Redshirting August boy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are so many variables, you really just need to do what is right for your individual kid. Our first was just before the VA cutoff of 9/30 (we live in VA). We decided to redshirt. Very strong academically, but socially and verbally, there was mild concern on our part. Fast forward, he is now at a private school in MD, where the cutoff is 9/1, so he is no longer technically even considered a red-shirt. Either way, we are very happy with our decision. It also played into our decision that he was first-born and overall just less mature. Our youngest is way more mature than our first at the equivalent age.

You cannot compare maturity like that and you are being unreasonable with your expectations if your older child started school later than your younger one. Maybe your youngest isn't as mature as they were held back a year and their "peers" are younger and kids tend to behave as others do so their example is of a much younger child vs. a true peer.

[Anonymous]

Yes, the PP obviously can compare that way and noted all the variables involved. You do you and yours, which is all this thread comes down to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So explain to me like I am 5 why if a 12 months age gap is enough to show discrepancies in standardised test scores and special needs diagnosis that and bigger age gap wouldn’t be worse? Surely that’s an obvious conclusion to reach. Would you reasonably expect an average 17 year old to have a higher SATs score than an average 15 year old?

Because it's more than a 12 month age gap. It should be 12 months.

12 months from when? There isn’t even a universal cut off date.

[Anonymous]

I recently asked a similar question about my late September bday son. I am “redshirting” him. He will most likely repeat pre-k where he is. I debated a junior K program but feel it would be stressful for him to switch schools two years in a row.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP

Would it be better to redshirt before he enters PreK or the PreK year?

I can have him do the 3s year at his current daycare and then move to private school or start attending private school in the 3s and then repeat the 3s or PreK4 if necessary.

PP here who is redshirting September son. Benefits to doing it in the 3s are that he’ll make friends to go to prek and then onto k with. I’m doing it after prek which sucks because he has real friends now and is more aware than he would have been a year ago. However they will be out of sight next year when he repeats. If your child repeats 3s, they’ll still see their friends around school and may wonder why they’re not in the same grade. All things equal im for doing it earlier.

[Anonymous]

We are not redshirting our September girl but she's in K now in a DCPS (cutoff is 9/30) and we are applying to K for private school next year (cutoff is 9/1). Don't think that "counts" as redshirting since the cutoff changes but it's the primary reason we are heading to private. I don't want her to start college at 17.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this because the poster asking for data conveniently ignored it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

THE YOUNGEST KIDS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

So what will the schools do to make sure NOBODY is ever the youngest?

Reduce the age cohort age range from 12 months to 6 months in the younger school years. Someone will still be the youngest but all the evidence based disadvantages from relative age affect disappear with such a narrow age gap.

Could you provide some data backing the bolded up? That seems like a very strong claim to make, and I’m curious why you are able to make such a strong statement. I am assuming there is a lot of data supporting the assertion?

I’m personally a bit skeptical — that just seems like far too broad a claim to make — but I like to read actual studies on this topic so please link!

I refer you to Malcolm Gladwells work. My suggestion came from him.

https://youtu.be/t5sJRGmyZ3Y

Uh, no. I’m sorry, but Malcolm Gladwell is not a legitimate data source. He’s been debunked and widely criticized on so many different topics at this point that I don’t think academics of any repute will even mention his name.

Do you have cites, studies, essays, or recommendations from actual academics, not ten-year-old videos from debunked pop culture snake oil salesmen? I would genuinely like to read them.

Emily Oster covered this in depth as well in her new book, the family firm. Google it. Among other factors, the research showed that those who were the youngest in their grade were more likely to be diagnosed with adhd by age seven or so, and this was even more pronounced among boys who were the youngest in their classes. Overall the data showed disadvantage towards being the youngest. In my case, I’m not looking for an advantage for my kids, but I am lookingm to minimize disadvantage to them where I can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this because the poster asking for data conveniently ignored it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

THE YOUNGEST KIDS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

So what will the schools do to make sure NOBODY is ever the youngest?

Reduce the age cohort age range from 12 months to 6 months in the younger school years. Someone will still be the youngest but all the evidence based disadvantages from relative age affect disappear with such a narrow age gap.

Could you provide some data backing the bolded up? That seems like a very strong claim to make, and I’m curious why you are able to make such a strong statement. I am assuming there is a lot of data supporting the assertion?

I’m personally a bit skeptical — that just seems like far too broad a claim to make — but I like to read actual studies on this topic so please link!

I refer you to Malcolm Gladwells work. My suggestion came from him.

https://youtu.be/t5sJRGmyZ3Y

Uh, no. I’m sorry, but Malcolm Gladwell is not a legitimate data source. He’s been debunked and widely criticized on so many different topics at this point that I don’t think academics of any repute will even mention his name.

Do you have cites, studies, essays, or recommendations from actual academics, not ten-year-old videos from debunked pop culture snake oil salesmen? I would genuinely like to read them.

Emily Oster covered this in depth as well in her new book, the family firm. Google it. Among other factors, the research showed that those who were the youngest in their grade were more likely to be diagnosed with adhd by age seven or so, and this was even more pronounced among boys who were the youngest in their classes. Overall the data showed disadvantage towards being the youngest. In my case, I’m not looking for an advantage for my kids, but I am lookingm to minimize disadvantage to them where I can.

Too bad you don’t get to decide what other parents do…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this because the poster asking for data conveniently ignored it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

THE YOUNGEST KIDS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

So what will the schools do to make sure NOBODY is ever the youngest?

Reduce the age cohort age range from 12 months to 6 months in the younger school years. Someone will still be the youngest but all the evidence based disadvantages from relative age affect disappear with such a narrow age gap.

Could you provide some data backing the bolded up? That seems like a very strong claim to make, and I’m curious why you are able to make such a strong statement. I am assuming there is a lot of data supporting the assertion?

I’m personally a bit skeptical — that just seems like far too broad a claim to make — but I like to read actual studies on this topic so please link!

I refer you to Malcolm Gladwells work. My suggestion came from him.

https://youtu.be/t5sJRGmyZ3Y

Uh, no. I’m sorry, but Malcolm Gladwell is not a legitimate data source. He’s been debunked and widely criticized on so many different topics at this point that I don’t think academics of any repute will even mention his name.

Do you have cites, studies, essays, or recommendations from actual academics, not ten-year-old videos from debunked pop culture snake oil salesmen? I would genuinely like to read them.

Emily Oster covered this in depth as well in her new book, the family firm. Google it. Among other factors, the research showed that those who were the youngest in their grade were more likely to be diagnosed with adhd by age seven or so, and this was even more pronounced among boys who were the youngest in their classes. Overall the data showed disadvantage towards being the youngest. In my case, I’m not looking for an advantage for my kids, but I am lookingm to minimize disadvantage to them where I can.

Too bad you don’t get to decide what other parents do…

What do I care what other parents do? The PP asked for supporting research. If that’s you, there it is.

[Anonymous]

Parents of spring borns who are suddenly the youngest in their class and are unfairly disadvantaged for advanced programs and opportunities should care about those stacking the decks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Parents of spring borns who are suddenly the youngest in their class and are unfairly disadvantaged for advanced programs and opportunities should care about those stacking the decks.

It's telling that there aren't actually in here crying about this grave injustice. It's almost as if they don't care and aren't threatened by it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this because the poster asking for data conveniently ignored it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

THE YOUNGEST KIDS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

So what will the schools do to make sure NOBODY is ever the youngest?

Reduce the age cohort age range from 12 months to 6 months in the younger school years. Someone will still be the youngest but all the evidence based disadvantages from relative age affect disappear with such a narrow age gap.

Could you provide some data backing the bolded up? That seems like a very strong claim to make, and I’m curious why you are able to make such a strong statement. I am assuming there is a lot of data supporting the assertion?

I’m personally a bit skeptical — that just seems like far too broad a claim to make — but I like to read actual studies on this topic so please link!

I refer you to Malcolm Gladwells work. My suggestion came from him.

https://youtu.be/t5sJRGmyZ3Y

Uh, no. I’m sorry, but Malcolm Gladwell is not a legitimate data source. He’s been debunked and widely criticized on so many different topics at this point that I don’t think academics of any repute will even mention his name.

Do you have cites, studies, essays, or recommendations from actual academics, not ten-year-old videos from debunked pop culture snake oil salesmen? I would genuinely like to read them.

Emily Oster covered this in depth as well in her new book, the family firm. Google it. Among other factors, the research showed that those who were the youngest in their grade were more likely to be diagnosed with adhd by age seven or so, and this was even more pronounced among boys who were the youngest in their classes. Overall the data showed disadvantage towards being the youngest. In my case, I’m not looking for an advantage for my kids, but I am lookingm to minimize disadvantage to them where I can.

Please for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Emily Oster and Malcolm Gladwell are your source material? I don’t even know how to respond to scientific illiteracy this profound.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Parents of spring borns who are suddenly the youngest in their class and are unfairly disadvantaged for advanced programs and opportunities should care about those stacking the decks.

It's telling that there aren't actually in here crying about this grave injustice. It's almost as if they don't care and aren't threatened by it.

Don’t go to private schools that redshirt. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Lol, Why do think all the anti redshirters are angry then ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Parents of spring borns who are suddenly the youngest in their class and are unfairly disadvantaged for advanced programs and opportunities should care about those stacking the decks.

It's telling that there aren't actually in here crying about this grave injustice. It's almost as if they don't care and aren't threatened by it.

Don’t go to private schools that redshirt. Problem solved.

It's so obvious. The school doesn't have values that match yours. Your spring born might be the youngest. Why would you even want to send your child to such a school in the first place? It's a bad fit.