Redshirting August boy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

No, this portion of the debate began from the statement above where a parent claims that redshirting their summer birthday kid did not put "anyone at a disadvantage anymore than a September/October kids" and I was correcting this misstatement. It shifts the disadvantage to the Apr/May kids. It is what it is, but this is fact.

Maturity issues often manifest as being wiggly, disruptive and uncooperative, if not complete emotional meltdowns or tantrums. Putting a kid in kindergarten who is not ready puts everyone at a disadvantage because they're disruptive and monopolize the teacher's time. You don't want them in class with your precious child.

I am only making one point and it still stands. That could also be the case for a wiggly April or May child!!!

A wiggly April/May birthday kid is more likely to be ADHD or other issue vs potentially just maturity im a wiggly August birthday. Those few months make a huge difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

No, this portion of the debate began from the statement above where a parent claims that redshirting their summer birthday kid did not put "anyone at a disadvantage anymore than a September/October kids" and I was correcting this misstatement. It shifts the disadvantage to the Apr/May kids. It is what it is, but this is fact.

That there is a disadvantage is not a fact. No matter how many times you repeat it.

It is definitely a fact in that PP’s head. Just not in any actual reality.

So then why redshirt, if there is no disadvantage to being the youngest?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

No, this portion of the debate began from the statement above where a parent claims that redshirting their summer birthday kid did not put "anyone at a disadvantage anymore than a September/October kids" and I was correcting this misstatement. It shifts the disadvantage to the Apr/May kids. It is what it is, but this is fact.

That there is a disadvantage is not a fact. No matter how many times you repeat it.

It is definitely a fact in that PP’s head. Just not in any actual reality.

So then why redshirt, if there is no disadvantage to being the youngest?

For some kids there is absolutely no disadvantage. Not all kids are the same. And merely being the youngest isn't automatically a disadvantage. Nor is being the oldest an automatic advantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

No, this portion of the debate began from the statement above where a parent claims that redshirting their summer birthday kid did not put "anyone at a disadvantage anymore than a September/October kids" and I was correcting this misstatement. It shifts the disadvantage to the Apr/May kids. It is what it is, but this is fact.

That there is a disadvantage is not a fact. No matter how many times you repeat it.

It is definitely a fact in that PP’s head. Just not in any actual reality.

And of course their is a disadvantage... the redshirted kids benefit from an entire year of development. Physical, emotional, intellectual. Please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

No, this portion of the debate began from the statement above where a parent claims that redshirting their summer birthday kid did not put "anyone at a disadvantage anymore than a September/October kids" and I was correcting this misstatement. It shifts the disadvantage to the Apr/May kids. It is what it is, but this is fact.

That there is a disadvantage is not a fact. No matter how many times you repeat it.

It is definitely a fact in that PP’s head. Just not in any actual reality.

And of course their is a disadvantage... the redshirted kids benefit from an entire year of development. Physical, emotional, intellectual. Please.

A kid who doesn't need that year may be bored and disruptive. A kid who does need that extra time may be less disruptive and save everyone a lot of angst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

No, this portion of the debate began from the statement above where a parent claims that redshirting their summer birthday kid did not put "anyone at a disadvantage anymore than a September/October kids" and I was correcting this misstatement. It shifts the disadvantage to the Apr/May kids. It is what it is, but this is fact.

That there is a disadvantage is not a fact. No matter how many times you repeat it.

It is definitely a fact in that PP’s head. Just not in any actual reality.

And of course their is a disadvantage... the redshirted kids benefit from an entire year of development. Physical, emotional, intellectual. Please.

Studies show that disappears over time. Redshirting isn't as beneficial or harmful as people think. It's basically a wash. Which is why it's not even a very uncommon practice. But you wouldn't know that based on the hysteria in these threads, never supported by fact, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

No, this portion of the debate began from the statement above where a parent claims that redshirting their summer birthday kid did not put "anyone at a disadvantage anymore than a September/October kids" and I was correcting this misstatement. It shifts the disadvantage to the Apr/May kids. It is what it is, but this is fact.

That there is a disadvantage is not a fact. No matter how many times you repeat it.

It is definitely a fact in that PP’s head. Just not in any actual reality.

And of course their is a disadvantage... the redshirted kids benefit from an entire year of development. Physical, emotional, intellectual. Please.

Studies show that disappears over time. Redshirting isn't as beneficial or harmful as people think. It's basically a wash. Which is why it's not even a very uncommon practice. But you wouldn't know that based on the hysteria in these threads, never supported by fact, of course.

^ it's a very uncommon practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

No, this portion of the debate began from the statement above where a parent claims that redshirting their summer birthday kid did not put "anyone at a disadvantage anymore than a September/October kids" and I was correcting this misstatement. It shifts the disadvantage to the Apr/May kids. It is what it is, but this is fact.

That there is a disadvantage is not a fact. No matter how many times you repeat it.

It is definitely a fact in that PP’s head. Just not in any actual reality.

And of course their is a disadvantage... the redshirted kids benefit from an entire year of development. Physical, emotional, intellectual. Please.

A kid who doesn't need that year may be bored and disruptive. A kid who does need that extra time may be less disruptive and save everyone a lot of angst.

We arent talking about kids who dont redshirt, we are talking about kids who do. They get an advantage while the Apr/May inherit the disadvantage.

[Anonymous]

Redshirting is most commonly practiced by white UMC boys. That’s how i know it’s beneficial, the most socially powerful group engages in it and now that same group is trying to gaslight people to look the other way so that they can maintain the unfair playing field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

No, this portion of the debate began from the statement above where a parent claims that redshirting their summer birthday kid did not put "anyone at a disadvantage anymore than a September/October kids" and I was correcting this misstatement. It shifts the disadvantage to the Apr/May kids. It is what it is, but this is fact.

That there is a disadvantage is not a fact. No matter how many times you repeat it.

It is definitely a fact in that PP’s head. Just not in any actual reality.

And of course their is a disadvantage... the redshirted kids benefit from an entire year of development. Physical, emotional, intellectual. Please.

A kid who doesn't need that year may be bored and disruptive. A kid who does need that extra time may be less disruptive and save everyone a lot of angst.

We arent talking about kids who dont redshirt, we are talking about kids who do. They get an advantage while the Apr/May inherit the disadvantage.

No matter what someone gets screwed, right? For some reason you don't care if i'ts July or August birthdays, just as long as it's not April/May? Who will already be months older than the August kids who start on time by September? I fall to see the huge disadvantage because April/May still won't be the youngest in class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

No, this portion of the debate began from the statement above where a parent claims that redshirting their summer birthday kid did not put "anyone at a disadvantage anymore than a September/October kids" and I was correcting this misstatement. It shifts the disadvantage to the Apr/May kids. It is what it is, but this is fact.

That there is a disadvantage is not a fact. No matter how many times you repeat it.

It is definitely a fact in that PP’s head. Just not in any actual reality.

And of course their is a disadvantage... the redshirted kids benefit from an entire year of development. Physical, emotional, intellectual. Please.

Studies show that disappears over time. Redshirting isn't as beneficial or harmful as people think. It's basically a wash. Which is why it's not even a very uncommon practice. But you wouldn't know that based on the hysteria in these threads, never supported by fact, of course.

Right, which is why I always think people who freak out about other people doing it seem really sheltered and privileged. They are unbalanced hysterics without exposure to any real problems in life.

The only country where there was not a strong correlation between being young for grade and prescribing ADHD medication is also the same country where parents are encouraged to use their best judgment as to when their kids are ready for kindergarten entrance, and has pretty wide age bands in K classrooms as a result. What an amazing coincidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Redshirting is most commonly practiced by white UMC boys. That’s how i know it’s beneficial, the most socially powerful group engages in it and now that same group is trying to gaslight people to look the other way so that they can maintain the unfair playing field.

This is a private school forum. And you're arguing about what's fair or unfair? This is happening at private schools, which many believe are a unfair playing field to begin with. A handful or redshirted boys barely scratches the surface.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Redshirting is most commonly practiced by white UMC boys. That’s how i know it’s beneficial, the most socially powerful group engages in it and now that same group is trying to gaslight people to look the other way so that they can maintain the unfair playing field.

This is ridiculous. Kids can get all sorts of advantages. Some are related to wealth and age, others to birth order, environment, etc.
My UMC white boy has a March birthday. At my daughters current private school he will be among the youngest. He is my third and while he is behind where his sisters were at his age, just having older siblings (and first at that) has helped him enormously. There are advantages that come from not being an only child (or for being one), for being the first born, the middle or last; from being young for grade and old for grade.
Those specific challenges/advantages are true only for the specific kid they apply to.
A young for grade child may need to focus and get more teacher’s attention to learn and tht cannot happen with a disruptive summer birthday child tht could have been redshirted… and many other examples like that.

In my country, redshirted is not common, but skipping a grade is… is that bad? Does that put some kids at a disadvantage? I think leaving parents/children/teachers the ability to decide when to start school is a great way to fix some small issues.l kids might have.

[Anonymous]

I would hold back an August boy. It's no fun to be the youngest boy.
As many have mentioned, the top privates are full of kids who were held back from June on.
My kid is a September birthday and out of 100 kids he is probably at the 75% for age.

Do what you want but this is the system you are playing in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Redshirting is most commonly practiced by white UMC boys. That’s how i know it’s beneficial, the most socially powerful group engages in it and now that same group is trying to gaslight people to look the other way so that they can maintain the unfair playing field.

Thank you, NP!

And no one hysterical, just pointing out the fact that when summer bdays redshirt to gain and advantage/lose a disadvantage they are making the next in line take the role- April and May kids.

I dont have an April/ May kid but this is still a fact. You could just own it and move on rather than try to rationalize.