TO THE MOM WHO RED SHIRTED HER SON AND COMPLAINS HE'S NOT CHALLENGED

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a great article that smashes all these ADHD issues and rationalizations of red-shirting.


http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/youngest-kid-smartest-kid

Well, the article also says "younger students benefit from having older peers" so not sure why everyone is freaking out.

Also that article suffers from huge leaps of logic. It assumes (unwarrantedly) that redshirting is due to nothing more than a desire to game the system. I don't see the evidence for that at all. It does not focus on kids who already have any developmental issues. And it does not address the increased risk of ADHD diagnosis based on relative age, which has been found in many studies. This is just more crappy science journalism.

More recent research shows that " a delayed school start dramatically reduces hyperactivity at ages 7 and 11, a measure with strong negative links to student achievement."

http://www.sole-jole.org/15074.pdf

So, what you are arguing is ADHD is environmental, if it is as simple as delaying a child a school year vs. something medical. Then, why are so many kids medicated, if it is as simple as holding them back from school a year? (the bigger issue is teachers need more training and we need better teachers who can handle a range of issues)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a great article that smashes all these ADHD issues and rationalizations of red-shirting.


http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/youngest-kid-smartest-kid

Well, the article also says "younger students benefit from having older peers" so not sure why everyone is freaking out.

Not peers that are 1.5 and 2 years older than them. Peers that are a "couple of months" older than them.

Anecdotally, my immature child behaves much much better around his cousins, who are several years older than him, than he does around his little brothers and sisters.

Kids play to their level. Red shirt them and they are 6 acting like 5yr olds. No different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a great article that smashes all these ADHD issues and rationalizations of red-shirting.


http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/youngest-kid-smartest-kid

Well, the article also says "younger students benefit from having older peers" so not sure why everyone is freaking out.

Also that article suffers from huge leaps of logic. It assumes (unwarrantedly) that redshirting is due to nothing more than a desire to game the system. I don't see the evidence for that at all. It does not focus on kids who already have any developmental issues. And it does not address the increased risk of ADHD diagnosis based on relative age, which has been found in many studies. This is just more crappy science journalism.

More recent research shows that " a delayed school start dramatically reduces hyperactivity at ages 7 and 11, a measure with strong negative links to student achievement."

http://www.sole-jole.org/15074.pdf

So, what you are arguing is ADHD is environmental, if it is as simple as delaying a child a school year vs. something medical. Then, why are so many kids medicated, if it is as simple as holding them back from school a year? (the bigger issue is teachers need more training and we need better teachers who can handle a range of issues)

+1

I agree with another parent that kids are just kids and it is the expectations of these kids that are cause of red-shirting, medicating, doing for them, and expecting perfect little classrooms. The amount of over-inlvolved parents these days are thru the roof. The stress for teachers to pass state mandated markers while trying to have 5% fun in the class and dealing with parents who complain about other kids ruining Larla's education.

Our parents just sent us to school and if the teacher had an issue, our parents were on it. Our shit was in trouble. There was consequences. Now, we all have excuses. No one just has a kid that is disruptive and actually gets punished for it. It is why is he disruptive? Lets get to the root of why he is disruptive. Do not punish being disruptive. Let's diagnose a reason and medicate because he is disruptive. Lord have mercy!!

[Anonymous]

Those of you linking to the New Yorker article should read the actual studies she cited. Her work is shoddy. In just one instance, her claim that younger university students do better is based on an Italian study of a small number of Italian students attending a specialized economics program, but she doesn't disclose that in the article. Up to you whether you decide to credit her conclusions, but frankly I think the multiple times she did that in the article really weakens her point.

[Anonymous]

A friend of mine is planning to hold back her late July son. He does have some social issues that, when looked at separate from everything, make sense to hold him back. Socially he seems on par with my daughter who is a late September birthday, a full year younger. So 14 months apart.

That being said, he is WAY ahead academically. So our kids will end up the same year. Socially- sure- they will be great. But the 14 month gap will really show in the academics.

And this is the issue being raised here. It's fine that you make a choice to hold your child back for whatever reason. It may be good- it may not. I am not one to judge. But if you do this you have to be aware that the academic rigor of the program cannot change for your child alone. Differentiation in kindergarten is just not going to be as catered to your child as you would like. In order to be with a group you think fits better socially, he might be bored with the academics. You make the choice but you can't complain later about it. At least not to parents of kids that are more than a year younger than your child who may find the curriculum perfectly challenging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a great article that smashes all these ADHD issues and rationalizations of red-shirting.


http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/youngest-kid-smartest-kid

Well, the article also says "younger students benefit from having older peers" so not sure why everyone is freaking out.

Also that article suffers from huge leaps of logic. It assumes (unwarrantedly) that redshirting is due to nothing more than a desire to game the system. I don't see the evidence for that at all. It does not focus on kids who already have any developmental issues. And it does not address the increased risk of ADHD diagnosis based on relative age, which has been found in many studies. This is just more crappy science journalism.

More recent research shows that " a delayed school start dramatically reduces hyperactivity at ages 7 and 11, a measure with strong negative links to student achievement."

http://www.sole-jole.org/15074.pdf

So, what you are arguing is ADHD is environmental, if it is as simple as delaying a child a school year vs. something medical. Then, why are so many kids medicated, if it is as simple as holding them back from school a year? (the bigger issue is teachers need more training and we need better teachers who can handle a range of issues)

NP. ADHD causes a delay in the maturity of executive function and decision making. If you wait a year or two, they do develop (some) of those skills. Delaying entry to school can help. It doesn't cure the ADHD, but it does make it more tolerable for many of those kids to be in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This article is great too. It says that red-shirting can be as low as 4.5% in some areas but as high as 20% in white affluent areas.

https://www.noodle.com/articles/new-data-suggest-redshirting-in-kindergarten-doesnt-help138

And here is the bigger, social issue at play. People with lower incomes cannot even make these choices. They have to send their children as soon as possible to the least expensive option. And so, when you choose to red shirt- you are focusing on your child and his or her specific needs. But the impact of that choice is on more that just your child. It impacts the whole class- with a teacher needing to find ways to meet the more advanced academic needs of our child. But it also impacts society as a whole. Red shirting absolutely contributes to the achievement gap. And- while I don't think it should be the only factor- I think more people need to consider the implications of these choices on society as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A friend of mine is planning to hold back her late July son. He does have some social issues that, when looked at separate from everything, make sense to hold him back. Socially he seems on par with my daughter who is a late September birthday, a full year younger. So 14 months apart.

That being said, he is WAY ahead academically. So our kids will end up the same year. Socially- sure- they will be great. But the 14 month gap will really show in the academics.

And this is the issue being raised here. It's fine that you make a choice to hold your child back for whatever reason. It may be good- it may not. I am not one to judge. But if you do this you have to be aware that the academic rigor of the program cannot change for your child alone. Differentiation in kindergarten is just not going to be as catered to your child as you would like. In order to be with a group you think fits better socially, he might be bored with the academics. You make the choice but you can't complain later about it. At least not to parents of kids that are more than a year younger than your child who may find the curriculum perfectly challenging.

My academically gifted kid with ADHD was always going to be way ahead academically. He's only a little behind socially. For him, the best decision was to delay school so the social fit would be better. Nothing was going to make the academic fit work for him, not until junior high at least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A friend of mine is planning to hold back her late July son. He does have some social issues that, when looked at separate from everything, make sense to hold him back. Socially he seems on par with my daughter who is a late September birthday, a full year younger. So 14 months apart.

That being said, he is WAY ahead academically. So our kids will end up the same year. Socially- sure- they will be great. But the 14 month gap will really show in the academics.

And this is the issue being raised here. It's fine that you make a choice to hold your child back for whatever reason. It may be good- it may not. I am not one to judge. But if you do this you have to be aware that the academic rigor of the program cannot change for your child alone. Differentiation in kindergarten is just not going to be as catered to your child as you would like. In order to be with a group you think fits better socially, he might be bored with the academics. You make the choice but you can't complain later about it. At least not to parents of kids that are more than a year younger than your child who may find the curriculum perfectly challenging.

My son is just like that! Right now I am leaning towards sending him on time, but fully expecting we may need to get him an IEP to make it through a few yesrs until he matures. For those of you saying this is "vanity redshirting" shame on you. You have no clue what is involved and what a big decision it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A friend of mine is planning to hold back her late July son. He does have some social issues that, when looked at separate from everything, make sense to hold him back. Socially he seems on par with my daughter who is a late September birthday, a full year younger. So 14 months apart.

That being said, he is WAY ahead academically. So our kids will end up the same year. Socially- sure- they will be great. But the 14 month gap will really show in the academics.

And this is the issue being raised here. It's fine that you make a choice to hold your child back for whatever reason. It may be good- it may not. I am not one to judge. But if you do this you have to be aware that the academic rigor of the program cannot change for your child alone. Differentiation in kindergarten is just not going to be as catered to your child as you would like. In order to be with a group you think fits better socially, he might be bored with the academics. You make the choice but you can't complain later about it. At least not to parents of kids that are more than a year younger than your child who may find the curriculum perfectly challenging.

My son is just like that! Right now I am leaning towards sending him on time, but fully expecting we may need to get him an IEP to make it through a few yesrs until he matures. For those of you saying this is "vanity redshirting" shame on you. You have no clue what is involved and what a big decision it is.

Why would you need an IEP? Many kids come into K very immature. Never been in a preschool setting and some don't even know English. Being younger and slightly less mature is not a rule for an IEP. It is parents using that to show themselves and the world that their kids isn't "just" immature a little, which is perfectly normal at that age. Not all kids are the same exact maturity levels. The younger the more widespread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is great too. It says that red-shirting can be as low as 4.5% in some areas but as high as 20% in white affluent areas.

https://www.noodle.com/articles/new-data-suggest-redshirting-in-kindergarten-doesnt-help138

And here is the bigger, social issue at play. People with lower incomes cannot even make these choices. They have to send their children as soon as possible to the least expensive option. And so, when you choose to red shirt- you are focusing on your child and his or her specific needs. But the impact of that choice is on more that just your child. It impacts the whole class- with a teacher needing to find ways to meet the more advanced academic needs of our child. But it also impacts society as a whole. Red shirting absolutely contributes to the achievement gap. And- while I don't think it should be the only factor- I think more people need to consider the implications of these choices on society as a whole.

yeah I am totally sure you make key decisions about your child's education based on "society as a whole." It is policymakers job to do that - my obligation as a parent is different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is great too. It says that red-shirting can be as low as 4.5% in some areas but as high as 20% in white affluent areas.

https://www.noodle.com/articles/new-data-suggest-redshirting-in-kindergarten-doesnt-help138

And here is the bigger, social issue at play. People with lower incomes cannot even make these choices. They have to send their children as soon as possible to the least expensive option. And so, when you choose to red shirt- you are focusing on your child and his or her specific needs. But the impact of that choice is on more that just your child. It impacts the whole class- with a teacher needing to find ways to meet the more advanced academic needs of our child. But it also impacts society as a whole. Red shirting absolutely contributes to the achievement gap. And- while I don't think it should be the only factor- I think more people need to consider the implications of these choices on society as a whole.

Why does this only apply to relative school age? That's the fallacy of this argument as it's usually put forth anti-redshirt people who wouldn't actually do anything to reduce the achievement gap themselves if they were personally inconvenienced, but who are quite comfortable telling other people what to do.

[Anonymous]

I am PP and I should say I think the achievement gap is a serious, huge issue, but it seems bizarrely myopic to look at the gap and say that redshirting has an impact that is beyond miniscule compared the larger and well-documented problems. I mean, are you honestly arguing that stopping redshirting would stop the achievement gap? What about in places that don't allow redshirting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok- I can't say this publicly but it really makes me mad.

I have a daughter with an August Birthday and your son is a full 17 months older than my daughter and they are in the same class.
I can't stand it that you say that the classwork is too easy and your son is not academically challenged.
Perhaps you wouldn't feel that way if you sent your son to school on time. I bet my daughter would look really talented too if she were compared to kids much younger- rather than just a hardworking kid.

Omfg yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A friend of mine is planning to hold back her late July son. He does have some social issues that, when looked at separate from everything, make sense to hold him back. Socially he seems on par with my daughter who is a late September birthday, a full year younger. So 14 months apart.

That being said, he is WAY ahead academically. So our kids will end up the same year. Socially- sure- they will be great. But the 14 month gap will really show in the academics.

And this is the issue being raised here. It's fine that you make a choice to hold your child back for whatever reason. It may be good- it may not. I am not one to judge. But if you do this you have to be aware that the academic rigor of the program cannot change for your child alone. Differentiation in kindergarten is just not going to be as catered to your child as you would like. In order to be with a group you think fits better socially, he might be bored with the academics. You make the choice but you can't complain later about it. At least not to parents of kids that are more than a year younger than your child who may find the curriculum perfectly challenging.

My son is just like that! Right now I am leaning towards sending him on time, but fully expecting we may need to get him an IEP to make it through a few yesrs until he matures. For those of you saying this is "vanity redshirting" shame on you. You have no clue what is involved and what a big decision it is.

Some kids are more mature than others. Why on earth would immaturity be a reason for an IEP?