"Red-Shirting" of kids

[Anonymous]

Trend, schmend. Prove that's it's not just a bunch of fear-mongering parents.

[Anonymous]

We redshirted our late June birthday son and feel it's the best decision we could have ever made for him. While he's incredibly bright and tested off the charts on verbal skills, his motor skills were undeveloped. The 2nd year of PK for him was just what he needed in order to be ready. Our decision was based solely on what was best for him - and now he's thriving.

All this crap about a "slippery slope" and "under that theory, everyone should redshirt" is self-serving BS. First, redshirting should only be considered for late spring/summer birthdays... any earlier (like March) and it should not be an option. Then, for those kids who have those late spring/summer birthdays, the decision to redshirt should be based on whether that child has developed to the point where they can handle the curriculum (which is equivalent to the 1st grade curriculum we went though as kids). That's the real issue here... 20 years ago to go to K all you needed to do was be able to play and explore... now you really need to be reading and writing at a basic level. Simple fact is some kids just don't develop some of those skills by month 48-54, and need a little more time to catch-up. If K was now was K was 20 years ago... no problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The issue being debated in this thread is the conflict between individual good and the collective/social good.

Red shirting might benefit the occasional child with developmental difficulties. But its become a trend, and no matter what people say, its not always agonizing to the parents doing it. I see this all around me. Introverted/not-so-bright/shy/less athletic children are being held back in the hopes that the extra year will magically make them extroverted, precocious, and athletic. Sometimes it does help - particularly with the cognitive stuff simply because 12 months is a large chunk of a child's life. (Theoretically, everyone should redshirt their kids. This is why it has become a trend.) Often, my bet is that it does nothing. Or the effects wear off once all the children learn to read.

As a trend, it goes against the collective good - of the class, the school, the community, and ultimately the country. (That was the point of the Harvard study.)

So everyone on this thread is right. The individual parent is buying a real or theoretical advantage for the child. The people arguing against it are arguing for the common good. The school system is failing everyone by not regulating this redshirting madness. There should be a balance between the individual good and the common good.

That's disingenuous. A lot of them are arguing against parents being able to make the best decisions for their children because they're actually afraid it might somehow disadvantage their own child. They'd like to make sure that other people don't have that option available to them, and they're sickening self-righteous in their belief that they're better qualified to make life-altering decisions about other people's children. Whom they've never even met. It's pretty disgusting.

[Anonymous]

No, people are arguing against it because it pushes the age limits to extremes.

At what age is K appropriate?
At what age is 1 appropriate?

Make some guidelines for it and stick to it.

What isn't fair is the idea that a child is the perceived or published suitable age for a grade only to find out that "everyone else" is significantly older.

It is pretty disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We redshirted our late June birthday son and feel it's the best decision we could have ever made for him. While he's incredibly bright and tested off the charts on verbal skills, his motor skills were undeveloped. The 2nd year of PK for him was just what he needed in order to be ready. Our decision was based solely on what was best for him - and now he's thriving.

All this crap about a "slippery slope" and "under that theory, everyone should redshirt" is self-serving BS. First, redshirting should only be considered for late spring/summer birthdays... any earlier (like March) and it should not be an option. Then, for those kids who have those late spring/summer birthdays, the decision to redshirt should be based on whether that child has developed to the point where they can handle the curriculum (which is equivalent to the 1st grade curriculum we went though as kids). That's the real issue here... 20 years ago to go to K all you needed to do was be able to play and explore... now you really need to be reading and writing at a basic level. Simple fact is some kids just don't develop some of those skills by month 48-54, and need a little more time to catch-up. If K was now was K was 20 years ago... no problem.

If the curriculum was developmentally appropriate to the age for kindergardeners (age 5), then people wouldn't even have to think about whether or not to send their child to K. B/c the K curriculum and length of school day is what 1st grade used to be, people are forced to make tough decisions. The school system where I live states that the only requirements to start K is to be age 5 by Sept. 1. But yet many kids who fit this description are not faring well in K. Why? The curriculum has been pushed down so much that it no longer fits the development of many kids who are age 5. I consider myself an average to slightly above average intelligence but there is not way I could've been reading and spending 7 hrs a day at school at age 5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We redshirted our late June birthday son and feel it's the best decision we could have ever made for him. While he's incredibly bright and tested off the charts on verbal skills, his motor skills were undeveloped. The 2nd year of PK for him was just what he needed in order to be ready. Our decision was based solely on what was best for him - and now he's thriving.

All this crap about a "slippery slope" and "under that theory, everyone should redshirt" is self-serving BS. First, redshirting should only be considered for late spring/summer birthdays... any earlier (like March) and it should not be an option. Then, for those kids who have those late spring/summer birthdays, the decision to redshirt should be based on whether that child has developed to the point where they can handle the curriculum (which is equivalent to the 1st grade curriculum we went though as kids). That's the real issue here... 20 years ago to go to K all you needed to do was be able to play and explore... now you really need to be reading and writing at a basic level. Simple fact is some kids just don't develop some of those skills by month 48-54, and need a little more time to catch-up. If K was now was K was 20 years ago... no problem.

If the curriculum was developmentally appropriate to the age for kindergardeners (age 5), then people wouldn't even have to think about whether or not to send their child to K. B/c the K curriculum and length of school day is what 1st grade used to be, people are forced to make tough decisions. The school system where I live states that the only requirements to start K is to be age 5 by Sept. 1. But yet many kids who fit this description are not faring well in K. Why? The curriculum has been pushed down so much that it no longer fits the development of many kids who are age 5. I consider myself an average to slightly above average intelligence but there is not way I could've been reading and spending 7 hrs a day at school at age 5.

I've gotten slammed on this thread and just noticed the month of March mentionned. I've seen kids as early as Nov redshirted and by any measure that child should be on the older side. Most [except for 1] who have been redshirted in public and privates we have been exposed to had nothing to do with academics. I also have not seen girls redshirt.

[Anonymous]

Girls usually (but not always) develop earlier than boys in most area (except perhaps for gross motor skills!) So they are usually able to handle the rigor of today's K. As moms of boys know, most of them are not champions at sitting still, listening and following direction after direction (see thread about husbands who seem to have these issues too). That is why boys are referred for ADHD testing at a much higher rate than girls. If schools were set up (and some are) to teach to whatever is developmentally appropriate to each child, we wouldn't be talking about redshirting.

[Anonymous]

10th grade.

It's the new senior year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Girls usually (but not always) develop earlier than boys in most area (except perhaps for gross motor skills!) So they are usually able to handle the rigor of today's K. As moms of boys know, most of them are not champions at sitting still, listening and following direction after direction (see thread about husbands who seem to have these issues too). That is why boys are referred for ADHD testing at a much higher rate than girls. If schools were set up (and some are) to teach to whatever is developmentally appropriate to each child, we wouldn't be talking about redshirting.

Which are? I'd sure like to find them. I guess I'm the rarer case in that I have a girl with an early summer birthday who seems to have some of the "boy" issues, and most of the privates automatically want to keep her back, saying that even before they met her! My every instinct says to put her in public K and keep moving forward, but what are the schools you reference that are developmentally appropriate?

[Anonymous]

None of the publics that I know of! They are working w/ the old 1st grade curriculum in K. My 2 friends who teach and used to teach 1st grade in our county now have kindergardeners and both have said separately that they homework and classwork their kids get now in K is what they used to assign in first grade years ago. I know preschools and daycares that are NAEYC accredited follow developmentally appropriate practices which is why I have my son in one. If you look into private schools, definitely ask to observe at them and that will tell you a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, people are arguing against it because it pushes the age limits to extremes.

At what age is K appropriate?
At what age is 1 appropriate?

Make some guidelines for it and stick to it.

What isn't fair is the idea that a child is the perceived or published suitable age for a grade only to find out that "everyone else" is significantly older.

It is pretty disgusting.

What's disgusting is nosy old nags who bray about "perceived or published suitable ages" as though they were concerned with the common good but really they're just trying to make sure someone else's child is at a disadvantage to their own. Anyone who says otherwise is a hypocrite. If you want to PROVE it then offer up your own child as the sacrificial lamb. Lead by example. Until then, get your busybody old nose out of other people's families! Your embarrassing butinsky tendencies give women who are not inclined to stick their faces into other people's lives a bad name.

[Anonymous]

Do you really need to keep on insulting people? Can't you just refer everyone back to your comments on the "Holding boys back" thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, people are arguing against it because it pushes the age limits to extremes.

At what age is K appropriate?
At what age is 1 appropriate?

Make some guidelines for it and stick to it.

What isn't fair is the idea that a child is the perceived or published suitable age for a grade only to find out that "everyone else" is significantly older.

It is pretty disgusting.

What's disgusting is nosy old nags who bray about "perceived or published suitable ages" as though they were concerned with the common good but really they're just trying to make sure someone else's child is at a disadvantage to their own. Anyone who says otherwise is a hypocrite. If you want to PROVE it then offer up your own child as the sacrificial lamb. Lead by example. Until then, get your busybody old nose out of other people's families! Your embarrassing butinsky tendencies give women who are not inclined to stick their faces into other people's lives a bad name.

Your arguments lose credibility when you resort to juvenile name-calling.

[Anonymous]

The "common good" in a classroom is one where kids are grouped appropriately by age. That has traditionally been a 12 month spread. The 18-20 month spread is not good for the younger kids or the older ones. That is the reason I am arguing against red-shirting. Its not a question of "your older child will disadvantage my younger child". I think redshirting ruins the social dynamics in the classroom for ALL the children. Redshirt by all means if your child has something going on that calls for it. But don't redshirt because they were born in May! Regardless, all of us would have to shut up and deal with it if only schools put normal caps on the age thing at either end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The "common good" in a classroom is one where kids are grouped appropriately by age. That has traditionally been a 12 month spread. The 18-20 month spread is not good for the younger kids or the older ones. That is the reason I am arguing against red-shirting. Its not a question of "your older child will disadvantage my younger child". I think redshirting ruins the social dynamics in the classroom for ALL the children. Redshirt by all means if your child has something going on that calls for it. But don't redshirt because they were born in May! Regardless, all of us would have to shut up and deal with it if only schools put normal caps on the age thing at either end.

Why all the emphasis on chronological age? Kids develop at wildly different rates, both within their own skill sets and when compared to others. Why hold a kid back if they are ready for K but don't turn 5 until Sept. 1? And why force a kid to go if they meet the age cutoff but aren't ready to follow the routine/operate in a large class/master the curriculum?

I think an 18 month age span can easily encompass kids who are, in fact, appropriately placed. Maybe we need to move to multi-age, ungraded classrooms, instead of obsessing about whether a March birthday kid should be permitted to be held back!