Redshirted and regretted it?

[Anonymous]

I have heard proponents of redshirting say many times that no one regrets giving the child the "gift of time." However, could this always be true? I'm interested in hearing from anyone who has redshirted and regretted it -- and why. I find it hard to believe that no child ever ends up under-stimulated, under-challenged, bored, out of step with younger peers, etc. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

We are early in the process, so I don't have tons of insight. Our son could have started kindergarten this year but did not, and he is in a highly regarded 'junior K' or 'high 5s' class in DC.

7 mos. into this program, we can see that it moves way too slowly for him WRT learning new information. Some people call that academic, but whatever. OTOH, he has gained measurable peer and social skills that he did not have last summer when we made the decision.

He likely would've gained those same skills whether he was in a good preK5 class or a good kinder. However, it worked out well that he was able to focus on that instead of dividing his focus between social skill building and reading comprehension.

[Anonymous]

PP: So are you still glad that you redshirted, or do you wish that you had just sent him to K? What he a summer b-day?

[Anonymous]

This addresses the inverse (or perhaps more correctly the converse?) of your question. I know of someone who did not red-shirt and has always regretted it.

[Anonymous]

PP: So are you still glad that you redshirted, or do you wish that you had just sent him to K? What he a summer b-day?

I think we don't regret it, but it's a really close call. Not a slam dunk. Some days we do regret that we didn't just send him to K, and those are the days where he tells us in his own words that he is not interested in what is being taught (because he "already know(s) that"). I guess this isn't really responsive to OP's question, sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we don't regret it, but it's a really close call. Not a slam dunk. Some days we do regret that we didn't just send him to K, and those are the days where he tells us in his own words that he is not interested in what is being taught (because he "already know(s) that"). I guess this isn't really responsive to OP's question, sorry.

Where is he in height(or weight)-for-age vs. height-for-age in class? I can imagine the ramifications of size (i.e., being "too small") being important for boys and having a ripple effect (confidence, academic success, popularity, leadership, etc.) well into the late teen years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we don't regret it, but it's a really close call. Not a slam dunk. Some days we do regret that we didn't just send him to K, and those are the days where he tells us in his own words that he is not interested in what is being taught (because he "already know(s) that"). I guess this isn't really responsive to OP's question, sorry.

Where is he in height(or weight)-for-age vs. height-for-age in class? I can imagine the ramifications of size (i.e., being "too small") being important for boys and having a ripple effect (confidence, academic success, popularity, leadership, etc.) well into the late teen years.

Sorry, just in case my question wasn't clear I was asking about his size percentage on the pediatric growth curve charts (compared against a population of boys his age) vs. compared against his class. Because I can see a genuine advantage in moving up on the curve in size (for a boy) by being bigger. No guy EVER wants to admit to being small. You can't even buy men's clothing in size "small" - the smallest actual size is "medium." (Nevermind that it's the reverse for women - no girl wants to be large, and the small sizes start at "00" (double zero). Some people call it old-fashioned thinking and others have the studies to show it is hard-wired human psychology: small boys/men get less respect. There are even studies to show how many thousands of dollars per year in income are lost (regresssed out mathematically) in inches of height. Being small for a man is a losing proposition. Napoleon's complex lives on.

[Anonymous]

From a slightly different perspective:

I was a "highly gifted" child with a late summer birthday who was always one of the youngest in my classes. I also graduated from high school a year early - and so went to college and was 17 years old for my entire freshman year.

I would weight maturity as extremely important in making these decisions. A year of difference in age - even at 17 - is a huge gap in maturity.

Ideal is to be older and appropriately stimulated within an educational environment that can accommodate a child's learning capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From a slightly different perspective:

I was a "highly gifted" child with a late summer birthday who was always one of the youngest in my classes. I also graduated from high school a year early - and so went to college and was 17 years old for my entire freshman year.

I would weight maturity as extremely important in making these decisions. A year of difference in age - even at 17 - is a huge gap in maturity.

Ideal is to be older and appropriately stimulated within an educational environment that can accommodate a child's learning capacity.

You're female, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This addresses the inverse (or perhaps more correctly the converse?) of your question. I know of someone who did not red-shirt and has always regretted it.

How come?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think we don't regret it, but it's a really close call. Not a slam dunk. Some days we do regret that we didn't just send him to K, and those are the days where he tells us in his own words that he is not interested in what is being taught (because he "already know(s) that"). I guess this isn't really responsive to OP's question, sorry.

This is what I am afraid of -- not to mention the cost of an extra year's tuition spent on something a child already knows.... Is your child a summer birthday?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we don't regret it, but it's a really close call. Not a slam dunk. Some days we do regret that we didn't just send him to K, and those are the days where he tells us in his own words that he is not interested in what is being taught (because he "already know(s) that"). I guess this isn't really responsive to OP's question, sorry.

Where is he in height(or weight)-for-age vs. height-for-age in class? I can imagine the ramifications of size (i.e., being "too small") being important for boys and having a ripple effect (confidence, academic success, popularity, leadership, etc.) well into the late teen years.

Sorry, just in case my question wasn't clear I was asking about his size percentage on the pediatric growth curve charts (compared against a population of boys his age) vs. compared against his class. Because I can see a genuine advantage in moving up on the curve in size (for a boy) by being bigger. No guy EVER wants to admit to being small. You can't even buy men's clothing in size "small" - the smallest actual size is "medium." (Nevermind that it's the reverse for women - no girl wants to be large, and the small sizes start at "00" (double zero). Some people call it old-fashioned thinking and others have the studies to show it is hard-wired human psychology: small boys/men get less respect. There are even studies to show how many thousands of dollars per year in income are lost (regresssed out mathematically) in inches of height. Being small for a man is a losing proposition. Napoleon's complex lives on.

Not that your proposition here -- that being small can be a social disadvantage for a boy -- is new, but I think you've taken it to a ridiculous degree. First, they do make men's clothing in small; I know this because my 5'8", 140 lb husband ranges between small and medium in most clothing. Second, my husband and his smaller brother and father are happy, successful people who have never had problems getting respect, from childhood on. There are short men in the world, and these men will be short no matter how long their parents hold them back. And, yes, I have boys -- two sub-20%ile-for-height boys; in fact, my older son happens to be an October birthday, making him one of the oldest in his class. And he's still the smallest. Such is life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Not that your proposition here -- that being small can be a social disadvantage for a boy -- is new, but I think you've taken it to a ridiculous degree. First, they do make men's clothing in small; I know this because my 5'8", 140 lb husband ranges between small and medium in most clothing. Second, my husband and his smaller brother and father are happy, successful people who have never had problems getting respect, from childhood on. There are short men in the world, and these men will be short no matter how long their parents hold them back. And, yes, I have boys -- two sub-20%ile-for-height boys; in fact, my older son happens to be an October birthday, making him one of the oldest in his class. And he's still the smallest. Such is life.

Right - I don't understand redshirting just b/c of size. You're child isn't always going to be taller just b/c he is older.

[Anonymous]

For those keeping track at home, the current tally of regretted redshirts is zero.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those keeping track at home, the current tally of regretted redshirts is zero.

We somewhat regret it. I say "somewhat" because it's not the end of the world, but it wasn't the right decision. Our son is right at the cutoff and he's pretty small even for his age. We considered him kind of immature, but I now wonder whether other kids are the same at home, and frankly, another year in pre-k isn't changing his maturity much. Meanwhile all of his pre-k classmates moved on to big-kid schools and he didn't. They still do play dates and now there really IS a big difference between them because they're all going through the same experience as each other (though at a few different elementary schools) and he's still in the same pre-k, with the class that was behind them. I've noticed that after play dates with them, and after soccer, which we all do together, he can regress a little bit, and get kind of clingy and babyish, and I wonder if it's because we sent him a clear signal that he was not as ready to grow up as they were. And he actually asked me why he stayed at preschool and they went to big-kid schools. Now I feel like I've got my work cut out for me trying to show him that he should have confidence in himself. We didn't show confidence in him when we made our choice, and he knows it.

All in all, he's not going to die of redshirting, but I realize that it was mostly about our own insecurities about our little guy growing up or getting lost in the shuffle, and not about his abilities, or even about how easy or hard kindergarten would be. It was a mistake and I've already told a friend with a younger child not to do it unless she's sure that he would not be able to handle K for at least another year.