Why is redshirting so common around here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't mean that but in our case that's how it is. In our class you can easily pick out the red-shirted kids. They are a head or more taller than the rest of the class and in the highest reading and math groups. With the exception of one kid the highest reading group/math group = red-shirted kids.
I'm not saying I think it's a problem but it's definitely noticeable.

One of my kids was always the tallest in the class and in the highest reading and math groups. And if you saw that child and thought, "Must be a red-shirted kid," you would have been mistaken. That was my August birthday kid who was always the youngest in the class. It is possible to be the tallest and also the youngest.

That kid ended up at a top 20 university, so always did fine in school. For another child with the same birthday, going on time may not have been the best decision. We're all in charge of our own kids and have to do what's right for our kids. We gather information and make the best decisions we can with the knowledge we have at a particular time.

Yes. I was that kid - the tallest and the youngest girl in my class, and also the most advanced reader. I sucked in all science subjects, though. Size isn't always a clue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
or this:

http://www.chicagonow.com/still-advocating/2015/03/more-absurd-kindergarten-homework/

They spend 3-4 hours a week on homework like drawing a picture of a trash truck and writing "I love trash" under it? What am I missing?

No, the child does not want to do the homework and the parent doesn't encourage the homework so what should be a 20 minute activity turns into a meltdown that lasts that long till the work gets done. Something is wrong at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son has a September birthday. He will be in K for only a few weeks before he turns 6. Is that ok with you?

My son has a September birthday, and will be 5 all year. I hope it's okay with you for your son to be a year older than kids who go on time.

What the hell is wrong with the two of you? OP is talking about children who could go based on the cutoff but are held back. That is different than your Sept birthday that misses the cutoff, first PP, and different than sending early if your child is ready, second PP. Why are you two even chiming in, when your situation doesn't even apply? Are you stupid or just confrontational?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

One of my kids was always the tallest in the class and in the highest reading and math groups. And if you saw that child and thought, "Must be a red-shirted kid," you would have been mistaken. That was my August birthday kid who was always the youngest in the class. It is possible to be the tallest and also the youngest.

That kid ended up at a top 20 university, so always did fine in school. For another child with the same birthday, going on time may not have been the best decision. We're all in charge of our own kids and have to do what's right for our kids. We gather information and make the best decisions we can with the knowledge we have at a particular time.

Likewise I was always the oldest. I made the cutoff by literally one day, so my parents held me back (this was waaaaaay back in the 70s, too!) And I was always the smallest or second smallest. I'm just really short.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:11:56 here. Could be a coincidence because they have taller parents or something but I think the difference is also very striking because there are also a number of summer/fall birthday kids who were not red-shirted and a couple of kids who did EEK and who are small.

Red-shirted kids are 10-16 months older than that group.

Eek = early entrance? Yes - then you get a wider range of ages.

Interesting - no one is protesting EEK for "bringing down a class"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

One of my kids was always the tallest in the class and in the highest reading and math groups. And if you saw that child and thought, "Must be a red-shirted kid," you would have been mistaken. That was my August birthday kid who was always the youngest in the class. It is possible to be the tallest and also the youngest.

That kid ended up at a top 20 university, so always did fine in school. For another child with the same birthday, going on time may not have been the best decision. We're all in charge of our own kids and have to do what's right for our kids. We gather information and make the best decisions we can with the knowledge we have at a particular time.

Likewise I was always the oldest. I made the cutoff by literally one day, so my parents held me back (this was waaaaaay back in the 70s, too!) And I was always the smallest or second smallest. I'm just really short.

I was always the youngest (two days before cutoff) and shortest (still am - short parents) and also among the smartest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:56 here. Could be a coincidence because they have taller parents or something but I think the difference is also very striking because there are also a number of summer/fall birthday kids who were not red-shirted and a couple of kids who did EEK and who are small.

Red-shirted kids are 10-16 months older than that group.

Eek = early entrance? Yes - then you get a wider range of ages.

Interesting - no one is protesting EEK for "bringing down a class"?

Does EEK require that a kid be performing at the upper end of the curve for K?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:56 here. Could be a coincidence because they have taller parents or something but I think the difference is also very striking because there are also a number of summer/fall birthday kids who were not red-shirted and a couple of kids who did EEK and who are small.

Red-shirted kids are 10-16 months older than that group.

Eek = early entrance? Yes - then you get a wider range of ages.

Interesting - no one is protesting EEK for "bringing down a class"?

That's because EEK is a non-issue. MoCo may sometimes allow 1 or 2 children to go early, in the whole county, if they are truly exceptional. VA doesn't allow it all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:56 here. Could be a coincidence because they have taller parents or something but I think the difference is also very striking because there are also a number of summer/fall birthday kids who were not red-shirted and a couple of kids who did EEK and who are small.

Red-shirted kids are 10-16 months older than that group.

Eek = early entrance? Yes - then you get a wider range of ages.

Interesting - no one is protesting EEK for "bringing down a class"?

That's because EEK is a non-issue. MoCo may sometimes allow 1 or 2 children to go early, in the whole county, if they are truly exceptional. VA doesn't allow it all.

MCPS allows more than 1 or 2 children per year in the whole county to do EEK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't mean that but in our case that's how it is. In our class you can easily pick out the red-shirted kids. They are a head or more taller than the rest of the class and in the highest reading and math groups. With the exception of one kid the highest reading group/math group = red-shirted kids.
I'm not saying I think it's a problem but it's definitely noticeable.

Anonymous wrote:
Good point - just because kids were redshirted does not actually mean that they are at the top of the class academically or bigger than the others. Sometimes we are only talking about kids that are a few weeks older than the ones who went on time.

+1

It's true of my sister's kids. They are all tall for their age and in the top reading/math groups. Both redshirted.

The kids are very smart, and would likely be in the top groups in the next grade up. It doesn't seem very nice to me for them to crowd out the non-redshirted kids in the top groups.

I'm not sure they "crowd out" the other kids. There would just be more kids in the top reading group. or they would split the group into two top reading groups. they don't somehow move other kids down a level in reading because there are too many good readers...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son has a September birthday. He will be in K for only a few weeks before he turns 6. Is that ok with you?

My son has a September birthday, and will be 5 all year. I hope it's okay with you for your son to be a year older than kids who go on time.

What the hell is wrong with the two of you? OP is talking about children who could go based on the cutoff but are held back. That is different than your Sept birthday that misses the cutoff, first PP, and different than sending early if your child is ready, second PP. Why are you two even chiming in, when your situation doesn't even apply? Are you stupid or just confrontational?

If you continued to read the thread - these two worked it out - one kid was in MD (cutoff Sept 1) and one kid was in VA (cut off Oct 1).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:56 here. Could be a coincidence because they have taller parents or something but I think the difference is also very striking because there are also a number of summer/fall birthday kids who were not red-shirted and a couple of kids who did EEK and who are small.

Red-shirted kids are 10-16 months older than that group.

Eek = early entrance? Yes - then you get a wider range of ages.

Interesting - no one is protesting EEK for "bringing down a class"?

That's because EEK is a non-issue. MoCo may sometimes allow 1 or 2 children to go early, in the whole county, if they are truly exceptional. VA doesn't allow it all.

MCPS allows more than 1 or 2 children per year in the whole county to do EEK.

For the sake of accuracy:

In MoCo, approximately 200 children per year are admitted EEK, and they are exceptional. They tend to perform better than age-eligible and delayed children in K, 1st, and 2nd.

http://sharedaccountability.mcpsmd.org/reports/list.php?selection=903

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Interesting - no one is protesting EEK for "bringing down a class"?

It's not just a parent's choice. The schools have to agree. If children had to fail a test in order to be redshirted, I doubt you'd see much protesting because few kids would fail the test. Or enough kids would fail that the schools would change their cut off dates to May 1, to be in line with the developmental levels they expect to see in Kindergarten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son has a September birthday. He will be in K for only a few weeks before he turns 6. Is that ok with you?

My son has a September birthday, and will be 5 all year. I hope it's okay with you for your son to be a year older than kids who go on time.

What the hell is wrong with the two of you? OP is talking about children who could go based on the cutoff but are held back. That is different than your Sept birthday that misses the cutoff, first PP, and different than sending early if your child is ready, second PP. Why are you two even chiming in, when your situation doesn't even apply? Are you stupid or just confrontational?

If you continued to read the thread - these two worked it out - one kid was in MD (cutoff Sept 1) and one kid was in VA (cut off Oct 1).

That's great, but it doesn't change the fact that they never needed to post about their own children in the first place. Totally off topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

For the sake of accuracy:

In MoCo, approximately 200 children per year are admitted EEK, and they are exceptional. They tend to perform better than age-eligible and delayed children in K, 1st, and 2nd.

http://sharedaccountability.mcpsmd.org/reports/list.php?selection=903

Interesting study -- thanks, PP!

Based on this study, it is reasonable to conclude that if students are school ready, delaying entrance to kindergarten does not provide them academic or behavioral advantages in the early years [K-2] of their schooling."