since this is a decision that will impact the overall make up of grade cohorts, I don't think it should just be at the parents discretion. There was a PP flipping out about this and the idea that you might need an assessment or consultation with the school in order to be allowed to redshirt, and I just don't understand why that would be an issue. I think it would be clarifying. My kids have taken all kind of placement screenings in life -- I find it useful because usually the school or activity is much better positioned to make sure my kid is in the appropriate level in terms of both readiness and challenge.

ITA.

I'm skeptical of anyone who balks at the idea of involving the ES in the decision to redshirt. If you are doing it because you are concerned about child's readiness -- not to confer a competitive advantage by being older and bigger -- then you should welcome school's input. I agree that so many parents really don't know what Kindergarten readiness looks like -- Kindergarten is in very large part for working on SEL.

What you're missing is that with private schools it's often at the suggestion of the school. You all need to make up your minds about who you're mad at here. The schools love kids ready to hit the ground running and learning even if that means fewer 4 year olds and more kids about to turn 6.

I can only speak for myself, but I was talking about public school...I know private school is very different on this front.

Ok. I haven't read a single legitimate complaint here about how any child was truly affected by another kid being a few months older. So far its parents don't like other parents bragging. And not getting enough play time as a starter in basketball for a kid who never had any basketball promise anyway. What am I missing? Anything else?