Speak up (to your school) if you are worried about all the redshirting

[Anonymous]

Too many people seem to assume boys are somehow retarded in their development and are "defective girls". Certainly, they're not all that bad are they? I realize many grow up to be man-child husbands...but really now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I see what you're saying...the boy could have been a year and one-half younger than some of his mates. The only trouble with that is if the boy is small and it could hurt his chances at sports someday.

Anonymous wrote:Nope, he was a holdover from when DCPS cutoff date was December 31; it was later moved up to September. So he's REALLY young.

If you really think that is a good reason to red-shirt, then there's no hope for you.

[SAM2]

Anonymous wrote:Too many people seem to assume boys are somehow retarded in their development and are "defective girls". Certainly, they're not all that bad are they? I realize many grow up to be man-child husbands...but really now?

I'm not totally sure if your question if serious or facetious. I think the answer is that boys just develop at a different pace than girls. Indeed, although boys develop more slowly in the early years, they seem to exceed girls' abilities (slightly) in the later years in spatial reasoning and related fields (like math). There's a great discussion of this in "Pink Brain, Blue Brain" by Lise Eliot.

Since boys are developing more slowly in early years, this seems to lead many schools to holding boys back in early grades, so that their skills are more closely matched to the girls. If people rebel against redshirting boys, then I guess two further/different solutions could be (1) to promote girls ahead in early grades, instead of holding boys back, or (2) to hold boys back in early years, and then promote them forward in later years. The second doesn't seem feasible, but the first might make sense.

[Anonymous]

I don't think there are tons of kids who turn 7 in K, but there are certainly some. There are at least a couple of kids at GDS in PK who have turned 6 this year.

[Anonymous]

I don't think anyone is saying there are "tons". However, where there some or many, then it becomes a real issue. That seems to be the case, as expressed in this forum.

[Anonymous]

Of course there is an issue. Even 1 or 2 kids who are red shirted spring birthdays makes a difference to how the class interacts as a whole. In particular because sadly often these kids are held back because of behavior issues rather than developmental needs. Issues that need to be addressed via professionals. Parents in denial think that their children will be fine if they get the "gift" of one more year. They don't get better until they get help.

[Anonymous]

I agree and it's really a shame. These unfair stereotypes can lead to discrimination against little boys. Most boys in this country go/went to Kindergarten at age five and the vast majority of them turned out just fine.

Anonymous wrote:Too many people seem to assume boys are somehow retarded in their development and are "defective girls". Certainly, they're not all that bad are they? I realize many grow up to be man-child husbands...but really now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Speak for yourself. Your DS might be immature for his age, but my DS is a 5 year old in K and he is NOT behind the girls in terms of academic readiness and maturity. And I think it's silly to assume that all boys are immature and should be held back a year--that's a lie.

Anonymous wrote:I can't remember the name of the private school in NY right now but they used to admit 5 year old girls and 6 year old boys to the K class. They said that the 5 year old girls and 6 year old boys are much closer to each other in terms of academic readiness and maturity than 5 year old boys and 5 year old girls. I believe it. My son just finished pre-K and the boys and girls in his class were practically on different planets in terms of maturity.

I wrote the first post. My son has been reading since he was 3 so he is far ahead of both boys and girls in his preschool class but he still acts like a boy who just turned 5. He'd rather play and move around a classroom rather than sit there and listen to a teacher talk, talk, talk which is what K will be like. Expectations for behavior and academics have changed a lot in the last 30 years but boys have not. K classrooms (esp in public schools) are mostly what used to be taught in 1st grade so we are expecting 5 year old boys to learn what 6-7 year olds used to learn. God forbid they don't end their K year reading b/c they will be "behind." Sadly, my neighbor's son is just finishing K and isn't reading and is being "invited" to a summer program for kids who aren't reading yet b/c they are considered "behind." The teacher said the class is usually 75% or more boys.

[Anonymous]

Teacher here-

The idea that boys are "behind" girls demonstrates that our early childhood curriculum is slanted against boys. Boys are who they are. If boys, as a whole, are not ready for K, then the problem is with K, not the boys.

If a child is within normal developmental range for an age (meaning they might be up to 6 months above or below chronological age), then a talented teacher should be able to effectively differentiate. If a child is beyond that, they are likely needing additional support that an extra year won't supply.

[Anonymous]

Lowell parent here. I know the JK program had at least half the class start the year at 5, meaning at least 7 or 8 kids entering K at 6, if not older. I worry about what this means for my young 5 son, though it's not even clear if he's eligible for Kindegarten. There age cutoff has moved from 5 to 5.3 and back again or something. Is this normal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Teacher here-

The idea that boys are "behind" girls demonstrates that our early childhood curriculum is slanted against boys. Boys are who they are. If boys, as a whole, are not ready for K, then the problem is with K, not the boys.

If a child is within normal developmental range for an age (meaning they might be up to 6 months above or below chronological age), then a talented teacher should be able to effectively differentiate. If a child is beyond that, they are likely needing additional support that an extra year won't supply.

An amazingly sensible post. Where do you teach? I think a lot of DCUM readers will want to send their boys to your school if your views are representative of your colleagues'!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Teacher here-

The idea that boys are "behind" girls demonstrates that our early childhood curriculum is slanted against boys. Boys are who they are. If boys, as a whole, are not ready for K, then the problem is with K, not the boys.

If a child is within normal developmental range for an age (meaning they might be up to 6 months above or below chronological age), then a talented teacher should be able to effectively differentiate. If a child is beyond that, they are likely needing additional support that an extra year won't supply.

But how can a teacher differentiate the whole schedule and expectations of a classroom? I like the idea of pre-first which is what a lot of Baltimore private schools have. All kids start out in K if they are age eligible. They do what they can do during their K year and if they just aren't ready for 1st grade instruction and expectations, they go to pre-first. That way, nobody gets "held back" in K. Some kids go to first and some go to pre-first. NCLB has really ruined the K experience in public schools. My friend who teaches K hates the way things are now. K is not an appropriate place for many kids but unless their parents have the means to hold them back a year, they end up in a place that is not appropriate which is a horrible way to start a school career.

[Anonymous]

I wish the OP would explain exactly what gender issues she is seeing that present a problem in K with redshirted kids.

I don't think anybody is saying ALL boys need to be redshirted; but some most certainly do.

And I think it is generally true to say that most girls mature faster than girls, so it makes sense to me that a 5 yo girl would be similar to a 6 yo boy in maturity....generally that is.

[Anonymous]

Redshirt parent here. My son is born the last day in September and no I don't want him to be the youngest..this is my choice and I am fine with it. I could have more sympathy if we are talking about people holding kids back born in June but it's a parental decision. Usually the anger is that working parents want to get their kids in school asap to avoid paying for childcare and not an extra year of school if a child is redshirted. Too bad.

[Anonymous]

The gender issues are that although 5 year old girls are more mature, generally, than the boys, the boys catch up. And they are bigger, and taller, and by third grade, not "less mature." So for the girls, they are a year or more -- sometimes 20 months -- younger than the boys who are supposed to be their "peers." Whatever gender imbalances may already exist in the classroom -- girls being more shy or less physical, perhaps -- these are then exacerbated by giving the boys the "gift of time" without giving that to the girls. A girl who recently turned 7 is in a room with a bunch of boys who are well over 8. It's not fair to either of them.

It is really something that needs to be paid close attention to. I think everyone should speak up at their schools, ask questions, and challenge the administration. Recent studies have shown ill effects of redshirting (even for the redshirted) and so the trend does seem to be moving away from it. They need to go back to a strict age cut-off and deviate from that only in case of legitimate, documented, serious developmental delays. Someone has to be the youngest, and that should be determined by an objective criteria like birth date, not by hypercompetitive parents who want Johnny to be the tallest so he can be quarterback.