Redshirting August boy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this because the poster asking for data conveniently ignored it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

THE YOUNGEST KIDS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

So what will the schools do to make sure NOBODY is ever the youngest?

Reduce the age cohort age range from 12 months to 6 months in the younger school years. Someone will still be the youngest but all the evidence based disadvantages from relative age affect disappear with such a narrow age gap.

Could you provide some data backing the bolded up? That seems like a very strong claim to make, and I’m curious why you are able to make such a strong statement. I am assuming there is a lot of data supporting the assertion?

I’m personally a bit skeptical — that just seems like far too broad a claim to make — but I like to read actual studies on this topic so please link!

I refer you to Malcolm Gladwells work. My suggestion came from him.

https://youtu.be/t5sJRGmyZ3Y

Uh, no. I’m sorry, but Malcolm Gladwell is not a legitimate data source. He’s been debunked and widely criticized on so many different topics at this point that I don’t think academics of any repute will even mention his name.

Do you have cites, studies, essays, or recommendations from actual academics, not ten-year-old videos from debunked pop culture snake oil salesmen? I would genuinely like to read them.

Emily Oster covered this in depth as well in her new book, the family firm. Google it. Among other factors, the research showed that those who were the youngest in their grade were more likely to be diagnosed with adhd by age seven or so, and this was even more pronounced among boys who were the youngest in their classes. Overall the data showed disadvantage towards being the youngest. In my case, I’m not looking for an advantage for my kids, but I am lookingm to minimize disadvantage to them where I can.

Please for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Emily Oster and Malcolm Gladwell are your source material? I don’t even know how to respond to scientific illiteracy this profound.

Just scrolling because I’m bored.

I’m going to quote a friend who has counseled 100’s if not thousands of kids and families. He’s been doing this for about 40 years. He’s never met a parent who regretted keeping their summer child back, but he knows plenty who regretted not doing it.

I regretted it and child ended up skipping a grade to make up for it. People like your friend gave us very very bad advice. Now, kid is in all advanced classes despite being young for their age. Child is clear they wouldn't have wanted to be held back.

Right. You post this on DCUM all the time. So there is you, and nobody else with regrets. Noted.

The above PP is a liar. There's no way a young kid could be doing well. Doesn't he know he has been disadvantaged by the mere presence of kids a few months older? And as an aside it was a pretty easy fix to advance the kid a year. Making them repeat a grade is far more disastrous. You got very good advice and even if it did not work out, you were able to quickly fix it. We should all be so lucky.

I graduated HS at 17 in honors and as an extreme case had a friend who had a BA at 19. There are plenty of people this works out for and it’s a massive gift of an additional year of life.

Did this somehow extend your life expectancy? That's a dubious claim if I've ever read one.

I graduated college at 21 which meant that I completed grad school earlier and entered the workforce earlier. If I make it to average life expectancy then the ROI of that additional year of income is huge.

"I wish I had another year to work" said no one ever on their death bed.

You think kids are saying, yea, my parents didn't think I'd do well in school so they held me back so I get to be a 19 year old senior vs. an 18 year old college student.

Sorry your math skills are so weak.

If I held back my child they would turn 18 one week into their senior year. They be 18 the entire school year. That means they start college at 19. My math is not off. Instead my child will be 17 all of senior year and for a week of college be 17.

You don’t think kids talk.

Wow. Shockingly poor math. I’m so sorry.

No, the math is correct. I have a September kid. So, they are either a senior at 17 or 18. How hard is that for you to understand. Your math is wrong. There are often 18 month differences if an April or may kid was held back.

Many people live in a place with a 9/1 cutoff. The kids are 18 all senior year by design.

If kids are 18 all year, they were held back or a fall birthday.

No, moron, because they are in a school with a 9/1 cutoff. But you will never get that through your thick head.

Why with the name-calling? My child, who was not red-shirted and was sent to a local independent school on time, will not be 18 when they graduate. July birthday. You are wrong.

Because the PP is insisting a September born child can't be 18 all year long unless they are redshirted. That's just wrong. Stop telling lies.

+1

The natural law anti-redshirter has arrived, and the PP is responding to that person. As background, that adorable little weirdo believes that it is “natural law” that students in a class all need to be in the same calendar year. She considers any student who is born in the fall to be “redshirted” even if the birth cutoff date is (say) 9/1. So, let’s say you have a kid born Sept. 15, in a school where the cutoff is Sept. 1. Natural law redshirter believes that kid has been redshirted. She has posted about this incessantly on DCUM over the years, and anyone who has read even a few of these threads over the years knows who she is.

That’s what we are working with here. After having seen her posts many times, I’m not sure she is actually capable of understanding how cutoffs work. She will still insist that kids who are 18 for all or most of their senior year are redshirted even after the math is laid out step by step for her.

I actually quite enjoy the delightfully absurdist nature of her posts myself. It is classic DCUM entertainment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this because the poster asking for data conveniently ignored it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

THE YOUNGEST KIDS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

So what will the schools do to make sure NOBODY is ever the youngest?

Reduce the age cohort age range from 12 months to 6 months in the younger school years. Someone will still be the youngest but all the evidence based disadvantages from relative age affect disappear with such a narrow age gap.

Could you provide some data backing the bolded up? That seems like a very strong claim to make, and I’m curious why you are able to make such a strong statement. I am assuming there is a lot of data supporting the assertion?

I’m personally a bit skeptical — that just seems like far too broad a claim to make — but I like to read actual studies on this topic so please link!

I refer you to Malcolm Gladwells work. My suggestion came from him.

https://youtu.be/t5sJRGmyZ3Y

Uh, no. I’m sorry, but Malcolm Gladwell is not a legitimate data source. He’s been debunked and widely criticized on so many different topics at this point that I don’t think academics of any repute will even mention his name.

Do you have cites, studies, essays, or recommendations from actual academics, not ten-year-old videos from debunked pop culture snake oil salesmen? I would genuinely like to read them.

Emily Oster covered this in depth as well in her new book, the family firm. Google it. Among other factors, the research showed that those who were the youngest in their grade were more likely to be diagnosed with adhd by age seven or so, and this was even more pronounced among boys who were the youngest in their classes. Overall the data showed disadvantage towards being the youngest. In my case, I’m not looking for an advantage for my kids, but I am lookingm to minimize disadvantage to them where I can.

Please for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Emily Oster and Malcolm Gladwell are your source material? I don’t even know how to respond to scientific illiteracy this profound.

Just scrolling because I’m bored.

I’m going to quote a friend who has counseled 100’s if not thousands of kids and families. He’s been doing this for about 40 years. He’s never met a parent who regretted keeping their summer child back, but he knows plenty who regretted not doing it.

I regretted it and child ended up skipping a grade to make up for it. People like your friend gave us very very bad advice. Now, kid is in all advanced classes despite being young for their age. Child is clear they wouldn't have wanted to be held back.

Right. You post this on DCUM all the time. So there is you, and nobody else with regrets. Noted.

The above PP is a liar. There's no way a young kid could be doing well. Doesn't he know he has been disadvantaged by the mere presence of kids a few months older? And as an aside it was a pretty easy fix to advance the kid a year. Making them repeat a grade is far more disastrous. You got very good advice and even if it did not work out, you were able to quickly fix it. We should all be so lucky.

I graduated HS at 17 in honors and as an extreme case had a friend who had a BA at 19. There are plenty of people this works out for and it’s a massive gift of an additional year of life.

Did this somehow extend your life expectancy? That's a dubious claim if I've ever read one.

I graduated college at 21 which meant that I completed grad school earlier and entered the workforce earlier. If I make it to average life expectancy then the ROI of that additional year of income is huge.

"I wish I had another year to work" said no one ever on their death bed.

You think kids are saying, yea, my parents didn't think I'd do well in school so they held me back so I get to be a 19 year old senior vs. an 18 year old college student.

Sorry your math skills are so weak.

If I held back my child they would turn 18 one week into their senior year. They be 18 the entire school year. That means they start college at 19. My math is not off. Instead my child will be 17 all of senior year and for a week of college be 17.

You don’t think kids talk.

They don’t. Your rules don’t apply to most.

Income from a country with 5 year of highschool and started college at 19 (and turned 20 at the end of freshman year) in the US. Nobody EVER cared that I was 6 months-1 year older than the other students. I was one ifbb no the best students because even though I was learning English because high school was intense in my home country and we studied a lot. College was easy for me. I was more mature than most American kids (not sure if because of age or life experiences) and it was definitely a good thing.

Of course. The natural law troll thinks kids say and do things they don’t do. They don’t think twice about age. Many are 18 themselves all senior year. Troll poster lives in a fantasy world where every school is on a calendar year cut off and the kids are all terrible to each other. She can’t wrap her head around the idea that things have changed and she’s working with faulty assumptions.

Kids absolutely talk about age and birthdays. Don’t kid yourself. They get their parents or the school or both held them back. They younger kids get that the older kids were held back. You can out make kids artificially smarter by being older. And, if sports are your priority your values are messed up. If I held back my kid they would miss out on a year of better academics in stronger subjects. I’d rather pay for graduate school than an extra year of preschool which will help them more in the real world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this because the poster asking for data conveniently ignored it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

THE YOUNGEST KIDS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

So what will the schools do to make sure NOBODY is ever the youngest?

Reduce the age cohort age range from 12 months to 6 months in the younger school years. Someone will still be the youngest but all the evidence based disadvantages from relative age affect disappear with such a narrow age gap.

Could you provide some data backing the bolded up? That seems like a very strong claim to make, and I’m curious why you are able to make such a strong statement. I am assuming there is a lot of data supporting the assertion?

I’m personally a bit skeptical — that just seems like far too broad a claim to make — but I like to read actual studies on this topic so please link!

I refer you to Malcolm Gladwells work. My suggestion came from him.

https://youtu.be/t5sJRGmyZ3Y

Uh, no. I’m sorry, but Malcolm Gladwell is not a legitimate data source. He’s been debunked and widely criticized on so many different topics at this point that I don’t think academics of any repute will even mention his name.

Do you have cites, studies, essays, or recommendations from actual academics, not ten-year-old videos from debunked pop culture snake oil salesmen? I would genuinely like to read them.

Emily Oster covered this in depth as well in her new book, the family firm. Google it. Among other factors, the research showed that those who were the youngest in their grade were more likely to be diagnosed with adhd by age seven or so, and this was even more pronounced among boys who were the youngest in their classes. Overall the data showed disadvantage towards being the youngest. In my case, I’m not looking for an advantage for my kids, but I am lookingm to minimize disadvantage to them where I can.

Please for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Emily Oster and Malcolm Gladwell are your source material? I don’t even know how to respond to scientific illiteracy this profound.

Just scrolling because I’m bored.

I’m going to quote a friend who has counseled 100’s if not thousands of kids and families. He’s been doing this for about 40 years. He’s never met a parent who regretted keeping their summer child back, but he knows plenty who regretted not doing it.

I regretted it and child ended up skipping a grade to make up for it. People like your friend gave us very very bad advice. Now, kid is in all advanced classes despite being young for their age. Child is clear they wouldn't have wanted to be held back.

Right. You post this on DCUM all the time. So there is you, and nobody else with regrets. Noted.

The above PP is a liar. There's no way a young kid could be doing well. Doesn't he know he has been disadvantaged by the mere presence of kids a few months older? And as an aside it was a pretty easy fix to advance the kid a year. Making them repeat a grade is far more disastrous. You got very good advice and even if it did not work out, you were able to quickly fix it. We should all be so lucky.

I graduated HS at 17 in honors and as an extreme case had a friend who had a BA at 19. There are plenty of people this works out for and it’s a massive gift of an additional year of life.

Did this somehow extend your life expectancy? That's a dubious claim if I've ever read one.

I graduated college at 21 which meant that I completed grad school earlier and entered the workforce earlier. If I make it to average life expectancy then the ROI of that additional year of income is huge.

"I wish I had another year to work" said no one ever on their death bed.

You think kids are saying, yea, my parents didn't think I'd do well in school so they held me back so I get to be a 19 year old senior vs. an 18 year old college student.

Sorry your math skills are so weak.

If I held back my child they would turn 18 one week into their senior year. They be 18 the entire school year. That means they start college at 19. My math is not off. Instead my child will be 17 all of senior year and for a week of college be 17.

You don’t think kids talk.

They don’t. Your rules don’t apply to most.

Income from a country with 5 year of highschool and started college at 19 (and turned 20 at the end of freshman year) in the US. Nobody EVER cared that I was 6 months-1 year older than the other students. I was one ifbb no the best students because even though I was learning English because high school was intense in my home country and we studied a lot. College was easy for me. I was more mature than most American kids (not sure if because of age or life experiences) and it was definitely a good thing.

Of course. The natural law troll thinks kids say and do things they don’t do. They don’t think twice about age. Many are 18 themselves all senior year. Troll poster lives in a fantasy world where every school is on a calendar year cut off and the kids are all terrible to each other. She can’t wrap her head around the idea that things have changed and she’s working with faulty assumptions.

Kids absolutely talk about age and birthdays. Don’t kid yourself. They get their parents or the school or both held them back. They younger kids get that the older kids were held back. You can out make kids artificially smarter by being older. And, if sports are your priority your values are messed up. If I held back my kid they would miss out on a year of better academics in stronger subjects. I’d rather pay for graduate school than an extra year of preschool which will help them more in the real world.

Okay, don’t send your kid to a school that redshirts. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this because the poster asking for data conveniently ignored it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

THE YOUNGEST KIDS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

So what will the schools do to make sure NOBODY is ever the youngest?

Reduce the age cohort age range from 12 months to 6 months in the younger school years. Someone will still be the youngest but all the evidence based disadvantages from relative age affect disappear with such a narrow age gap.

Could you provide some data backing the bolded up? That seems like a very strong claim to make, and I’m curious why you are able to make such a strong statement. I am assuming there is a lot of data supporting the assertion?

I’m personally a bit skeptical — that just seems like far too broad a claim to make — but I like to read actual studies on this topic so please link!

I refer you to Malcolm Gladwells work. My suggestion came from him.

https://youtu.be/t5sJRGmyZ3Y

Uh, no. I’m sorry, but Malcolm Gladwell is not a legitimate data source. He’s been debunked and widely criticized on so many different topics at this point that I don’t think academics of any repute will even mention his name.

Do you have cites, studies, essays, or recommendations from actual academics, not ten-year-old videos from debunked pop culture snake oil salesmen? I would genuinely like to read them.

Emily Oster covered this in depth as well in her new book, the family firm. Google it. Among other factors, the research showed that those who were the youngest in their grade were more likely to be diagnosed with adhd by age seven or so, and this was even more pronounced among boys who were the youngest in their classes. Overall the data showed disadvantage towards being the youngest. In my case, I’m not looking for an advantage for my kids, but I am lookingm to minimize disadvantage to them where I can.

Please for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Emily Oster and Malcolm Gladwell are your source material? I don’t even know how to respond to scientific illiteracy this profound.

Just scrolling because I’m bored.

I’m going to quote a friend who has counseled 100’s if not thousands of kids and families. He’s been doing this for about 40 years. He’s never met a parent who regretted keeping their summer child back, but he knows plenty who regretted not doing it.

I regretted it and child ended up skipping a grade to make up for it. People like your friend gave us very very bad advice. Now, kid is in all advanced classes despite being young for their age. Child is clear they wouldn't have wanted to be held back.

Right. You post this on DCUM all the time. So there is you, and nobody else with regrets. Noted.

The above PP is a liar. There's no way a young kid could be doing well. Doesn't he know he has been disadvantaged by the mere presence of kids a few months older? And as an aside it was a pretty easy fix to advance the kid a year. Making them repeat a grade is far more disastrous. You got very good advice and even if it did not work out, you were able to quickly fix it. We should all be so lucky.

I graduated HS at 17 in honors and as an extreme case had a friend who had a BA at 19. There are plenty of people this works out for and it’s a massive gift of an additional year of life.

Did this somehow extend your life expectancy? That's a dubious claim if I've ever read one.

I graduated college at 21 which meant that I completed grad school earlier and entered the workforce earlier. If I make it to average life expectancy then the ROI of that additional year of income is huge.

"I wish I had another year to work" said no one ever on their death bed.

You think kids are saying, yea, my parents didn't think I'd do well in school so they held me back so I get to be a 19 year old senior vs. an 18 year old college student.

Sorry your math skills are so weak.

If I held back my child they would turn 18 one week into their senior year. They be 18 the entire school year. That means they start college at 19. My math is not off. Instead my child will be 17 all of senior year and for a week of college be 17.

You don’t think kids talk.

They don’t. Your rules don’t apply to most.

Income from a country with 5 year of highschool and started college at 19 (and turned 20 at the end of freshman year) in the US. Nobody EVER cared that I was 6 months-1 year older than the other students. I was one ifbb no the best students because even though I was learning English because high school was intense in my home country and we studied a lot. College was easy for me. I was more mature than most American kids (not sure if because of age or life experiences) and it was definitely a good thing.

Of course. The natural law troll thinks kids say and do things they don’t do. They don’t think twice about age. Many are 18 themselves all senior year. Troll poster lives in a fantasy world where every school is on a calendar year cut off and the kids are all terrible to each other. She can’t wrap her head around the idea that things have changed and she’s working with faulty assumptions.

Kids absolutely talk about age and birthdays. Don’t kid yourself. They get their parents or the school or both held them back. They younger kids get that the older kids were held back. You can out make kids artificially smarter by being older. And, if sports are your priority your values are messed up. If I held back my kid they would miss out on a year of better academics in stronger subjects. I’d rather pay for graduate school than an extra year of preschool which will help them more in the real world.

Okay, don’t send your kid to a school that redshirts. Problem solved.

I’m sorry to hear that either you did not prepare your kids for kindergarten or you did not have the confidence that they could be successful given the opportunity with your support. Guess you prefer the easy parenting choices so you can put the least effort into your kids.

We had no issue getting our kid into a private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this because the poster asking for data conveniently ignored it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

THE YOUNGEST KIDS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

So what will the schools do to make sure NOBODY is ever the youngest?

Reduce the age cohort age range from 12 months to 6 months in the younger school years. Someone will still be the youngest but all the evidence based disadvantages from relative age affect disappear with such a narrow age gap.

Could you provide some data backing the bolded up? That seems like a very strong claim to make, and I’m curious why you are able to make such a strong statement. I am assuming there is a lot of data supporting the assertion?

I’m personally a bit skeptical — that just seems like far too broad a claim to make — but I like to read actual studies on this topic so please link!

I refer you to Malcolm Gladwells work. My suggestion came from him.

https://youtu.be/t5sJRGmyZ3Y

Uh, no. I’m sorry, but Malcolm Gladwell is not a legitimate data source. He’s been debunked and widely criticized on so many different topics at this point that I don’t think academics of any repute will even mention his name.

Do you have cites, studies, essays, or recommendations from actual academics, not ten-year-old videos from debunked pop culture snake oil salesmen? I would genuinely like to read them.

Emily Oster covered this in depth as well in her new book, the family firm. Google it. Among other factors, the research showed that those who were the youngest in their grade were more likely to be diagnosed with adhd by age seven or so, and this was even more pronounced among boys who were the youngest in their classes. Overall the data showed disadvantage towards being the youngest. In my case, I’m not looking for an advantage for my kids, but I am lookingm to minimize disadvantage to them where I can.

Please for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Emily Oster and Malcolm Gladwell are your source material? I don’t even know how to respond to scientific illiteracy this profound.

Just scrolling because I’m bored.

I’m going to quote a friend who has counseled 100’s if not thousands of kids and families. He’s been doing this for about 40 years. He’s never met a parent who regretted keeping their summer child back, but he knows plenty who regretted not doing it.

I regretted it and child ended up skipping a grade to make up for it. People like your friend gave us very very bad advice. Now, kid is in all advanced classes despite being young for their age. Child is clear they wouldn't have wanted to be held back.

Right. You post this on DCUM all the time. So there is you, and nobody else with regrets. Noted.

The above PP is a liar. There's no way a young kid could be doing well. Doesn't he know he has been disadvantaged by the mere presence of kids a few months older? And as an aside it was a pretty easy fix to advance the kid a year. Making them repeat a grade is far more disastrous. You got very good advice and even if it did not work out, you were able to quickly fix it. We should all be so lucky.

I graduated HS at 17 in honors and as an extreme case had a friend who had a BA at 19. There are plenty of people this works out for and it’s a massive gift of an additional year of life.

Did this somehow extend your life expectancy? That's a dubious claim if I've ever read one.

I graduated college at 21 which meant that I completed grad school earlier and entered the workforce earlier. If I make it to average life expectancy then the ROI of that additional year of income is huge.

"I wish I had another year to work" said no one ever on their death bed.

You think kids are saying, yea, my parents didn't think I'd do well in school so they held me back so I get to be a 19 year old senior vs. an 18 year old college student.

Sorry your math skills are so weak.

If I held back my child they would turn 18 one week into their senior year. They be 18 the entire school year. That means they start college at 19. My math is not off. Instead my child will be 17 all of senior year and for a week of college be 17.

You don’t think kids talk.

They don’t. Your rules don’t apply to most.

Income from a country with 5 year of highschool and started college at 19 (and turned 20 at the end of freshman year) in the US. Nobody EVER cared that I was 6 months-1 year older than the other students. I was one ifbb no the best students because even though I was learning English because high school was intense in my home country and we studied a lot. College was easy for me. I was more mature than most American kids (not sure if because of age or life experiences) and it was definitely a good thing.

Of course. The natural law troll thinks kids say and do things they don’t do. They don’t think twice about age. Many are 18 themselves all senior year. Troll poster lives in a fantasy world where every school is on a calendar year cut off and the kids are all terrible to each other. She can’t wrap her head around the idea that things have changed and she’s working with faulty assumptions.

Kids absolutely talk about age and birthdays. Don’t kid yourself. They get their parents or the school or both held them back. They younger kids get that the older kids were held back. You can out make kids artificially smarter by being older. And, if sports are your priority your values are messed up. If I held back my kid they would miss out on a year of better academics in stronger subjects. I’d rather pay for graduate school than an extra year of preschool which will help them more in the real world.

As a parent of older teens I find your imaginary world fascinating. It doesn’t match any sort of common reality, but the window into your perception of the world is really quite something to see.

I believe your kid indeed talks incessantly about age and birthdays, however.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this because the poster asking for data conveniently ignored it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

THE YOUNGEST KIDS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

So what will the schools do to make sure NOBODY is ever the youngest?

Reduce the age cohort age range from 12 months to 6 months in the younger school years. Someone will still be the youngest but all the evidence based disadvantages from relative age affect disappear with such a narrow age gap.

Could you provide some data backing the bolded up? That seems like a very strong claim to make, and I’m curious why you are able to make such a strong statement. I am assuming there is a lot of data supporting the assertion?

I’m personally a bit skeptical — that just seems like far too broad a claim to make — but I like to read actual studies on this topic so please link!

I refer you to Malcolm Gladwells work. My suggestion came from him.

https://youtu.be/t5sJRGmyZ3Y

Uh, no. I’m sorry, but Malcolm Gladwell is not a legitimate data source. He’s been debunked and widely criticized on so many different topics at this point that I don’t think academics of any repute will even mention his name.

Do you have cites, studies, essays, or recommendations from actual academics, not ten-year-old videos from debunked pop culture snake oil salesmen? I would genuinely like to read them.

Emily Oster covered this in depth as well in her new book, the family firm. Google it. Among other factors, the research showed that those who were the youngest in their grade were more likely to be diagnosed with adhd by age seven or so, and this was even more pronounced among boys who were the youngest in their classes. Overall the data showed disadvantage towards being the youngest. In my case, I’m not looking for an advantage for my kids, but I am lookingm to minimize disadvantage to them where I can.

Please for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Emily Oster and Malcolm Gladwell are your source material? I don’t even know how to respond to scientific illiteracy this profound.

Just scrolling because I’m bored.

I’m going to quote a friend who has counseled 100’s if not thousands of kids and families. He’s been doing this for about 40 years. He’s never met a parent who regretted keeping their summer child back, but he knows plenty who regretted not doing it.

I regretted it and child ended up skipping a grade to make up for it. People like your friend gave us very very bad advice. Now, kid is in all advanced classes despite being young for their age. Child is clear they wouldn't have wanted to be held back.

Right. You post this on DCUM all the time. So there is you, and nobody else with regrets. Noted.

The above PP is a liar. There's no way a young kid could be doing well. Doesn't he know he has been disadvantaged by the mere presence of kids a few months older? And as an aside it was a pretty easy fix to advance the kid a year. Making them repeat a grade is far more disastrous. You got very good advice and even if it did not work out, you were able to quickly fix it. We should all be so lucky.

I graduated HS at 17 in honors and as an extreme case had a friend who had a BA at 19. There are plenty of people this works out for and it’s a massive gift of an additional year of life.

Did this somehow extend your life expectancy? That's a dubious claim if I've ever read one.

I graduated college at 21 which meant that I completed grad school earlier and entered the workforce earlier. If I make it to average life expectancy then the ROI of that additional year of income is huge.

"I wish I had another year to work" said no one ever on their death bed.

You think kids are saying, yea, my parents didn't think I'd do well in school so they held me back so I get to be a 19 year old senior vs. an 18 year old college student.

Sorry your math skills are so weak.

If I held back my child they would turn 18 one week into their senior year. They be 18 the entire school year. That means they start college at 19. My math is not off. Instead my child will be 17 all of senior year and for a week of college be 17.

You don’t think kids talk.

They don’t. Your rules don’t apply to most.

Income from a country with 5 year of highschool and started college at 19 (and turned 20 at the end of freshman year) in the US. Nobody EVER cared that I was 6 months-1 year older than the other students. I was one ifbb no the best students because even though I was learning English because high school was intense in my home country and we studied a lot. College was easy for me. I was more mature than most American kids (not sure if because of age or life experiences) and it was definitely a good thing.

Of course. The natural law troll thinks kids say and do things they don’t do. They don’t think twice about age. Many are 18 themselves all senior year. Troll poster lives in a fantasy world where every school is on a calendar year cut off and the kids are all terrible to each other. She can’t wrap her head around the idea that things have changed and she’s working with faulty assumptions.

Kids absolutely talk about age and birthdays. Don’t kid yourself. They get their parents or the school or both held them back. They younger kids get that the older kids were held back. You can out make kids artificially smarter by being older. And, if sports are your priority your values are messed up. If I held back my kid they would miss out on a year of better academics in stronger subjects. I’d rather pay for graduate school than an extra year of preschool which will help them more in the real world.

I see you still haven’t noticed that this discussion is on the private school board. There is zero stigma about redshirting summer birthdays in private schools, because, in many schools, it is universal. Period. And certainly in this environment nobody uses the term “held back”. The kids say that they “did an extra year”. And nobody cares, except ideologues like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this because the poster asking for data conveniently ignored it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

THE YOUNGEST KIDS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

So what will the schools do to make sure NOBODY is ever the youngest?

Reduce the age cohort age range from 12 months to 6 months in the younger school years. Someone will still be the youngest but all the evidence based disadvantages from relative age affect disappear with such a narrow age gap.

Could you provide some data backing the bolded up? That seems like a very strong claim to make, and I’m curious why you are able to make such a strong statement. I am assuming there is a lot of data supporting the assertion?

I’m personally a bit skeptical — that just seems like far too broad a claim to make — but I like to read actual studies on this topic so please link!

I refer you to Malcolm Gladwells work. My suggestion came from him.

https://youtu.be/t5sJRGmyZ3Y

Uh, no. I’m sorry, but Malcolm Gladwell is not a legitimate data source. He’s been debunked and widely criticized on so many different topics at this point that I don’t think academics of any repute will even mention his name.

Do you have cites, studies, essays, or recommendations from actual academics, not ten-year-old videos from debunked pop culture snake oil salesmen? I would genuinely like to read them.

Emily Oster covered this in depth as well in her new book, the family firm. Google it. Among other factors, the research showed that those who were the youngest in their grade were more likely to be diagnosed with adhd by age seven or so, and this was even more pronounced among boys who were the youngest in their classes. Overall the data showed disadvantage towards being the youngest. In my case, I’m not looking for an advantage for my kids, but I am lookingm to minimize disadvantage to them where I can.

Please for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Emily Oster and Malcolm Gladwell are your source material? I don’t even know how to respond to scientific illiteracy this profound.

Just scrolling because I’m bored.

I’m going to quote a friend who has counseled 100’s if not thousands of kids and families. He’s been doing this for about 40 years. He’s never met a parent who regretted keeping their summer child back, but he knows plenty who regretted not doing it.

I regretted it and child ended up skipping a grade to make up for it. People like your friend gave us very very bad advice. Now, kid is in all advanced classes despite being young for their age. Child is clear they wouldn't have wanted to be held back.

Right. You post this on DCUM all the time. So there is you, and nobody else with regrets. Noted.

The above PP is a liar. There's no way a young kid could be doing well. Doesn't he know he has been disadvantaged by the mere presence of kids a few months older? And as an aside it was a pretty easy fix to advance the kid a year. Making them repeat a grade is far more disastrous. You got very good advice and even if it did not work out, you were able to quickly fix it. We should all be so lucky.

I graduated HS at 17 in honors and as an extreme case had a friend who had a BA at 19. There are plenty of people this works out for and it’s a massive gift of an additional year of life.

Did this somehow extend your life expectancy? That's a dubious claim if I've ever read one.

I graduated college at 21 which meant that I completed grad school earlier and entered the workforce earlier. If I make it to average life expectancy then the ROI of that additional year of income is huge.

"I wish I had another year to work" said no one ever on their death bed.

You think kids are saying, yea, my parents didn't think I'd do well in school so they held me back so I get to be a 19 year old senior vs. an 18 year old college student.

Sorry your math skills are so weak.

If I held back my child they would turn 18 one week into their senior year. They be 18 the entire school year. That means they start college at 19. My math is not off. Instead my child will be 17 all of senior year and for a week of college be 17.

You don’t think kids talk.

They don’t. Your rules don’t apply to most.

Income from a country with 5 year of highschool and started college at 19 (and turned 20 at the end of freshman year) in the US. Nobody EVER cared that I was 6 months-1 year older than the other students. I was one ifbb no the best students because even though I was learning English because high school was intense in my home country and we studied a lot. College was easy for me. I was more mature than most American kids (not sure if because of age or life experiences) and it was definitely a good thing.

Of course. The natural law troll thinks kids say and do things they don’t do. They don’t think twice about age. Many are 18 themselves all senior year. Troll poster lives in a fantasy world where every school is on a calendar year cut off and the kids are all terrible to each other. She can’t wrap her head around the idea that things have changed and she’s working with faulty assumptions.

Kids absolutely talk about age and birthdays. Don’t kid yourself. They get their parents or the school or both held them back. They younger kids get that the older kids were held back. You can out make kids artificially smarter by being older. And, if sports are your priority your values are messed up. If I held back my kid they would miss out on a year of better academics in stronger subjects. I’d rather pay for graduate school than an extra year of preschool which will help them more in the real world.

Okay, don’t send your kid to a school that redshirts. Problem solved.

I’m sorry to hear that either you did not prepare your kids for kindergarten or you did not have the confidence that they could be successful given the opportunity with your support. Guess you prefer the easy parenting choices so you can put the least effort into your kids.

We had no issue getting our kid into a private.

My kid wasn’t redshirted. I’m just hear for the entertainment value that comes from the incessant and entitled whining of the anti-redshirters who are furious they can’t make private schools admissions officers bend to their demands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP

Would it be better to redshirt before he enters PreK or the PreK year?

I can have him do the 3s year at his current daycare and then move to private school or start attending private school in the 3s and then repeat the 3s or PreK4 if necessary.

We had our DC repeat PreK at the same school - one of the best decisions we made. DC was the youngest by 5 months in the first PreK class, with some classmates more than 1 year older. In new class, DC is not the oldest - there are a few June and July birthdays too.

[Anonymous]

What if my child was born in February and I wanted him to be the oldest in his class. I want him to become captain of the varsity football team as well as valedictorian. As a capitalist demand the right to stack the deck in my kids favour.

Why can’t I? Why are only kids born in the summer given that choice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if my child was born in February and I wanted him to be the oldest in his class. I want him to become captain of the varsity football team as well as valedictorian. As a capitalist demand the right to stack the deck in my kids favour.

Why can’t I? Why are only kids born in the summer given that choice?

Well, you obviously are not capable of planning conception to align with a more flexible birthday. Why would a school be interested in the child of such a person?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if my child was born in February and I wanted him to be the oldest in his class. I want him to become captain of the varsity football team as well as valedictorian. As a capitalist demand the right to stack the deck in my kids favour.

Why can’t I? Why are only kids born in the summer given that choice?

Favour? Are you trolling from outside the US?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if my child was born in February and I wanted him to be the oldest in his class. I want him to become captain of the varsity football team as well as valedictorian. As a capitalist demand the right to stack the deck in my kids favour.

Why can’t I? Why are only kids born in the summer given that choice?

Honey, if you can find a school who will admit him according to your demands, go for it. Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this because the poster asking for data conveniently ignored it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

THE YOUNGEST KIDS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

So what will the schools do to make sure NOBODY is ever the youngest?

Reduce the age cohort age range from 12 months to 6 months in the younger school years. Someone will still be the youngest but all the evidence based disadvantages from relative age affect disappear with such a narrow age gap.

Could you provide some data backing the bolded up? That seems like a very strong claim to make, and I’m curious why you are able to make such a strong statement. I am assuming there is a lot of data supporting the assertion?

I’m personally a bit skeptical — that just seems like far too broad a claim to make — but I like to read actual studies on this topic so please link!

I refer you to Malcolm Gladwells work. My suggestion came from him.

https://youtu.be/t5sJRGmyZ3Y

Uh, no. I’m sorry, but Malcolm Gladwell is not a legitimate data source. He’s been debunked and widely criticized on so many different topics at this point that I don’t think academics of any repute will even mention his name.

Do you have cites, studies, essays, or recommendations from actual academics, not ten-year-old videos from debunked pop culture snake oil salesmen? I would genuinely like to read them.

Emily Oster covered this in depth as well in her new book, the family firm. Google it. Among other factors, the research showed that those who were the youngest in their grade were more likely to be diagnosed with adhd by age seven or so, and this was even more pronounced among boys who were the youngest in their classes. Overall the data showed disadvantage towards being the youngest. In my case, I’m not looking for an advantage for my kids, but I am lookingm to minimize disadvantage to them where I can.

Please for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Emily Oster and Malcolm Gladwell are your source material? I don’t even know how to respond to scientific illiteracy this profound.

Just scrolling because I’m bored.

I’m going to quote a friend who has counseled 100’s if not thousands of kids and families. He’s been doing this for about 40 years. He’s never met a parent who regretted keeping their summer child back, but he knows plenty who regretted not doing it.

I regretted it and child ended up skipping a grade to make up for it. People like your friend gave us very very bad advice. Now, kid is in all advanced classes despite being young for their age. Child is clear they wouldn't have wanted to be held back.

Right. You post this on DCUM all the time. So there is you, and nobody else with regrets. Noted.

The above PP is a liar. There's no way a young kid could be doing well. Doesn't he know he has been disadvantaged by the mere presence of kids a few months older? And as an aside it was a pretty easy fix to advance the kid a year. Making them repeat a grade is far more disastrous. You got very good advice and even if it did not work out, you were able to quickly fix it. We should all be so lucky.

I graduated HS at 17 in honors and as an extreme case had a friend who had a BA at 19. There are plenty of people this works out for and it’s a massive gift of an additional year of life.

Did this somehow extend your life expectancy? That's a dubious claim if I've ever read one.

I graduated college at 21 which meant that I completed grad school earlier and entered the workforce earlier. If I make it to average life expectancy then the ROI of that additional year of income is huge.

"I wish I had another year to work" said no one ever on their death bed.

You think kids are saying, yea, my parents didn't think I'd do well in school so they held me back so I get to be a 19 year old senior vs. an 18 year old college student.

Sorry your math skills are so weak.

If I held back my child they would turn 18 one week into their senior year. They be 18 the entire school year. That means they start college at 19. My math is not off. Instead my child will be 17 all of senior year and for a week of college be 17.

You don’t think kids talk.

They don’t. Your rules don’t apply to most.

Income from a country with 5 year of highschool and started college at 19 (and turned 20 at the end of freshman year) in the US. Nobody EVER cared that I was 6 months-1 year older than the other students. I was one ifbb no the best students because even though I was learning English because high school was intense in my home country and we studied a lot. College was easy for me. I was more mature than most American kids (not sure if because of age or life experiences) and it was definitely a good thing.

Of course. The natural law troll thinks kids say and do things they don’t do. They don’t think twice about age. Many are 18 themselves all senior year. Troll poster lives in a fantasy world where every school is on a calendar year cut off and the kids are all terrible to each other. She can’t wrap her head around the idea that things have changed and she’s working with faulty assumptions.

Kids absolutely talk about age and birthdays. Don’t kid yourself. They get their parents or the school or both held them back. They younger kids get that the older kids were held back. You can out make kids artificially smarter by being older. And, if sports are your priority your values are messed up. If I held back my kid they would miss out on a year of better academics in stronger subjects. I’d rather pay for graduate school than an extra year of preschool which will help them more in the real world.

Okay, don’t send your kid to a school that redshirts. Problem solved.

I’m sorry to hear that either you did not prepare your kids for kindergarten or you did not have the confidence that they could be successful given the opportunity with your support. Guess you prefer the easy parenting choices so you can put the least effort into your kids.

We had no issue getting our kid into a private.

My kid wasn’t redshirted. I’m just hear for the entertainment value that comes from the incessant and entitled whining of the anti-redshirters who are furious they can’t make private schools admissions officers bend to their demands.

I had no problem getting my child in. The problem we had with private was they didn't have the advanced classes and differentiation in MS/HS like publics do. It's funny how people like you have older kids in the grade and the privates start math later and you think that's just good enough for smart kids who enjoy challenges. Sounds like you care more about prestige than your child.

[Anonymous]

I am in London at the moment so yes to the second part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if my child was born in February and I wanted him to be the oldest in his class. I want him to become captain of the varsity football team as well as valedictorian. As a capitalist demand the right to stack the deck in my kids favour.

Why can’t I? Why are only kids born in the summer given that choice?

You can but if your kid isn't smart or naturally athletic, holding back isn't going to actually help. Plenty of people do it and add an extra senior year.