Do you consider redshirting cheating?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The people so up in arms about redshirting as "cheating" reveal themselves to be absurdly competitive about childhood. Meanwhile the parents who actually face this decision invariably are considering only their particular child's needs. We considered (but ultimately did not) redshirting, and believe me, it had nothing to do with trying to get him an advantage. PS if you are also the types of parents who moan about lack of differentiation in K for your "advanced reader," you get an extra special helping of stfu.

I don't know that this is always the case. I have a rising K'er and know a lot of families whose kids started K this year (my son's bday is in November, so no redshirting here and no real dog in this fight, but he has a lot of friends with summer birthdays because they were in the same preschool class). Many, many families redshirt here--especially their boys. The local K teacher that came to do an info night at our preschool estimated based on her experience that 30% get redshirted in our area of Alexandria. Of the families that I know personally who redshirted their kids--my son's friends--most say it's because they worry their boys will be at a disadvantage relative to the other boys if everyone else is redshirting--if they go on time, they'll be more than a full year younger, smaller for sports teams, less mature, etc. So it is very much a decision not based just on their kid, who objectively could and should start K, but on what other people are doing, and can set off a sort of chain reaction.

[Anonymous]

No I don't consider it "cheating." That word is absurd to use here. Your kid will just be older than s/he would have been before. Rest is kid-dependent and philosophical. No way to prove. more like an insurance policy in case of 10+ things (immature kid, pipsqueak kid, is good at sports, needs to drive junior yr not senior yr, etc.).

[Anonymous]

Yes cheating

Obviously doesn't apply to SN

[Anonymous]

Why on earth would you hold your child back if there were no SN's. Sorry, I do not know any parents who are so hung up on sports that they would actually do that to their child. I assume from reading here that it is done. I just cannot imagine it. I did hold back my SN child. However, it was the right decision for him (and he still needs tutoring etc...) socially. I wish I did not have to, but he was not able to keep up with the social or academics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes cheating

Obviously doesn't apply to SN

Not cheating. And, actually the SN kids do need to be in school. Another year does not get rid of SN. Plenty of kids who are on the cusp and could benefit--depends on the kid. I taught K and had some September who redshirted and some who didn't. Several who did not would have been better off waiting--and, this carried throughout the elementary years and into high school, from what I hear.

[Anonymous]

Enter that late would guarantee that the child was the youngest in his/her class. They would be eligible to get their permit later and be the last of their friends able to drive. Unless it is too much of a financial burden, the entra time to mature and develop can only benefit the child. Being an older child among his/her class can boost confidence and create leadership skills. It's not cheating. Cheating, by definition, is breaking the rules. This is well within the rules and unless you have a compelling reason to send a child early, I would certainly wait.

[Anonymous]

Yes - it’s cheating!!!
It’s far better for the kid to take a gap year at age 17 to get themselves together and mature after having struggled socially, emotionally and academically through k-12. That’s totally the fair way to do it and that’s what matters - being fair towards some gossips that you don’t and never will know rather than doing what’s best for your own offspring.

[Anonymous]

Yes I do think it’s cheating but I recognize that it’s because the kids I know who have been redshirted were held back by their ultra competitive parents because they “weren’t reading yet.” Your kid not being above average is not a good excuse to redshirt.

[Anonymous]

OP, it is cheating, but I wish more schools had the option of starting K in January.
Also, if the K-3 grades would separate kids into groups by age, that would take away the advantage. So if there are two K classes, one class should have the older kids, the other the younger. If you have three K classes, have an older group, a middle group, and a young group. Keep them separated until fourth grade, then regroup. That way, no advantage for older kids (or disadvantage for younger kids), which might make fewer people red shirt their kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, it is cheating, but I wish more schools had the option of starting K in January.
Also, if the K-3 grades would separate kids into groups by age, that would take away the advantage. So if there are two K classes, one class should have the older kids, the other the younger. If you have three K classes, have an older group, a middle group, and a young group. Keep them separated until fourth grade, then regroup. That way, no advantage for older kids (or disadvantage for younger kids), which might make fewer people red shirt their kid.

Not cheating. The parents are obeying the law--what is cheating about that?

I didn't redshirt my kids. Had they been on the cusp, I sure would have considered it, however.

And, believe me, it has nothing to do with intelligence. More a social/emotional maturity issue. Have a friend who was told by preschool teacher to redshirt her son--he was small and immature. He was also quite intelligent and she chose not to redshirt him (very close to cutoff date--later Sept). Very high IQ. Never finished college. As a teacher, I think another year would have helped him--he just was too young for the grade. That does not mean all late Sept birthdays should be redshirted--but, some should. His mom thought it was all about academics and sent him ahead because he "knew his letters, sounds, numbers, etc". He just needed another year to grow, in my mind. He needed more time to play.

[Anonymous]

The law allows it. So it is not cheating. If you think the law is unfair work to change it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The law allows it. So it is not cheating. If you think the law is unfair work to change it.

Cheating isn't against the law. If so, every kid who committed plagiarism or adult who cheated on their spouse would be committing misdemeanors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The law allows it. So it is not cheating. If you think the law is unfair work to change it.

Cheating isn't against the law. If so, every kid who committed plagiarism or adult who cheated on their spouse would be committing misdemeanors.

It isn't a legal question. It's a question of honestly playing by the rules. A key component of both cheating on a spouse and plagiarism is deception.

If a couple agrees to an open marriage, goes to a swingers party, or is openly polygamous, it's not considered cheating. They're open with each other and playing by the rules they've agreed to. While people outside the relationship would probably question the wisdom and morality of such an arrangement, of all the possible objections, I don't think anybody would claim it was cheating. (Adultery, incidentally, can be illegal depending on where you live. While it isn't likely to be prosecuted, it can certainly have legal ramificatioms in case of divorce.)

Similarly, plagiarism by definition involves deception by using somebody else's work as your own. Nobody would object to something as plagiarism if they cite the source. There might be questions of fair use, copyright, etc., if they use too much. However, redshirting is analagous to somebody who contacted the original author and got permission to reprint their work. They're open about what their doing, and they're doing it with official consent. While authors who haven't requested permission to republish the original work may think the author who did has an unfair advantage, there's nothing to keep them from also requesting permission to cite the original author in question.

While you are free to make whatever moral judgements you wish, redshirters are "playing by the rules". As pp indicated, you are free to lobby to have those rules changed - either the state laws or the local regulations. (Personally, I hope you are unsuccessful. I think redshirting benefits not only the students in question, but the rest of the class that is spared the disruptions caused by someone who isn't ready to be there.) There are plenty of other laws/policies that I think should be changed. However, while I may disagree with what someone is doing under current statutes, I recognize they have the right to do whatever wrong (in my opinion) thing they're doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The law allows it. So it is not cheating. If you think the law is unfair work to change it.

Cheating isn't against the law. If so, every kid who committed plagiarism or adult who cheated on their spouse would be committing misdemeanors.

It isn't a legal question. It's a question of honestly playing by the rules. A key component of both cheating on a spouse and plagiarism is deception.

If a couple agrees to an open marriage, goes to a swingers party, or is openly polygamous, it's not considered cheating. They're open with each other and playing by the rules they've agreed to. While people outside the relationship would probably question the wisdom and morality of such an arrangement, of all the possible objections, I don't think anybody would claim it was cheating. (Adultery, incidentally, can be illegal depending on where you live. While it isn't likely to be prosecuted, it can certainly have legal ramificatioms in case of divorce.)

Similarly, plagiarism by definition involves deception by using somebody else's work as your own. Nobody would object to something as plagiarism if they cite the source. There might be questions of fair use, copyright, etc., if they use too much. However, redshirting is analagous to somebody who contacted the original author and got permission to reprint their work. They're open about what their doing, and they're doing it with official consent. While authors who haven't requested permission to republish the original work may think the author who did has an unfair advantage, there's nothing to keep them from also requesting permission to cite the original author in question.

While you are free to make whatever moral judgements you wish, redshirters are "playing by the rules". As pp indicated, you are free to lobby to have those rules changed - either the state laws or the local regulations. (Personally, I hope you are unsuccessful. I think redshirting benefits not only the students in question, but the rest of the class that is spared the disruptions caused by someone who isn't ready to be there.) There are plenty of other laws/policies that I think should be changed. However, while I may disagree with what someone is doing under current statutes, I recognize they have the right to do whatever wrong (in my opinion) thing they're doing.

Great answer.
I might add that there are penalties for "cheating"--whether they are legal penalties or no.

I still don't understand why PP thinks redshirting is cheating. The law states when a child is allowed to begin public school and when the child "must" be in school.

And, most people who redshirt are not trying to give their child an "advantage." They just want what is best for their child.

[Anonymous]

It is not "cheating," per se.

But it's often done with questionable intent, and not for the reasons the rules were initially enacted.