TO THE MOM WHO RED SHIRTED HER SON AND COMPLAINS HE'S NOT CHALLENGED

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not understand holding a child back for social reasons. If you hold a child back and keep him or her with kids 1-2 years younger, you cannot complain they are immature as you are keeping them with kids who are far younger and do not have the social skills that can help them advance. Your chid will always be behind age/socially as they haven't been given the opportunity to mature and be with peers who may be what others consider more "mature."

You're right, you don't understand. Full stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Red shirting needs to end. The age range in classrooms is ridiculous. Few kids behave perfectly all day in K. Your gems will survive. No one red shirted when we were kids and we all were ready. You just want your kid to be bigger and better in sports. Just admit it. Its ridiculous. In our K class, the age gap is 19 months. What a ridiculous system. I can't wait for DCPS finally to stand up to parents on this one. Oh wait. Kaya is too busy traveling to Cuba and tweeting about politics to give a crap about what's happening in our classrooms.

Oh stuff it. You know who pushes redshirting in DC? The school. Worried about their test scored and intolerant of working on any behavioral/maturity issues.

[Anonymous]

We had a teeny-tiny kindergartener who was the size of a three year old (bottom five percent of the growth curve). She would have found it challenging to be with kids her own age who were so much bigger than she was. Yes, by all means, put her in with kids who are two years older than her and also big for their age. That sounds like a great plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They say boys are 6-12 months behind girls at young ages. So her son is really more like 5-11 months older than your DD.

nonsense that parents of boys like to tell themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People don't typically redshirt because of academic concerns. They redshirt because of social concerns. Don't worry, nobody is trying to show up your little Larla.

Those of us with girls are furious over the prospect of 20-year-old high school senior men.

+1 exactly

They'd be more likely 19, but yes--do not want my freshman daughter dealing with 19 yr old men as fellow students. It's completely ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We had a teeny-tiny kindergartener who was the size of a three year old (bottom five percent of the growth curve). She would have found it challenging to be with kids her own age who were so much bigger than she was. Yes, by all means, put her in with kids who are two years older than her and also big for their age. That sounds like a great plan.

Maybe this is your daughter's issue. The idea that kids should be strictly segregated based on size is not necessarily the best - and she will have to deal with bigger kids at recess and in the neighborhood. That is some kind of helicoptering to think she should not have to have ONE big kid in her class. I am sure if you were in a fancy Montessori you'd be crowing about how great mixed age classes are.

People please have some compassion. Nobody redshirts their big boy because they want to make him stick out. We know he is different already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok- I can't say this publicly but it really makes me mad.

I have a daughter with an August Birthday and your son is a full 17 months older than my daughter and they are in the same class.
I can't stand it that you say that the classwork is too easy and your son is not academically challenged.
Perhaps you wouldn't feel that way if you sent your son to school on time. I bet my daughter would look really talented too if she were compared to kids much younger- rather than just a hardworking kid.

I completely agree. But study a free study shows the youngest kids in classes work the hardest and end up the smartest.

And she probably did it for athletic reasons but said it was "social" reasons. Even though just 8yrs ago, the cut off date was Dec and half the kids in MD started at 4. Many states still do this. Kids are young when they start K. I wish they had a cut off date for red shirting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People don't typically redshirt because of academic concerns. They redshirt because of social concerns. Don't worry, nobody is trying to show up your little Larla.

That's fine, but then don't complain that it's not challenging enough. That is really annoying.

I agree with you OP.

Well, try to have a little sympathy. I'm the mom of a (very tall, very verbal and bright) boy who might have to be redshirted for behavioral/maturity/social issues. Do you think I like having to chose between his social adjustment and his academic challenge? If I didn't redshirt him I am POSITIVE you'd be on here complaining about the "weird kid" or the "aggressive kid" that would as a result be bothering your Larlita.

I understand your dilemma. The problem is, in my experience (DD is now in 5th grade), the kids withbehavioralx/maturity/social issues usually still have those issues a year or more later. At that point, they are older, bigger and seem more cool to their classmates, thus exacerbating the problem. Time alone does not solve the behavior problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We had a teeny-tiny kindergartener who was the size of a three year old (bottom five percent of the growth curve). She would have found it challenging to be with kids her own age who were so much bigger than she was. Yes, by all means, put her in with kids who are two years older than her and also big for their age. That sounds like a great plan.

Maybe this is your daughter's issue. The idea that kids should be strictly segregated based on size is not necessarily the best - and she will have to deal with bigger kids at recess and in the neighborhood. That is some kind of helicoptering to think she should not have to have ONE big kid in her class. I am sure if you were in a fancy Montessori you'd be crowing about how great mixed age classes are.

People please have some compassion. Nobody redshirts their big boy because they want to make him stick out. We know he is different already.

Are you seriously suggesting that the child who is actually the appropriate age for the class is the one who should have to adjust? I think a kid who is five deserves to be in class with kids who are five and shouldn't have to adjust to kids who are seven.
To say that there's something wrong with a tiny 5 year old feeling uncomfortable when surrounded by large kids who are two years older just seems bizarre to me -- given that it's a 5 year old class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We had a teeny-tiny kindergartener who was the size of a three year old (bottom five percent of the growth curve). She would have found it challenging to be with kids her own age who were so much bigger than she was. Yes, by all means, put her in with kids who are two years older than her and also big for their age. That sounds like a great plan.

Maybe this is your daughter's issue. The idea that kids should be strictly segregated based on size is not necessarily the best - and she will have to deal with bigger kids at recess and in the neighborhood. That is some kind of helicoptering to think she should not have to have ONE big kid in her class. I am sure if you were in a fancy Montessori you'd be crowing about how great mixed age classes are.

People please have some compassion. Nobody redshirts their big boy because they want to make him stick out. We know he is different already.

Are you seriously suggesting that the child who is actually the appropriate age for the class is the one who should have to adjust? I think a kid who is five deserves to be in class with kids who are five and shouldn't have to adjust to kids who are seven.
To say that there's something wrong with a tiny 5 year old feeling uncomfortable when surrounded by large kids who are two years older just seems bizarre to me -- given that it's a 5 year old class.

Exactly! Absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We had a teeny-tiny kindergartener who was the size of a three year old (bottom five percent of the growth curve). She would have found it challenging to be with kids her own age who were so much bigger than she was. Yes, by all means, put her in with kids who are two years older than her and also big for their age. That sounds like a great plan.

Maybe this is your daughter's issue. The idea that kids should be strictly segregated based on size is not necessarily the best - and she will have to deal with bigger kids at recess and in the neighborhood. That is some kind of helicoptering to think she should not have to have ONE big kid in her class. I am sure if you were in a fancy Montessori you'd be crowing about how great mixed age classes are.

People please have some compassion. Nobody redshirts their big boy because they want to make him stick out. We know he is different already.

Are you seriously suggesting that the child who is actually the appropriate age for the class is the one who should have to adjust? I think a kid who is five deserves to be in class with kids who are five and shouldn't have to adjust to kids who are seven.
To say that there's something wrong with a tiny 5 year old feeling uncomfortable when surrounded by large kids who are two years older just seems bizarre to me -- given that it's a 5 year old class.

DP. Being a teeny tiny girl isn't a problem, generally. If she's intimidated by some other children, size is not usually the reason. Some of the most intimidating kids/adults are small.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We had a teeny-tiny kindergartener who was the size of a three year old (bottom five percent of the growth curve). She would have found it challenging to be with kids her own age who were so much bigger than she was. Yes, by all means, put her in with kids who are two years older than her and also big for their age. That sounds like a great plan.

Maybe this is your daughter's issue. The idea that kids should be strictly segregated based on size is not necessarily the best - and she will have to deal with bigger kids at recess and in the neighborhood. That is some kind of helicoptering to think she should not have to have ONE big kid in her class. I am sure if you were in a fancy Montessori you'd be crowing about how great mixed age classes are.

People please have some compassion. Nobody redshirts their big boy because they want to make him stick out. We know he is different already.

Uh.. where's the compassion for the smaller 5 yr olds who have to deal with the older, often times bigger redshirted boys? The PP is not asking for bigger kids regardless of age to be segregated. But, typically, the redshirted boy is a lot bigger than the on-grade kids, boy or girl.

[Anonymous]

My daughter is 10 months older than the youngest kids in her class because she has a late-October birthday. It's been a struggle to keep her challenged.

Most of the boys I know who were red-shirted just weren't ready socially/emotionally for kindergarten at age barely-5. they were bright kids, and not small, but I can see why their parents made the choice they did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People don't typically redshirt because of academic concerns. They redshirt because of social concerns. Don't worry, nobody is trying to show up your little Larla.

That's fine, but then don't complain that it's not challenging enough. That is really annoying.

I agree with you OP.

Well, try to have a little sympathy. I'm the mom of a (very tall, very verbal and bright) boy who might have to be redshirted for behavioral/maturity/social issues. Do you think I like having to chose between his social adjustment and his academic challenge? If I didn't redshirt him I am POSITIVE you'd be on here complaining about the "weird kid" or the "aggressive kid" that would as a result be bothering your Larlita.

I understand your dilemma. The problem is, in my experience (DD is now in 5th grade), the kids withbehavioralx/maturity/social issues usually still have those issues a year or more later. At that point, they are older, bigger and seem more cool to their classmates, thus exacerbating the problem. Time alone does not solve the behavior problems.

+1

I think it actually stunts social behavior to keep them in pre-K for another year. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. Try K and if by Thanksgiving, the child is clearly not adapting to K, try again the following year. You would be surprised how far along kids come in a few months. There are so many K students that came in with ZERO preschool and don't even speak English. The teachers can and do handle it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not understand holding a child back for social reasons. If you hold a child back and keep him or her with kids 1-2 years younger, you cannot complain they are immature as you are keeping them with kids who are far younger and do not have the social skills that can help them advance. Your chid will always be behind age/socially as they haven't been given the opportunity to mature and be with peers who may be what others consider more "mature."

Exactly.