Since this is anonymous, why did you REALLY redshirt your kid?

[Anonymous]

I actually think developmentally it works better for boys to be a year older than the girls. That puts them on a better level maturity wise and developmentally. I sent my August girl on time but held my June boy back. My daughter was already reading and loved everything about school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My thinking is, if it's possible to give them an edge (socially, academically, physically) why wouldn't you??

I do everything I can to give my kids a leg up on the competition.

It’s cheating.

It’s explicitly allowed - the opposite of cheating. I’m only familiar with Virginia but they explicitly say if in your estimation the child isn’t really for school at 5, they can delay a year and go to school at 6.

How is sports advantage a reason your kid isn’t ready for school?

[Anonymous]

Also I am going to need more details from the sports redshirters. Most wont end up with a sports scholarship or even being a standout player. We’re you disappointed at your child if they didn’t achieve up to your expectations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also I am going to need more details from the sports redshirters. Most wont end up with a sports scholarship or even being a standout player. We’re you disappointed at your child if they didn’t achieve up to your expectations?

+1

The kid can't win

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My thinking is, if it's possible to give them an edge (socially, academically, physically) why wouldn't you??

I do everything I can to give my kids a leg up on the competition.

I want my kids to learn they need to work harder sometimes. They aren’t always going to have an unfair advantage. Plus they are UMC white boys. They already were born more than halfway up the ladder. If they can’t figure things out and be successful adults, shame on me as a parent.

I can't decide whether this is satire or not. The idea that your coddled white UMC boys are going to learn to handle adversity by being the youngest in your wealthy school district is ... something.

You want to teach them real adversity? Move, and for God's sake do not ever talk like this in public again. It's painfully embarrassing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also I am going to need more details from the sports redshirters. Most wont end up with a sports scholarship or even being a standout player. We’re you disappointed at your child if they didn’t achieve up to your expectations?

Plus the cost of childcare an extra year. That 32k pretax would be over $100k by college. More of a sure thing than a sports scholarship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My thinking is, if it's possible to give them an edge (socially, academically, physically) why wouldn't you??

I do everything I can to give my kids a leg up on the competition.

It’s cheating.

It’s explicitly allowed - the opposite of cheating. I’m only familiar with Virginia but they explicitly say if in your estimation the child isn’t really for school at 5, they can delay a year and go to school at 6.

How is sports advantage a reason your kid isn’t ready for school?

I’m not a sports redshirter, so I can’t speak to that. But a lot of people on this thread had other reasons.

[Anonymous]

Because his big brother is 21 months older and we wanted them two grades apart in school, not just one. To prolong our years of parenting and stave off empty nesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My thinking is, if it's possible to give them an edge (socially, academically, physically) why wouldn't you??

I do everything I can to give my kids a leg up on the competition.

I want my kids to learn they need to work harder sometimes. They aren’t always going to have an unfair advantage. Plus they are UMC white boys. They already were born more than halfway up the ladder. If they can’t figure things out and be successful adults, shame on me as a parent.

I can't decide whether this is satire or not. The idea that your coddled white UMC boys are going to learn to handle adversity by being the youngest in your wealthy school district is ... something.

You want to teach them real adversity? Move, and for God's sake do not ever talk like this in public again. It's painfully embarrassing.

Move? Why do they can be at the top of a less competitive district because they are UMC kids with more advantages? People do that strategically too, to get into competitive state schools that accept x percent of kids at the top of their school ranking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My thinking is, if it's possible to give them an edge (socially, academically, physically) why wouldn't you??

I do everything I can to give my kids a leg up on the competition.

I want my kids to learn they need to work harder sometimes. They aren’t always going to have an unfair advantage. Plus they are UMC white boys. They already were born more than halfway up the ladder. If they can’t figure things out and be successful adults, shame on me as a parent.

I can't decide whether this is satire or not. The idea that your coddled white UMC boys are going to learn to handle adversity by being the youngest in your wealthy school district is ... something.

You want to teach them real adversity? Move, and for God's sake do not ever talk like this in public again. It's painfully embarrassing.

What adversity would these kids gain from moving? It would be more of a advantage for them.

[Anonymous]

an advantage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My thinking is, if it's possible to give them an edge (socially, academically, physically) why wouldn't you??

I do everything I can to give my kids a leg up on the competition.

I want my kids to learn they need to work harder sometimes. They aren’t always going to have an unfair advantage. Plus they are UMC white boys. They already were born more than halfway up the ladder. If they can’t figure things out and be successful adults, shame on me as a parent.

I can't decide whether this is satire or not. The idea that your coddled white UMC boys are going to learn to handle adversity by being the youngest in your wealthy school district is ... something.

You want to teach them real adversity? Move, and for God's sake do not ever talk like this in public again. It's painfully embarrassing.

Move? Why do they can be at the top of a less competitive district because they are UMC kids with more advantages? People do that strategically too, to get into competitive state schools that accept x percent of kids at the top of their school ranking.

No. So they can see what real adversity is rather than pretend adversity. They sure aren't learning any insights from you, that much is obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My thinking is, if it's possible to give them an edge (socially, academically, physically) why wouldn't you??

I do everything I can to give my kids a leg up on the competition.

I want my kids to learn they need to work harder sometimes. They aren’t always going to have an unfair advantage. Plus they are UMC white boys. They already were born more than halfway up the ladder. If they can’t figure things out and be successful adults, shame on me as a parent.

I can't decide whether this is satire or not. The idea that your coddled white UMC boys are going to learn to handle adversity by being the youngest in your wealthy school district is ... something.

You want to teach them real adversity? Move, and for God's sake do not ever talk like this in public again. It's painfully embarrassing.

Move? Why do they can be at the top of a less competitive district because they are UMC kids with more advantages? People do that strategically too, to get into competitive state schools that accept x percent of kids at the top of their school ranking.

It’s not really adversity if they aren’t personally struggling. You realize that right?

No. So they can see what real adversity is rather than pretend adversity. They sure aren't learning any insights from you, that much is obvious.

[Anonymous]

I came very close to red shirting my boy with a summer birthday simply because I didn't want him to always be one of the youngest kids in his class. In the end, after really struggling and agonizing over that decision, dh and I sent him on time.

15 years later and that kid is now a 19 year old college junior and doing well - he started taking some college classes at the age of 16 when he was still in HS.

If I had, in fact, red shirted him the school probably would have graduated him a year early and he would have wound up in college anyway. As it turned out, by sending him on time, he was 17 throughout his senior year of HS, took most of his classes at the college campus and had one of his classes at the HS.

I had no idea, of course, that things would work out like this but in my son's case, I am glad that we chose to send him on time.

[Anonymous]

Our very tall, smart, social daughter turns 5 in late July (our cutoff is 8/31) and we are sending her. Both her preK teacher and school director said to send her. I feel like we would be doing her a disservice to hold her back.

Plus she already looks much older (got asked today on a walk by a neighbor if she was going into 2nd grade!) and more well spoken than many of her peers.