Just another redshirting vent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid has a summer birthday and a serious medical condition that is not obvious to most and we do not disclose to others. It is expected to get worse in the next few years and so we red shirted him in case he will miss a lot of school in a couple years. People, you never know what others are dealing with. Be kind and give these kids the benefit of the doubt.

Very best wishes for your son's health, happiness, and education. People here really lose sight of the big picture.

I don't think anyone on DCUM has ever argued against a legit reason like this.

Agree

[Anonymous]

Parents who are competitive enough to worry about whether other kids are redshirted don't send their kids to Montessori schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My late summer boy was not redshirted. He is now in 3rd grade and super good friends with a kid in his class two years older than him.
Maybe this is NBD, people.

see, this is what i don’t get. how is this any different than a ,omtessori ckass, where kids at a few different age groups are grouped together, so you would have kids hanging out and learning socially for, kids a year or two older or younger. why is it desirable there and not in traditional schools?.

I think a multi-year age span IS desirable in traditional schools. But that's not how schools are set up. The Montessori classroom has lessons and materials to cover the three year age span (actually, usually a 4 or 5 year age span to account for advanced and lagging kids.) The fundamental concept of montessori is to teach each child where they are in the progression, rather than in adherence to a rigid age system. So Larla, age 6, and Larlo, age 8, could easily be working on the same material in a montessori room, and that's fine. And likewise, a 6 and 8 year old could be working on two totally different things. And that's also fine. Likewise, if you stay for all 3 years in a Montessori room, you will start out being the youngest, learning from your older classmates. Eventually, you'll be one of the oldest, being the peer model and teacher. So *all* kids will get the benefit of being one of the youngest and the benefit of being one of the oldest.

Unfortunately, that's not how traditional classrooms are set up. The idea is that all kids within a ~12 month range should be taught the same material. The classroom structure, lesson plans, and curriculum all cover only 9 month's worth of material. Teachers have limited ability to differentiate - certainly not enough to cover a typical three year age span.
So if the ages start to range too much, the classroom just isn't structured in such a way as to handle it. And the youngest kid is the youngest kid for 12 years. And the oldest kid is always the oldest.

I would *love* to see more multi-age classes in public schools, but comparing redshirting to montessori (or any other intentional multi-age/multi-grade structure) misses the point.

You haven't been in a tradiational classroom lately. At good schools there is very little cookie cutter teaching and tons of differentiating. The rage of abilities and maturity and age spans at least 2 years and often 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Parents who are competitive enough to worry about whether other kids are redshirted don't send their kids to Montessori schools.

I just think it is “rich” that the pro redshirters are calling the anti-redshirters competitive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My late summer boy was not redshirted. He is now in 3rd grade and super good friends with a kid in his class two years older than him.
Maybe this is NBD, people.

see, this is what i don’t get. how is this any different than a ,omtessori ckass, where kids at a few different age groups are grouped together, so you would have kids hanging out and learning socially for, kids a year or two older or younger. why is it desirable there and not in traditional schools?.

I think a multi-year age span IS desirable in traditional schools. But that's not how schools are set up. The Montessori classroom has lessons and materials to cover the three year age span (actually, usually a 4 or 5 year age span to account for advanced and lagging kids.) The fundamental concept of montessori is to teach each child where they are in the progression, rather than in adherence to a rigid age system. So Larla, age 6, and Larlo, age 8, could easily be working on the same material in a montessori room, and that's fine. And likewise, a 6 and 8 year old could be working on two totally different things. And that's also fine. Likewise, if you stay for all 3 years in a Montessori room, you will start out being the youngest, learning from your older classmates. Eventually, you'll be one of the oldest, being the peer model and teacher. So *all* kids will get the benefit of being one of the youngest and the benefit of being one of the oldest.

Unfortunately, that's not how traditional classrooms are set up. The idea is that all kids within a ~12 month range should be taught the same material. The classroom structure, lesson plans, and curriculum all cover only 9 month's worth of material. Teachers have limited ability to differentiate - certainly not enough to cover a typical three year age span.
So if the ages start to range too much, the classroom just isn't structured in such a way as to handle it. And the youngest kid is the youngest kid for 12 years. And the oldest kid is always the oldest.

I would *love* to see more multi-age classes in public schools, but comparing redshirting to montessori (or any other intentional multi-age/multi-grade structure) misses the point.

You haven't been in a tradiational classroom lately. At good schools there is very little cookie cutter teaching and tons of differentiating. The rage of abilities and maturity and age spans at least 2 years and often 3.

Why do you think I haven't been in a traditional classroom lately? I have two elementary school kids, and I'm in their classrooms a fair bit. The differentiating in a traditional classroom isn't remotely like the structure of a montessori classroom. I'm not saying montessori is better, necessarily, but it easily accomodates a much wider range of ages and abilities. In my kids' classrooms, they break down for reading groups, and their math differentiation is via "challenge questions" and "support clues" and things like that. Other than that, there's not much differentiating going on. All of the first graders learn about monarch butterflies. Even the most advanced reader can only be in the "top" reading group.
I also haven't ever been in an a classroom at my kids' school where the age range is "at least 2 years" - even with redshirting you still only get ~18 months difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents who are competitive enough to worry about whether other kids are redshirted don't send their kids to Montessori schools.

I just think it is “rich” that the pro redshirters are calling the anti-redshirters competitive.

It's true, though. Anti-redshirters are upset that their children are at some imagined competitive disadvantage - although, paradoxically, many also pay lipservice to believing that redshirting impairs development. It's never been clear to me whether this is just a lack of logic or a cynical attempt to pretend that what they believe is in their own self-interest (no redshirting) is also in the interests of the children who would otherwise be redshirted.

They're the ones doing the comparing, not the redshirting parents. If everyone just made decisions based on what's best for their own kid, and didn't worry about what everyone else was doing, there would be none of this ridiculousness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents who are competitive enough to worry about whether other kids are redshirted don't send their kids to Montessori schools.

I just think it is “rich” that the pro redshirters are calling the anti-redshirters competitive.

It's true, though. Anti-redshirters are upset that their children are at some imagined competitive disadvantage - although, paradoxically, many also pay lipservice to believing that redshirting impairs development. It's never been clear to me whether this is just a lack of logic or a cynical attempt to pretend that what they believe is in their own self-interest (no redshirting) is also in the interests of the children who would otherwise be redshirted.

They're the ones doing the comparing, not the redshirting parents. If everyone just made decisions based on what's best for their own kid, and didn't worry about what everyone else was doing, there would be none of this ridiculousness.

The redshirted parents compared enough to hold their own kid back and it wasn’t a decision that was in a vacuum without effect on making other kids younger for the grade.

Anti redshirters may be competitive but not competitive enough to hold their own kids back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents who are competitive enough to worry about whether other kids are redshirted don't send their kids to Montessori schools.

I just think it is “rich” that the pro redshirters are calling the anti-redshirters competitive.

It's true, though. Anti-redshirters are upset that their children are at some imagined competitive disadvantage - although, paradoxically, many also pay lipservice to believing that redshirting impairs development. It's never been clear to me whether this is just a lack of logic or a cynical attempt to pretend that what they believe is in their own self-interest (no redshirting) is also in the interests of the children who would otherwise be redshirted.

They're the ones doing the comparing, not the redshirting parents. If everyone just made decisions based on what's best for their own kid, and didn't worry about what everyone else was doing, there would be none of this ridiculousness.

The redshirted parents compared enough to hold their own kid back and it wasn’t a decision that was in a vacuum without effect on making other kids younger for the grade.

Anti redshirters may be competitive but not competitive enough to hold their own kids back.

Juuuuuuuuuust competitive enough to complain on the internet. Got it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents who are competitive enough to worry about whether other kids are redshirted don't send their kids to Montessori schools.

I just think it is “rich” that the pro redshirters are calling the anti-redshirters competitive.

It's true, though. Anti-redshirters are upset that their children are at some imagined competitive disadvantage - although, paradoxically, many also pay lipservice to believing that redshirting impairs development. It's never been clear to me whether this is just a lack of logic or a cynical attempt to pretend that what they believe is in their own self-interest (no redshirting) is also in the interests of the children who would otherwise be redshirted.

They're the ones doing the comparing, not the redshirting parents. If everyone just made decisions based on what's best for their own kid, and didn't worry about what everyone else was doing, there would be none of this ridiculousness.

The redshirted parents compared enough to hold their own kid back and it wasn’t a decision that was in a vacuum without effect on making other kids younger for the grade.

Anti redshirters may be competitive but not competitive enough to hold their own kids back.

Juuuuuuuuuust competitive enough to complain on the internet. Got it!

Now you’ve got it. I can’t even complain IRL because my friends do it. But having a young for the grade kid, I experienced things others might not have experienced and often barriers can be invisible to those who don’t face them so I do speak up online.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents who are competitive enough to worry about whether other kids are redshirted don't send their kids to Montessori schools.

I just think it is “rich” that the pro redshirters are calling the anti-redshirters competitive.

It's true, though. Anti-redshirters are upset that their children are at some imagined competitive disadvantage - although, paradoxically, many also pay lipservice to believing that redshirting impairs development. It's never been clear to me whether this is just a lack of logic or a cynical attempt to pretend that what they believe is in their own self-interest (no redshirting) is also in the interests of the children who would otherwise be redshirted.

They're the ones doing the comparing, not the redshirting parents. If everyone just made decisions based on what's best for their own kid, and didn't worry about what everyone else was doing, there would be none of this ridiculousness.

Can you elaborate on the invisible challenges young kids face ?

The redshirted parents compared enough to hold their own kid back and it wasn’t a decision that was in a vacuum without effect on making other kids younger for the grade.

Anti redshirters may be competitive but not competitive enough to hold their own kids back.

Juuuuuuuuuust competitive enough to complain on the internet. Got it!

Now you’ve got it. I can’t even complain IRL because my friends do it. But having a young for the grade kid, I experienced things others might not have experienced and often barriers can be invisible to those who don’t face them so I do speak up online.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents who are competitive enough to worry about whether other kids are redshirted don't send their kids to Montessori schools.

I just think it is “rich” that the pro redshirters are calling the anti-redshirters competitive.

It's true, though. Anti-redshirters are upset that their children are at some imagined competitive disadvantage - although, paradoxically, many also pay lipservice to believing that redshirting impairs development. It's never been clear to me whether this is just a lack of logic or a cynical attempt to pretend that what they believe is in their own self-interest (no redshirting) is also in the interests of the children who would otherwise be redshirted.

They're the ones doing the comparing, not the redshirting parents. If everyone just made decisions based on what's best for their own kid, and didn't worry about what everyone else was doing, there would be none of this ridiculousness.

The redshirted parents compared enough to hold their own kid back and it wasn’t a decision that was in a vacuum without effect on making other kids younger for the grade.

Anti redshirters may be competitive but not competitive enough to hold their own kids back.

Juuuuuuuuuust competitive enough to complain on the internet. Got it!

Now you’ve got it. I can’t even complain IRL because my friends do it. But having a young for the grade kid, I experienced things others might not have experienced and often barriers can be invisible to those who don’t face them so I do speak up online.

So wait. Your kid has experienced barriers for being young for the grade. Your solution is that MY kid should be young for the grade?

That’s... something else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents who are competitive enough to worry about whether other kids are redshirted don't send their kids to Montessori schools.

I just think it is “rich” that the pro redshirters are calling the anti-redshirters competitive.

It's true, though. Anti-redshirters are upset that their children are at some imagined competitive disadvantage - although, paradoxically, many also pay lipservice to believing that redshirting impairs development. It's never been clear to me whether this is just a lack of logic or a cynical attempt to pretend that what they believe is in their own self-interest (no redshirting) is also in the interests of the children who would otherwise be redshirted.

They're the ones doing the comparing, not the redshirting parents. If everyone just made decisions based on what's best for their own kid, and didn't worry about what everyone else was doing, there would be none of this ridiculousness.

Yet you’re the one with 100s of posts here and in the independent schools board harping about how you held back your kids and everyone should shut up and smile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents who are competitive enough to worry about whether other kids are redshirted don't send their kids to Montessori schools.

I just think it is “rich” that the pro redshirters are calling the anti-redshirters competitive.

It's true, though. Anti-redshirters are upset that their children are at some imagined competitive disadvantage - although, paradoxically, many also pay lipservice to believing that redshirting impairs development. It's never been clear to me whether this is just a lack of logic or a cynical attempt to pretend that what they believe is in their own self-interest (no redshirting) is also in the interests of the children who would otherwise be redshirted.

They're the ones doing the comparing, not the redshirting parents. If everyone just made decisions based on what's best for their own kid, and didn't worry about what everyone else was doing, there would be none of this ridiculousness.

The redshirted parents compared enough to hold their own kid back and it wasn’t a decision that was in a vacuum without effect on making other kids younger for the grade.

Anti redshirters may be competitive but not competitive enough to hold their own kids back.

Juuuuuuuuuust competitive enough to complain on the internet. Got it!

Now you’ve got it. I can’t even complain IRL because my friends do it. But having a young for the grade kid, I experienced things others might not have experienced and often barriers can be invisible to those who don’t face them so I do speak up online.

So wait. Your kid has experienced barriers for being young for the grade. Your solution is that MY kid should be young for the grade?

That’s... something else.

I don’t suggest that they be the youngest by any more than one year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents who are competitive enough to worry about whether other kids are redshirted don't send their kids to Montessori schools.

I just think it is “rich” that the pro redshirters are calling the anti-redshirters competitive.

It's true, though. Anti-redshirters are upset that their children are at some imagined competitive disadvantage - although, paradoxically, many also pay lipservice to believing that redshirting impairs development. It's never been clear to me whether this is just a lack of logic or a cynical attempt to pretend that what they believe is in their own self-interest (no redshirting) is also in the interests of the children who would otherwise be redshirted.

They're the ones doing the comparing, not the redshirting parents. If everyone just made decisions based on what's best for their own kid, and didn't worry about what everyone else was doing, there would be none of this ridiculousness.

The redshirted parents compared enough to hold their own kid back and it wasn’t a decision that was in a vacuum without effect on making other kids younger for the grade.

Anti redshirters may be competitive but not competitive enough to hold their own kids back.

Juuuuuuuuuust competitive enough to complain on the internet. Got it!

Now you’ve got it. I can’t even complain IRL because my friends do it. But having a young for the grade kid, I experienced things others might not have experienced and often barriers can be invisible to those who don’t face them so I do speak up online.

What specifically has your child experienced?

[Anonymous]

So it DOES come down to not wanting your child to be the youngest in the class. It always comes through in the end on these threads