My son's first grade class

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As a parent who didn't redshirt, but could have, it was the best decision ultimately because it identified LDs that another year of pre-K would not have. I think a lot of parents are deluding themselves.

Maybe another year of Pre-K would have eliminated the learning disability.

That's just laughable -- LDs don't magically just disappear. In DS's case, it's probable dyslexia and sending him to school on time, even though he had that dreaded summer b-day, ensured it would get caught early.

[Anonymous]

Redshirting is definitely not "dumbing down" the elementary curriculum, IMO. Rather, I believe that the trend to push down real academics to younger years in school has increased the need for redshirting. The work now done routinely in K used to be the work of first grade. The curriculum has changed whereas the development rate of children has not ...

[Anonymous]

Again, for those who understand basic physiologic and biologic principles: There is no biologic and physiologic advantage of keeping a "2nd grade performer" in the first grade (holding back, delaying progress)...in fact, there is a long-term disadvantage. The neuron (brain) like the myoctye (muscle) requires challenge and stimulation for optimal growth and development. Stimulatory deprivation leads to flaccidity and atrophy (intellectual parlance for "dumbing down", loss of drive and ennui). The younger kids benefit from the older kids (initially, higher bar) much like athletic performance is enhanced when younger kids perform against slightly older and higher athletic performing kids ... not the reverse!! Simply read the biographies of great athletes, nobel laureates and inventors...or simply study high school biology and physiology. The data is within your reach. A medical degree or experience in child and developmental psychiatry is not necessary.

[Anonymous]

What about the challenge and stimulation of being a leader in the classroom? What about the self-confidence and self-assurance gained by being a bit older?

[Anonymous]

Excellent question.

I am not sure there is any availabe data in this regard. In other words, are true leaders of our society individuals that were 1 or 2 years older than their classmates in Pre-K, K and/or first grade (or another grade or class for that matter)? Does leadership develop from a strategy of "redshirting" in school? My intuition says no. True grit, and the measure of head and heart may not directly correlate to a strategy of redshirting. I suspect the proportion of athletes that are redshirted all through college (for similar purposes as redshirting through the educational system) that go on to have successful professional careers is lower than the non-redshirters. This hypothesis is pure speculation since I have no data to test it.

I do believe that ongoing challenge (stimulation) develops and nurtures leadership ...not inherent advantages of wealth or being 1 or 2 years older than your peers, unchallenged and unstimulated, in the classroom. Indirect evidence may be drawn from reading biographies and autobiographies of recognized leaders (for example, Obama, FDR, Ghandi, Churchill, Vince Lombardi, Buffett, Mandela)


"Leadership" sprouting simply from a physical size advantage and a potentially maturer neurodevelopmental stage does not necessarily translate longterm into true lifelong leadership that is ultimately earned. The smaller kids catch up quickly! Sometimes at this early age adoration, bullying, intimidation and leadership may not be easily distinguishable in the 5 year-old mind.

[Anonymous]

Just as school provides important life lessons (along with academic ones) for our children, so it also provides them for us.

In the case of kids who seem "unfairly" older, the lessons are:

1) That you can't set up situations for your kids that are perfectly calibrated for them to be at the top. Some other circumstance is always going to complicate your plans, so just worry about whether the teacher and environment give your child a chance to succeed.

2) Other people are going to make choices that seem stupid or unfair to you, but that's how it is.

3) You don't know what someone else's kid is like to raise and educate.

and

4) It's good to have perspective about our instincts to push our kids to the front, or have them set up to be "best."

5) See above...it's first grade. Do you remember what the star of your first grade was doing?


I am personally skeptical of the practice of holding kids back, and since the only family I know who did it are the kind of people who bubble wrap their son and are convinced that he has unique qualities and needs that are discernible only to them (read, really annoying people), I probably have a bias against the parents who do it. But I can't say that it harms anyone else in the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about the challenge and stimulation of being a leader in the classroom? What about the self-confidence and self-assurance gained by being a bit older?

But that confidence and leadership are illusory. It is not as if other children are following the kid because of something special and innate about the kid. A child who leads and feels confident only because he is surrounded by younger, smaller kids is not gaining true confidence and self-esteem. He will eventually realize he has had the deck stacked in his favor. that could lead to low self-esteem and a belief that his parents didn't think he could keep up with kids his own age.

[Anonymous]

Agreed. Syndrome of big fish in small pond...a frog among tadpoles! "Confident" amongst tadpoles but shrinks in the presence of frogs.

[Anonymous]

Yeah. A frog "confident" amongst tadpoles but shrinks when these tadpoles eventually grow into frogs and is left behind!

[Anonymous]

Exactly, and what about the kids who are the "right" age whose natural leadership is squelched because another parent bubble wraps their child into a younger class?

It does impact other people, and it is selfish to think it doesn't. Many parents who do this are trying to spoonfeed their children into something they may not be, to the detriment of others.

It is a selfish act.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exactly, and what about the kids who are the "right" age whose natural leadership is squelched because another parent bubble wraps their child into a younger class?

It does impact other people, and it is selfish to think it doesn't. Many parents who do this are trying to spoonfeed their children into something they may not be, to the detriment of others.

It is a selfish act.

Here's the thing-- i completely agree with the bubble wrap idea but I don't think that leadership is squelched by the presence of kids whose parents have bubble wrapped them. Nothing could squelch my child's will to learn and explore and speak up-- including older kids.

Kids who are parented to be confident for the right reasons don't look to their left and right before deciding whether to lead or learn or do. They look within.

[Anonymous]

The only person impacted is the insecure parent not the "appropriately" placed child. But parental neuroses invariably sometimes affects their children in due time.

[Anonymous]

Natural leadership squelched by illusory leadership from redshirting. Hogwash. Natural leadership will rise to the top any day.

[Anonymous]

Trickle down neurosis

[Anonymous]

Montessori classes have three grade levels in one classroom. I think we can agree that Maria Montessori was no slouch in this department.