Do you consider redshirting cheating?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Unlike strategies aimed at rigging the game in your kids favor by making them smarter

By the time kids are going to school, it is too late to pick an intelligent partner, eat well during pregnancy, and breastfeed for as long as possible to make your child smarter than they might otherwise have been.

You are NOT funny and SUPER judgemental

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Unlike strategies aimed at rigging the game in your kids favor by making them smarter

By the time kids are going to school, it is too late to pick an intelligent partner, eat well during pregnancy, and breastfeed for as long as possible to make your child smarter than they might otherwise have been.

Sure. Do you think that its mostly people who don't have intelligent partners and don't eat well in pregnancy or don't breastfeed who can afford to pay another year of chidcare? I don't, but admire your hopefulness.

The stats are pretty clear on all of this, you don't have to trust my opinion.

Don't know what you're trying to say, just saying that a child's intelligence won't be changing drastically at this point. You work with the child you have and put the child in the best learning situation for that child.

We don't pit one child against another. It's about every child doing their own best and learning as well and as much as they possibly can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that people have a strong reaction to being told that they are cheaters. In this case as it is within the rules I don't think its cheating. More like one more way parents use money to equalize a child's deficiencies (perceived, actual or not even considered) . The parents who do this at 4 continue it, so those of us who have several/older kids have seen this. Most probably don't really care one way or the other about redshirting, if you say your kid is behind I believe you. Many of us do get tired at watching other parents constantly trying to control and manipulate every single facet of their kids existence, redshirting is just a signal about what type of parent one is dealing with as a generality.

Not a redshirting parent--but, you have a problem if you think this is control and manipulation. Deciding that your four year old (or just turned five) is not ready for K is not control and manipulation, in my opinion. It is basic common sense and good parenting.

Unlike strategies aimed at rigging the game in your kids favor by making them smarter, this strategy does it by putting them against people who are younger than them. It simply moves your kid ahead of others by competing them against people from the grade below the one they are really in, developmentally speaking.

nobody is redshirting their child solely in an effort to "compete" them against younger children. ffs. that says a LOT more about how you view childrearing and elementary school, than it does about the reasons people actually redshirt.

Like their kid is shorter than the other kids? Or their kid can't sit still as long as the other kids? Or that they can't read as well as others yet and K is "now academic"? How are you getting those determinations unless you are comparing your child to the others in the class? If you say you don't do that, great, but its a huge disservice to your argument to claim that you don't care or notice what other kids do.....then base your decision for YOUR child around exactly that.

You never had a kid you needed to consider redshirting, obviously. Generally, redshirting is considered for kids who have clear differences and will just do better with a younger cohort. It has nothing to do with competition, but rather the environment. Your viewpoint seems to be that kindergarten (!) is a zero-sum game. Mine is more like the process you go through when choosing between jobs: you pick the kind of environment and colleagues that suit you. Trust me, had I decided to redshirt (which I didn't) my boy would NOT have been some kind of unfair competition for your child.

Clear differences? You mean like getting treatment/therapies? That's different and I would agree. I thought you meant the parents on here, talking about height and vague "immaturity" issues, not clear medical/social differences. My fault. We agree.

As to the bolded, if jobs were free and guaranteed by the Federal Government, yes, it would be like that. Most people choosing public school don't have that luxury, so can't "school/age/grade" shop like you can, which makes a difference for their kids.

No, I don't mean only diagnosed special needs -- because in many cases (not all), going to school on time is the right answer for SN kids, because there's no other way to access therapies. There can be clear differences without a diagnosis. And I think you should butt out and stop seeing this all as a zero-sum game, because it's not. Not sure why you are so panicked that your kid is going to be out-competed in Kindergarten. It's pretty ridiculous.

Panicked? I sent all of my kids on time, why would I seem panicked? The people panicking are the ones holding their child back for a year, I'd say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Unlike strategies aimed at rigging the game in your kids favor by making them smarter

By the time kids are going to school, it is too late to pick an intelligent partner, eat well during pregnancy, and breastfeed for as long as possible to make your child smarter than they might otherwise have been.

Sure. Do you think that its mostly people who don't have intelligent partners and don't eat well in pregnancy or don't breastfeed who can afford to pay another year of chidcare? I don't, but admire your hopefulness.

The stats are pretty clear on all of this, you don't have to trust my opinion.

Don't know what you're trying to say, just saying that a child's intelligence won't be changing drastically at this point. You work with the child you have and put the child in the best learning situation for that child.

We don't pit one child against another. It's about every child doing their own best and learning as well and as much as they possibly can.

The idea that "they don't change at this point" is fine if that is your belief, but then why delay their life for a year? Their intelligence won't change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it isn't a competition your child would have done just as well with other kids their own age. They aren't competing with yours, right? So why did you redshirt?

Do you think social skills are a kind of competition? Real question. My DS (who I did not redshirt in the end) is markedly socially immature compared to his friends, and very young for the grade as well. I did not redshirt him, but if I had, it would have been to try to smooth the way for him socially -- ie, that he would have some good friends and not be bullied for baby-like behavior. Is this competition?

I don't think I want to live in your world ...

Well, thats your choice. I'm not going anywhere. Please don't off yourself over this though. Its literally just an opinion from a stranger.

It's just illogical to say that to determine readiness we look at other children, and when we (lacking education or experience, generally, in child development) make determinations for our kids based on those other children, then decide that our child would "do better" against younger children, there is absolutely no degree of competition. If you think that redshirting is a guarantee of social status (or freedom from bullying) well....thats the control or manipulation I talked about,.

redshirting decisions are almost ALWAYS made WITH THE ADVICE of teachers, administrators, and doctors/therapists. Plus, there's really persuasive research that being young for the grade contributes to the risk of an ADHD diagnosis.

Why do you care so much about other people's parenting decisions in this regard?

Your fixation on this idea of "control" and "manipulation" say a LOT more about your concerns than me.

I care about a lot of parenting decisions. Vaccinations. Proper health care. Fair and equal and accessible public schooling.

Are you the crazy lady who thinks that people who redshirt are racist? Please, find something else to spend your energy on.

I don't think that people who redshirt are racist. I do think that there is systemic racism inherent to the discussion. Look where redshirting happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Unlike strategies aimed at rigging the game in your kids favor by making them smarter

By the time kids are going to school, it is too late to pick an intelligent partner, eat well during pregnancy, and breastfeed for as long as possible to make your child smarter than they might otherwise have been.

Sure. Do you think that its mostly people who don't have intelligent partners and don't eat well in pregnancy or don't breastfeed who can afford to pay another year of chidcare? I don't, but admire your hopefulness.

The stats are pretty clear on all of this, you don't have to trust my opinion.

Don't know what you're trying to say, just saying that a child's intelligence won't be changing drastically at this point. You work with the child you have and put the child in the best learning situation for that child.

We don't pit one child against another. It's about every child doing their own best and learning as well and as much as they possibly can.

The idea that "they don't change at this point" is fine if that is your belief, but then why delay their life for a year? Their intelligence won't change.

The idea is to put each child in the environment best suited for that child. A child who is comfortable and happy in the classroom will reach his learning potential better than one who is uncomfortable and unhappy for any number of reasons related to not being ready to be in a classroom all day.

[Anonymous]

And that is fine. A little discomfort or stretching never hurt anyone, but sure. I believe that a little adversity and failure is the gateway to innovation, so I don't mind everything not being just so ~ hand curated artisanal classrooms and all. Its a lovely theory, but doesn't work well when educating masses, which is what public education is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it isn't a competition your child would have done just as well with other kids their own age. They aren't competing with yours, right? So why did you redshirt?

Do you think social skills are a kind of competition? Real question. My DS (who I did not redshirt in the end) is markedly socially immature compared to his friends, and very young for the grade as well. I did not redshirt him, but if I had, it would have been to try to smooth the way for him socially -- ie, that he would have some good friends and not be bullied for baby-like behavior. Is this competition?

I don't think I want to live in your world ...

Well, thats your choice. I'm not going anywhere. Please don't off yourself over this though. Its literally just an opinion from a stranger.

It's just illogical to say that to determine readiness we look at other children, and when we (lacking education or experience, generally, in child development) make determinations for our kids based on those other children, then decide that our child would "do better" against younger children, there is absolutely no degree of competition. If you think that redshirting is a guarantee of social status (or freedom from bullying) well....thats the control or manipulation I talked about,.

redshirting decisions are almost ALWAYS made WITH THE ADVICE of teachers, administrators, and doctors/therapists. Plus, there's really persuasive research that being young for the grade contributes to the risk of an ADHD diagnosis.

Why do you care so much about other people's parenting decisions in this regard?

Your fixation on this idea of "control" and "manipulation" say a LOT more about your concerns than me.

I care about a lot of parenting decisions. Vaccinations. Proper health care. Fair and equal and accessible public schooling.

Are you the crazy lady who thinks that people who redshirt are racist? Please, find something else to spend your energy on.

I don't think that people who redshirt are racist. I do think that there is systemic racism inherent to the discussion. Look where redshirting happens.

You look where kids being retained in kindergarten happens. Redshirting white kids = white parents making the decision at 4. Retaining kindergarteners = school making the decision at 5. Not a big difference. You're ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And that is fine. A little discomfort or stretching never hurt anyone, but sure. I believe that a little adversity and failure is the gateway to innovation, so I don't mind everything not being just so ~ hand curated artisanal classrooms and all. Its a lovely theory, but doesn't work well when educating masses, which is what public education is.

Except ... the rules ALLOW kids to be redshirted. And retained. It's not "curating," any more than your kid being able to pick electives or be in an advanced or lower English or Math class. A "little" adversity is fine for your kids. (And BTW, deciding on your child's schooling with the metric of "failure is the gateway to innovation" (just a LITTLE failure, but not too much!) is just as much "curating" and "artisinal" as anything else.).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And that is fine. A little discomfort or stretching never hurt anyone, but sure. I believe that a little adversity and failure is the gateway to innovation, so I don't mind everything not being just so ~ hand curated artisanal classrooms and all. Its a lovely theory, but doesn't work well when educating masses, which is what public education is.

Except ... the rules ALLOW kids to be redshirted. And retained. It's not "curating," any more than your kid being able to pick electives or be in an advanced or lower English or Math class. A "little" adversity is fine for your kids. (And BTW, deciding on your child's schooling with the metric of "failure is the gateway to innovation" (just a LITTLE failure, but not too much!) is just as much "curating" and "artisinal" as anything else.).

Oh I know the rules allow it. If they didn't we wouldn't have a thread asking if redshirting was cheating. It would be illegal.

I used curating to illustrate the simplicity of PP's post. I mean, sure, who disagrees that every child should be hand placed into the perfect learning environment? It just doesn't matter if you can't place them there because you need to go to work so they can eat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it isn't a competition your child would have done just as well with other kids their own age. They aren't competing with yours, right? So why did you redshirt?

Do you think social skills are a kind of competition? Real question. My DS (who I did not redshirt in the end) is markedly socially immature compared to his friends, and very young for the grade as well. I did not redshirt him, but if I had, it would have been to try to smooth the way for him socially -- ie, that he would have some good friends and not be bullied for baby-like behavior. Is this competition?

I don't think I want to live in your world ...

Well, thats your choice. I'm not going anywhere. Please don't off yourself over this though. Its literally just an opinion from a stranger.

It's just illogical to say that to determine readiness we look at other children, and when we (lacking education or experience, generally, in child development) make determinations for our kids based on those other children, then decide that our child would "do better" against younger children, there is absolutely no degree of competition. If you think that redshirting is a guarantee of social status (or freedom from bullying) well....thats the control or manipulation I talked about,.

redshirting decisions are almost ALWAYS made WITH THE ADVICE of teachers, administrators, and doctors/therapists. Plus, there's really persuasive research that being young for the grade contributes to the risk of an ADHD diagnosis.

Why do you care so much about other people's parenting decisions in this regard?

Your fixation on this idea of "control" and "manipulation" say a LOT more about your concerns than me.

I care about a lot of parenting decisions. Vaccinations. Proper health care. Fair and equal and accessible public schooling.

Are you the crazy lady who thinks that people who redshirt are racist? Please, find something else to spend your energy on.

I don't think that people who redshirt are racist. I do think that there is systemic racism inherent to the discussion. Look where redshirting happens.

You look where kids being retained in kindergarten happens. Redshirting white kids = white parents making the decision at 4. Retaining kindergarteners = school making the decision at 5. Not a big difference. You're ridiculous.

1.5% of students are retained nationally. In wealthy school districts redshirt rates are much, much higher than that. But call me whatever you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And that is fine. A little discomfort or stretching never hurt anyone, but sure. I believe that a little adversity and failure is the gateway to innovation, so I don't mind everything not being just so ~ hand curated artisanal classrooms and all. Its a lovely theory, but doesn't work well when educating masses, which is what public education is.

Except ... the rules ALLOW kids to be redshirted. And retained. It's not "curating," any more than your kid being able to pick electives or be in an advanced or lower English or Math class. A "little" adversity is fine for your kids. (And BTW, deciding on your child's schooling with the metric of "failure is the gateway to innovation" (just a LITTLE failure, but not too much!) is just as much "curating" and "artisinal" as anything else.).

Oh I know the rules allow it. If they didn't we wouldn't have a thread asking if redshirting was cheating. It would be illegal.

I used curating to illustrate the simplicity of PP's post. I mean, sure, who disagrees that every child should be hand placed into the perfect learning environment? It just doesn't matter if you can't place them there because you need to go to work so they can eat.

OK, so your child shouldn't be in school at all, since some kids in Yemen can't go to school due to US airstrikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again with words. Words mean things. If your child "needed" redshirting.......based on what? Parental determination means nothing without credentials.

Not PP, but I KNOW my child better than a specialist and better than you. She will be redshirted because I want to save her from being left alone with none to play with. My child does not have special needs that need to be diagnosed by a specialist, but she is very sensitive and absolutely needs to fit in and have friends. Older girls usually don’t want to play with her and she is left out. Same age or younger girls always play with her and she is SO MUCH HAPPIER. That’s all I need for me to redshirt (since I am allowed to do so)

She sounds exactly like the type of kid who should be redshirted. I've said it before on here--SN kids or "slow" kids are not the ones who benefit. It is a maturity issue--and, contrary to our anti-redshirting parent on here--there is such a thing as maturity. And, it is not a reflection of poor parenting or lack of intelligence.

And, how do I know? Years of teaching Kindergarten and First Grade.

I think the anti-redshirter must have a kid that was advised to redshirt and she chose not to do so.

[Anonymous]

Not specifically about redshirting, but makes a lot of points for why sending kids early may not be ideal for every child. https://www.edutopia.org/article/teach-kids-when-theyre-ready