Why is redshirting so common around here?

[Anonymous]

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."

Unless she compared these kids against the smartest kids who started on time and later, it really isn't valid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Unless she compared these kids against the smartest kids who started on time and later, it really isn't valid.

Depends on what you're studying. If you're looking for how to make kids hit the top points on every measure (assuming everything can be measured, which I doubt), then maybe not. But if you're wondering whether kids whose parents think they're school-ready ahead of schedule do if they are allowed to attend, this seems to provide sufficient evidence that they do quite well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Unless she compared these kids against the smartest kids who started on time and later, it really isn't valid.

Depends on what you're studying. If you're looking for how to make kids hit the top points on every measure (assuming everything can be measured, which I doubt), then maybe not. But if you're wondering whether kids whose parents think they're school-ready ahead of schedule do if they are allowed to attend, this seems to provide sufficient evidence that they do quite well.

Exactly. The purpose of the study was to find out how EEK kids do. The answer is that they do just fine.

[Anonymous]

Yes, we've heard the tests are very hard. Many of the questions they ask are for students at the end of K.

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

[Anonymous]

I'm not surprised by the EEK study. The fact of the matter is that bright is bright, and social grace is social grace. Some adults are just awkward--that is just their personality, and holding them back a year would not have fundamentally changed their personality. Just like holding a kid back a year is not going to make him a academic superstar.

Anyway, the long-term studies are showing that red-shirting backfires. It may seem that the oldest kids rule the roost in the younger grades, but that the youngest kids end up with the higher GPAs, higher rates of college acceptance and graduation, and incomes.

[Anonymous]

The purpose of the study was to find out how EEK kids do. The answer is that they do just fine.

I'd like to see this comparison done again when these kids reach high school.

[Anonymous]

Red shirting is an upper or upper middle class issue. The parents redshirt so their child isn't the youngest socially, doesn't have as much academic pressure as they age, or because they want the child to do well in sports with their peers. It really isn't about the K standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The purpose of the study was to find out how EEK kids do. The answer is that they do just fine.

I'd like to see this comparison done again when these kids reach high school.

They are a maximum of 6 weeks younger than the youngest kids who went on time. I don't think that 6 weeks makes much of a difference by the time you are 10, let alone 18.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not surprised by the EEK study. The fact of the matter is that bright is bright, and social grace is social grace. Some adults are just awkward--that is just their personality, and holding them back a year would not have fundamentally changed their personality. Just like holding a kid back a year is not going to make him a academic superstar.

Anyway, the long-term studies are showing that red-shirting backfires. It may seem that the oldest kids rule the roost in the younger grades, but that the youngest kids end up with the higher GPAs, higher rates of college acceptance and graduation, and incomes.

cite? I find it hard to believe being six weeks older is some kind of detriment. Just like I don't think being youngest is a detriment. Its all individual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I believe the parents who redshirt who say they made the best choice for their child. I wish they would offer me the same respect when I say redshirting has negatively affected my child's environment.

Parents know their own children best and each has to make the best decision for that child. Each has to assess whether the kindergarten environment is a good one for the child at that age and each has to decide whether waiting a year would be a better choice.

We can't ask a parent to put a child in an environment for which the child is not ready because it will somehow make another parent happy. Parents can only research the situation and look at their own children and then decide what the best fit is. We can only make what we hope to be a good choice for our own child, we can't make decisions for others.

Research shows all things tend to even out by 3rd. Thus, redshirting may temporarily help your child, or may temporarily hurt mine.

Also, living in a community with other people means thinking of the group as well as your individual needs and wants.

The group as a whole doesn't take precedence over your individual child. I would never suggest that someone make a choice that they know is bad for his/her own child because it would be better for the "group."

If a parent is worried that their child is possibly too young for the class as it is now composed and conducted, that parent has the freedom to choose to send the child the next year. No one is forcing parents of kids whose birthdays are close to the deadline to send their kids to school the second they are legally allowed.

Once again, not all parents have the "freedom" to make this choice, at least not without serious economic repercussions for their families. Keeping children out of school for an extra year is a very expensive proposition for many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not surprised by the EEK study. The fact of the matter is that bright is bright, and social grace is social grace. Some adults are just awkward--that is just their personality, and holding them back a year would not have fundamentally changed their personality. Just like holding a kid back a year is not going to make him a academic superstar.

Anyway, the long-term studies are showing that red-shirting backfires. It may seem that the oldest kids rule the roost in the younger grades, but that the youngest kids end up with the higher GPAs, higher rates of college acceptance and graduation, and incomes.

cite? I find it hard to believe being six weeks older is some kind of detriment. Just like I don't think being youngest is a detriment. Its all individual.

But not all red-shirted kids are just 6 weeks older. I know children born in the late winter/early spring who were red-shirted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Red shirting is an upper or upper middle class issue. The parents redshirt so their child isn't the youngest socially, doesn't have as much academic pressure as they age, or because they want the child to do well in sports with their peers. It really isn't about the K standards.

I think we established earlier in this thread that the current state of public school k is the very reason that parents who happen to be teachers and have summer babies choose to have their kids wait a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Red shirting is an upper or upper middle class issue. The parents redshirt so their child isn't the youngest socially, doesn't have as much academic pressure as they age, or because they want the child to do well in sports with their peers. It really isn't about the K standards.

I think we established earlier in this thread that the current state of public school k is the very reason that parents who happen to be teachers and have summer babies choose to have their kids wait a year.

Where did we establish this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not surprised by the EEK study. The fact of the matter is that bright is bright, and social grace is social grace. Some adults are just awkward--that is just their personality, and holding them back a year would not have fundamentally changed their personality. Just like holding a kid back a year is not going to make him a academic superstar.

Anyway, the long-term studies are showing that red-shirting backfires. It may seem that the oldest kids rule the roost in the younger grades, but that the youngest kids end up with the higher GPAs, higher rates of college acceptance and graduation, and incomes.

cite? I find it hard to believe being six weeks older is some kind of detriment. Just like I don't think being youngest is a detriment. Its all individual.

But not all red-shirted kids are just 6 weeks older. I know children born in the late winter/early spring who were red-shirted.

In the DC area? Which school district?

[Anonymous]

Where did we establish this?

Maybe on a common core thread?