Speak up (to your school) if you are worried about all the redshirting

[Anonymous]

I do it solely so that my son has a better chance to dominate athletically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do it solely so that my son has a better chance to dominate athletically.

Funny, because this will ruin your son's chances at actually being a decent athlete. Kids who are forced to play against older, bigger, stronger, etc. kids when they are little are the ones who dominate their age group later. So enjoy the dominance now because you'll be watching your boy sit on the bench by the time he makes it to junior high.

[Anonymous]

Why are you taking her post seriously? It's pretty obvious she's just trying to stir the pot.

[Anonymous]

Teacher here, responding to two posts...

"But how can a teacher differentiate the whole schedule and expectations of a classroom? I like the idea of pre-first which is what a lot of Baltimore private schools have. All kids start out in K if they are age eligible. They do what they can do during their K year and if they just aren't ready for 1st grade instruction and expectations, they go to pre-first. That way, nobody gets "held back" in K. Some kids go to first and some go to pre-first. NCLB has really ruined the K experience in public schools. My friend who teaches K hates the way things are now. K is not an appropriate place for many kids but unless their parents have the means to hold them back a year, they end up in a place that is not appropriate which is a horrible way to start a school career."

While NCLB has caused a lot of problems, the fact remains, if a classroom isn't ready for a child within the developmental range of the children typical to that classroom, that is a failing by the school/teacher. Differentiation for a one-year chronological age range is the norm. The problem is that programs have become overly accelerated and the demands are out of whack. If K is going to function the way that 1st or even 2nd grade did 20 years ago, then how can you expect young 5's to be "ready"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teacher here-

The idea that boys are "behind" girls demonstrates that our early childhood curriculum is slanted against boys. Boys are who they are. If boys, as a whole, are not ready for K, then the problem is with K, not the boys.

If a child is within normal developmental range for an age (meaning they might be up to 6 months above or below chronological age), then a talented teacher should be able to effectively differentiate. If a child is beyond that, they are likely needing additional support that an extra year won't supply.

An amazingly sensible post. Where do you teach? I think a lot of DCUM readers will want to send their boys to your school if your views are representative of your colleagues'!!

Teacher here...

Thanks so much for your kind words! Unfortunately, the views are not representative of my colleagues. And the need to toe the company line prevents me from indicating where I teach. However, if people are interested in schools, programs, and other ways to support their boys (and girls) getting what they need, I'm happy to talk more privately (if there is a way to do that). Regardless, if your child is in a school where they seem to be telling you that boys are disproportionately not ready for a given grade level or subscribe to the logic that girls simply "develop faster"* than boys, call them on it. The last thing a school wants is to be called out on bias.

(*Note: I am well aware of the ways in which boys and girls develop differently in general. The issue arises when curriculum is aligned with the strengths of one gender over the other. Current K curriculum puts a premium on sitting still, fine-motor skill, and other skills that develop faster in girls than boys. As such, many boys start behind the 8-ball while the areas they are strong in are either ignored or, even worse, maligned.)

I will now get off my soap box.

[Anonymous]

Instead of getting up in arms about redshirting, we need to get riled up about the current Kindergarten curriculum. We need to alter the curriculum and teaching methods so that average 5 yr old boys *and* girls can learn.

It seems like there would be ways to introduce reading and math without gluing kids to chairs, but in ways that are fun and active and appropriate for 5 year olds.

[Anonymous]

Thanks. I wrote that earlier post. I agree -- the vast majority turn out fine...I think it's more about the parents than the boys. People are worried about "getting a leg up" for their kids.

Anonymous wrote:I agree and it's really a shame. These unfair stereotypes can lead to discrimination against little boys. Most boys in this country go/went to Kindergarten at age five and the vast majority of them turned out just fine.

Anonymous wrote:Too many people seem to assume boys are somehow retarded in their development and are "defective girls". Certainly, they're not all that bad are they? I realize many grow up to be man-child husbands...but really now?

[Anonymous]

Teacher here...

11:02 hits the nail on the head. Teach in a developmentally appropriate way and all developmentally ready children will be prepared.

[Anonymous]

I'm red shirting my late august son because we want him around an extra year before college. I also would rather him be the oldest in class rather than the youngest. It also spaces out our kids more evenly which is closer to their real ages.

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately, I know of families who actually have redshirted for athletic reasons, so I think PP was wise to take it seriously.

Anonymous wrote:Why are you taking her post seriously? It's pretty obvious she's just trying to stir the pot.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for being honest about your intentions. It's just another example of people who redshirt their children "just because"--even though they have no developmental delays/problems.

Anonymous wrote:I'm red shirting my late august son because we want him around an extra year before college. I also would rather him be the oldest in class rather than the youngest. It also spaces out our kids more evenly which is closer to their real ages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, I know of families who actually have redshirted for athletic reasons, so I think PP was wise to take it seriously.

Anonymous wrote:Why are you taking her post seriously? It's pretty obvious she's just trying to stir the pot.

I second this. It is absolutely the case. I know no fewer than 6 families that have done this.

[Anonymous]

And round and round we go. I honestly don't understand why certain parents care what other parents choose to do. If other children are a behavior problem (which would more likely be the result of going to school too soon, than too late) that is causing problems for the class, thats one thing. Otherwise, why is it any of your business?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And round and round we go. I honestly don't understand why certain parents care what other parents choose to do. If other children are a behavior problem (which would more likely be the result of going to school too soon, than too late) that is causing problems for the class, thats one thing. Otherwise, why is it any of your business?

actually, children who are bored b/c they are more advanced than the class often have behavior problems.

and, it makes it harder for the teachers when the age (and developmental-age span) of the classroom spans 18 or more months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And round and round we go. I honestly don't understand why certain parents care what other parents choose to do. If other children are a behavior problem (which would more likely be the result of going to school too soon, than too late) that is causing problems for the class, thats one thing. Otherwise, why is it any of your business?

Redshirts dominated in elementary and middle school. Better in sports , leaders, social, etc. It evened out at about grade 10 and 11. Socially the redshirts are more advanced than classmates. High amounts of game time has now decreased to little if any for some of them.