Just another redshirting vent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

Nope. The only people who say they don’t want their kids to be the youngest are the anti-redshirters.

23:37 was just pointing out that the PP was a jerk.

[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.

Not true. There have been plenty of anti-redshirt posters on DCUM who have talked about bow they gossip about redshirted kids and encourage their children to do so as well. Go read all the posts where anti-redshirt parents talk about how they track the ages of the kids and then what they do with that information. Or the ones where they report how their kids mock the older kids in the class as slow. This parent doesn't disclose, so the gossiping anti-redshirt parents would indeed be talking about this poster and their children about this poster's child.

Best to own the company you keep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Nope. The only people who say they don’t want their kids to be the youngest are the anti-redshirters.

23:37 was just pointing out that the PP was a jerk.

This is totally illogical. Our kids ARE the youngest if we didn’t redshirt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Nope. The only people who say they don’t want their kids to be the youngest are the anti-redshirters.

23:37 was just pointing out that the PP was a jerk.

This is totally illogical. Our kids ARE the youngest if we didn’t redshirt.

To further clarify - we are saying we would like them be the youngest by one year but not more than that.

[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.

DP. I totally agree with this assessment. It also matches what I see IRL. People who talk about being against redshirting tend to be the most competitive parents.

You can see it here too. No normal parent goes and digs out and memorizes the relative ages of kids in the classroom. That is... something else.

[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.

What specifically has your child experienced?

Coming from my position I see that it makes a difference when there are kids more than a year older than your kid in the class. Apparently the pro redshirters do not see that the decision to redshirt affects other kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

I think the point PP was trying to make is that by redshirting, rather than the youngest child in a class being the youngest by 12 months, the new youngest child is now the youngest by 18 months.

And while these families might not have minded a 12 month difference, they now see an 18 month difference and say "No way!" and so they redshirt, too. And on and on. Now suddenly K is for students who are 6 yo at the beginning of the school year. Rather than this being a decision made by the school or by education experts, it was driven by parents who worried that their child was too short or too shy or too disadvantaged in some other subjective way.

So when people say "My decision has no impact on other kids!" they are being short sighted. They are changing things for other students, other families, and the teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What specifically has your child experienced?

Coming from my position I see that it makes a difference when there are kids more than a year older than your kid in the class. Apparently the pro redshirters do not see that the decision to redshirt affects other kids.

But HOW? How did it specifically affect PP’s child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

I think the point PP was trying to make is that by redshirting, rather than the youngest child in a class being the youngest by 12 months, the new youngest child is now the youngest by 18 months.

And while these families might not have minded a 12 month difference, they now see an 18 month difference and say "No way!" and so they redshirt, too. And on and on. Now suddenly K is for students who are 6 yo at the beginning of the school year. Rather than this being a decision made by the school or by education experts, it was driven by parents who worried that their child was too short or too shy or too disadvantaged in some other subjective way.

So when people say "My decision has no impact on other kids!" they are being short sighted. They are changing things for other students, other families, and the teachers.

I have no dog in this fight because my girls have spring birthdays and we never considered redshirting them and they'll generally fall in the middle of the pack one way or the other, but you are complaining that parents who choose to redshirt their child based on what's best for their child should be considering what impact their decision has on children they don't know? That seems crazy to me. How is a parent supposed to know what the make up of their child's class will be before they even start school? How should they know that there will be other children with late summer or early fall birthdays whose parents did not redshirt them and that those children will (purportedly) be negatively impacted by the redshirted child? I am neither pro nor anti redshirting, but I am pro doing what parents think is best for their child. To accuse them of being short-sighted because they should have considered the impact on the other students and families, who they don't yet know, is just rude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

I think the point PP was trying to make is that by redshirting, rather than the youngest child in a class being the youngest by 12 months, the new youngest child is now the youngest by 18 months.

And while these families might not have minded a 12 month difference, they now see an 18 month difference and say "No way!" and so they redshirt, too. And on and on. Now suddenly K is for students who are 6 yo at the beginning of the school year. Rather than this being a decision made by the school or by education experts, it was driven by parents who worried that their child was too short or too shy or too disadvantaged in some other subjective way.

So when people say "My decision has no impact on other kids!" they are being short sighted. They are changing things for other students, other families, and the teachers.

Again, can you point to the legitimate, well-conducted studies that show evidence for this belief? An opinion piece from Slate does not count as a well-connected study.

Redshirting is a hot topic. A PhD could make their career with proof that redshirting has caused national kindergarten standards to shift. Why do you and the anti-redshirt posters not have evidence for your theories?

[Anonymous]

playing by the rules is never rude

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

I think the point PP was trying to make is that by redshirting, rather than the youngest child in a class being the youngest by 12 months, the new youngest child is now the youngest by 18 months.

And while these families might not have minded a 12 month difference, they now see an 18 month difference and say "No way!" and so they redshirt, too. And on and on. Now suddenly K is for students who are 6 yo at the beginning of the school year. Rather than this being a decision made by the school or by education experts, it was driven by parents who worried that their child was too short or too shy or too disadvantaged in some other subjective way.

So when people say "My decision has no impact on other kids!" they are being short sighted. They are changing things for other students, other families, and the teachers.

18 months would be very rare. The vast majority are July/August/September kids.

What are the impacts exactly? If anything, it benefits the younger kids by having better peer models.

It doesn’t really affect the kids or teachers negatively. The only people with a problem are the busy-body parents.

[Anonymous]

We aren't talking about Special Needs. We are never talking about Special Needs when we vent and red-shirting. It isn't about you. Special Needs parents, stop making it ALWAYS about you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

I think the point PP was trying to make is that by redshirting, rather than the youngest child in a class being the youngest by 12 months, the new youngest child is now the youngest by 18 months.

And while these families might not have minded a 12 month difference, they now see an 18 month difference and say "No way!" and so they redshirt, too. And on and on. Now suddenly K is for students who are 6 yo at the beginning of the school year. Rather than this being a decision made by the school or by education experts, it was driven by parents who worried that their child was too short or too shy or too disadvantaged in some other subjective way.

So when people say "My decision has no impact on other kids!" they are being short sighted. They are changing things for other students, other families, and the teachers.

I have no dog in this fight because my girls have spring birthdays and we never considered redshirting them and they'll generally fall in the middle of the pack one way or the other, but you are complaining that parents who choose to redshirt their child based on what's best for their child should be considering what impact their decision has on children they don't know? That seems crazy to me. How is a parent supposed to know what the make up of their child's class will be before they even start school? How should they know that there will be other children with late summer or early fall birthdays whose parents did not redshirt them and that those children will (purportedly) be negatively impacted by the redshirted child? I am neither pro nor anti redshirting, but I am pro doing what parents think is best for their child. To accuse them of being short-sighted because they should have considered the impact on the other students and families, who they don't yet know, is just rude.

ITA. Especially because these are the same group of parents who use Kumon, move to the best school district they can buy in, and who will go in and push for a gifted designation if it is not assessed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:playing by the rules is never rude

The rule in VA is you can start K from 4-6. Go change the rules if you don’t like it. You’d need a legitimate case though. Not just busy body whining.