Why is redshirting so common around here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Where did we establish this?

Maybe on a common core thread?

Around pg 12.

[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.

Great! Then non-redshirting parents, you've won! Congratulations! Your kids are going to be more challenged and do MUCH BETTER than the redshirted kid!

So.. Given this outcome, why are you so butthurt, again? You should be grateful that redshirting parents are pushing your kids to excel like this.

[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.

Nope. That was attempted, but definitely not "established." Nice try though.

This is the kind of disingenuous reason that annoys people. Say your kid is behind or say you want them to have an advantage over their peers. Own your decisions, don't blame it on the schools.

[Anonymous]

Say your kid is behind or say you want them to have an advantage over their peers.

Why do you care? Maybe they just think their kid will have a better experience and be more comfortable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Say your kid is behind or say you want them to have an advantage over their peers.

Why do you care? Maybe they just think their kid will have a better experience and be more comfortable.

Yes... more comfortable because the child would be behind in their rightful class.

[Anonymous]

Yes... more comfortable because the child would be behind in their rightful class.

So, why do you object? And, believe me, as a K teacher who did not redshirt my kids, I fully support those who do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes... more comfortable because the child would be behind in their rightful class.

So, why do you object? And, believe me, as a K teacher who did not redshirt my kids, I fully support those who do.

I object to the pretense of it. I begrudge no one who makes the decision to hold back a struggling child. But, plenty of people do it because they think their child is too special or important to be the youngest. I object to the entitlement problem people have that makes them think that rules and guidelines are only for other people.

[Anonymous]

These threads are so tiresome. If you do not like red shirting, don't do it. Since all of the local schools systems allow it and some, particularly the private schools, encourage it, you don't get any say in what others do. We don't have to rehash evry week or so for dozens of pages.

[Anonymous]

Your kid can't hack it when he/she is supposed to. On time. Period.

[Anonymous]

To all the people who want to control other families' decisions about how to educate their kids:

1) lobby for an iron-clad cutoff date
2) find a private school that agrees with your philosophy, or
3) stfu.

Jesus, the whining from you people is unbelievable. You can't decide if redshirted kids are stupid and slow, in which case they're not actually advantaged, or if they're unfairly advanced.

If you put half the energy into your OWN kid's education as you do into criticizing others' choices, your kids will be just fine in a mixed-age classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, this was in NJ.

[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.

Huh. All the teachers I know sent their kids on time (even the ones with summer birthdays).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nope. That was attempted, but definitely not "established." Nice try though.

This is the kind of disingenuous reason that annoys people. Say your kid is behind or say you want them to have an advantage over their peers. Own your decisions, don't blame it on the schools.

Just STFU if you're going to be so close-minded.

My kid has no delays and we seek no advantage. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, this was in NJ.

Sooo...this thread is about redshirting being common "around here" - meaning the DC area. Not relevant.

The VAST majority around here are August/September kids. Who are just weeks older than the cut off. NBD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, this was in NJ.

Sooo...this thread is about redshirting being common "around here" - meaning the DC area. Not relevant.

The VAST majority around here are August/September kids. Who are just weeks older than the cut off. NBD.

I've been told, here in Virginia, that June/July is the unofficial cutoff. I know a family redshirting a spring boy. We haven't started K yet, so I don't know how many children will have been redshirted as of this fall.