My son's kindergarten class has several 7 yr olds in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many are writing on this thread not to eachother but to get the attention of the schools. It is an indirect but likely effective (over time) strategy. Perhaps the school administrators were unaware of some of the sound research showing impacts of held back students on the rest of the class.

Has the percent of each class that is held back changed over the last 10, 20 years for DC independents? Only the schools will know this with any certainty.

!!@#$#%#$%^&#$%^#$%$%??

[Anonymous]

Why else is this thread alive? People can't let go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many are writing on this thread not to eachother but to get the attention of the schools. It is an indirect but likely effective (over time) strategy. Perhaps the school administrators were unaware of some of the sound research showing impacts of held back students on the rest of the class.

If so, that seems like a really stupid strategy. I suspect each local school is much more aware of the real impacts of redshirting -- whether it has a positive/negative/neutral effect on that particular school's classroom dynamics -- than any busybody parent on DCUM who has read some research.

I hope to god my child's school doesn't make decisions based on what gets posted on DCUM!

[Anonymous]

you'd be surprised....

[Anonymous]

By contrast, the redshirters want to wait until their kid can handle school's demands. What's at stake for them isn't academic success vs. stellar performance. It's incompetence vs. competence. The school, apparently, agrees with the parents' POV in these cases (we're talking private schools here, so they always have the option of just rejecting the application for admission). Does it make sense to let some third party decide that the older kid should flounder in school just so that their child can be shown to better advantage? That's screwed up.
Your argument is logically flawed. This is why -- it ASSUMES that the redshirted children are all "incompetent" -- to use your word. This is a flawed assumption. There is no "competence" standard at all -- they are held back merely because their parents -- often competitive and/or misguided -- determine it to be so.
So your argument fails.
Even if the school is involved in the decision, they have little information other than what the parents tell them -- hardly an objective view.

The poster who called it a race to the bottom hit the nail on the head. My April-born 5 year old DS can sometimes be really immature. LIKE ALL FIVE YEAR OLDS. But I witness that he refuses to share, fights with his little sister, whatever. So maybe I decide he's "socially immature." He needs another year of emotional development. He doesn't like to sit still!! He hates to wait in line!! He wants his way all the time!! So I tell the school this. They say ok. We keep him back.
He is smart, tall, very strong and athletic. But hey, he's an april baby -- i can hold him back!! And he will be even taller, stronger, and smarter, compared with the kids 13-18 months younger than him! It wouldn't be fair to those kids. They will be judged against him, of course. Some of them will appear fidgety as compared to him and the other 6 year olds, who have had a year to develop. So their parents get told the kids have ADHD. He can read -- some of the younger ones can't -- they go to a "reading specialist." He can run fast and throw well -- the other boys feel bad, and it affects their self-esteem.
But, of course, the redshirting parents aren't thinking about this. They are only thinking about thmselves. Therein lies the problem.

[Anonymous]

Hummh, I, too, hate standing in lines, sitting still, and all the other things that would deem a 5 year old immature. Damn, I should have been redshirted 35 years ago, too, huh? WOW!!!

Get with the program. The schools need to modernize the curricula at all levels. The concept of sitting still in class is wacky. I move all day at work. Heck, the Surgeon General recommends it, right?

WOW!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can only speak from my experiences and I see kids redshirted because Mom and Dad feel better when their kid is most advanced---physically, socially or academically.

I find the "you worry about your child and I'll worry about mine" argument hollow because when you put a kid 18 months older than mine, it effects my kid.

I agree with this. My son's birthday is in April. He is starting K in the fall. He went camp at the school in June, and two boys in his camp group will be in his K class. They were already 6 -- in June. I don't know when their birthdays are, so perhaps they turned 6 right before camp. But I am already worried. This is not what I signed up for.

O.M.G. It won't end. But really how many "normally developing" children can possibly be 18 months older than your child (assuming you know all about the redshirted kid's development)? If your kid is turning 5 and starting school in September ("on time"), you're complaining about March birthday kids being held back (so that they'll turn 7 in K)? Really, how many kids "normally developing" are turning 7 by March of their K year? I don't know of one and find it hard to believe that it's "several." Give it a rest.
And, btw, the grammar police need to issue tickets regarding the use of affect/effect that's running wild on this thread.

8 out of 12 of my neighbors is quite a stat to work with, don't you all think so?

[Anonymous]

Is this a cultural issue? My Indian neighbor and I are shocked by the number of our white neighbors who are doing this "redshirting" thing. We don't understand the artificially promoted rationale behind it. All of our white friends and neighbors are "redshirters", and many of them were, too. The reasons are all the same, maturity, size, and competitive advantage for sports. I have actually began interviewing people to find other reasons. The same three reasons are reported each time. Nothing new has been shared about delays or academic unreadiness.

None of our Black (People of African descent including Americans, Africans, Carribeans, Native Americans, Canadians) friends support the concept, and really cannot understand why people are so worried about maturity of young children that are just 5-6. Is it possible this is the reason many Black boys get pegged as troublemakers in school, because their white male peers are older and "more mature" than them?

By the way, all the White private and public schools we visited were filled with teachers and principals who encouraged and admitted they even redshirted their own kids, some as far back as decades ago. Black teachers and administrators seemed not to support the concept as much. We were shocked.

We now know about this issue, and have been asking people about it. Nationwide, it seems all of our white friends and family members are huge advocates of this practice, educators and business people alike.

We are just wondering if it is racial cultural norm. I hope we can discuss this respectfully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can only speak from my experiences and I see kids redshirted because Mom and Dad feel better when their kid is most advanced---physically, socially or academically.

I find the "you worry about your child and I'll worry about mine" argument hollow because when you put a kid 18 months older than mine, it effects my kid.

I agree with this. My son's birthday is in April. He is starting K in the fall. He went camp at the school in June, and two boys in his camp group will be in his K class. They were already 6 -- in June. I don't know when their birthdays are, so perhaps they turned 6 right before camp. But I am already worried. This is not what I signed up for.

O.M.G. It won't end. But really how many "normally developing" children can possibly be 18 months older than your child (assuming you know all about the redshirted kid's development)? If your kid is turning 5 and starting school in September ("on time"), you're complaining about March birthday kids being held back (so that they'll turn 7 in K)? Really, how many kids "normally developing" are turning 7 by March of their K year? I don't know of one and find it hard to believe that it's "several." Give it a rest.
And, btw, the grammar police need to issue tickets regarding the use of affect/effect that's running wild on this thread.

8 out of 12 of my neighbors is quite a stat to work with, don't you all think so?

You have 8 neighbors who held back kids with Jan - March birthdays? If so, they must feed into the same outlier school that you or another pp mentioned has 6 such kids in the class. Also, if true, it's a statistical anomaly that 8 of the 12 kids have bdays in the same 3 months of the year. Something's not adding up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
By contrast, the redshirters want to wait until their kid can handle school's demands. What's at stake for them isn't academic success vs. stellar performance. It's incompetence vs. competence. The school, apparently, agrees with the parents' POV in these cases (we're talking private schools here, so they always have the option of just rejecting the application for admission). Does it make sense to let some third party decide that the older kid should flounder in school just so that their child can be shown to better advantage? That's screwed up.

Your argument is logically flawed. This is why -- it ASSUMES that the redshirted children are all "incompetent" -- to use your word. This is a flawed assumption. There is no "competence" standard at all -- they are held back merely because their parents -- often competitive and/or misguided -- determine it to be so.
So your argument fails.
Even if the school is involved in the decision, they have little information other than what the parents tell them -- hardly an objective view.

The poster who called it a race to the bottom hit the nail on the head. My April-born 5 year old DS can sometimes be really immature. LIKE ALL FIVE YEAR OLDS. But I witness that he refuses to share, fights with his little sister, whatever. So maybe I decide he's "socially immature." He needs another year of emotional development. He doesn't like to sit still!! He hates to wait in line!! He wants his way all the time!! So I tell the school this. They say ok. We keep him back.
He is smart, tall, very strong and athletic. But hey, he's an april baby -- i can hold him back!! And he will be even taller, stronger, and smarter, compared with the kids 13-18 months younger than him! It wouldn't be fair to those kids. They will be judged against him, of course. Some of them will appear fidgety as compared to him and the other 6 year olds, who have had a year to develop. So their parents get told the kids have ADHD. He can read -- some of the younger ones can't -- they go to a "reading specialist." He can run fast and throw well -- the other boys feel bad, and it affects their self-esteem.
But, of course, the redshirting parents aren't thinking about this. They are only thinking about thmselves. Therein lies the problem.


Seems like you're unnecessarily panicking because you realize that your son may be the youngest in his class and may have kids 12 months older. Don't fret. Someone has to be the youngest. It's ok that it's your son. If you feel he should go to K then send him on his way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
By contrast, the redshirters want to wait until their kid can handle school's demands. What's at stake for them isn't academic success vs. stellar performance. It's incompetence vs. competence. The school, apparently, agrees with the parents' POV in these cases (we're talking private schools here, so they always have the option of just rejecting the application for admission). Does it make sense to let some third party decide that the older kid should flounder in school just so that their child can be shown to better advantage? That's screwed up.

Your argument is logically flawed. This is why -- it ASSUMES that the redshirted children are all "incompetent" -- to use your word. This is a flawed assumption. There is no "competence" standard at all -- they are held back merely because their parents -- often competitive and/or misguided -- determine it to be so.
So your argument fails.
Even if the school is involved in the decision, they have little information other than what the parents tell them -- hardly an objective view.

The poster who called it a race to the bottom hit the nail on the head. My April-born 5 year old DS can sometimes be really immature. LIKE ALL FIVE YEAR OLDS. But I witness that he refuses to share, fights with his little sister, whatever. So maybe I decide he's "socially immature." He needs another year of emotional development. He doesn't like to sit still!! He hates to wait in line!! He wants his way all the time!! So I tell the school this. They say ok. We keep him back.
He is smart, tall, very strong and athletic. But hey, he's an april baby -- i can hold him back!! And he will be even taller, stronger, and smarter, compared with the kids 13-18 months younger than him! It wouldn't be fair to those kids. They will be judged against him, of course. Some of them will appear fidgety as compared to him and the other 6 year olds, who have had a year to develop. So their parents get told the kids have ADHD. He can read -- some of the younger ones can't -- they go to a "reading specialist." He can run fast and throw well -- the other boys feel bad, and it affects their self-esteem.
But, of course, the redshirting parents aren't thinking about this. They are only thinking about thmselves. Therein lies the problem.

Seems like you're unnecessarily panicking because you realize that your son may be the youngest in his class and may have kids 12 months older. Don't fret. Someone has to be the youngest. It's ok that it's your son. If you feel he should go to K then send him on his way.

[Anonymous]

So with a cut off of Sept 1, and you are referring to an April b-day who is a year older...factor in the summer kids and then the kids who are even older than the April kid, and you can begin to get a clearer picture of the distribution and spread in these classrooms. And much of it is vanity.

[Anonymous]

The poster who called it a race to the bottom hit the nail on the head. My April-born 5 year old DS can sometimes be really immature. LIKE ALL FIVE YEAR OLDS. But I witness that he refuses to share, fights with his little sister, whatever. So maybe I decide he's "socially immature." He needs another year of emotional development. He doesn't like to sit still!! He hates to wait in line!! He wants his way all the time!! So I tell the school this. They say ok. We keep him back.
He is smart, tall, very strong and athletic. But hey, he's an april baby -- i can hold him back!! And he will be even taller, stronger, and smarter, compared with the kids 13-18 months younger than him! It wouldn't be fair to those kids. They will be judged against him, of course. Some of them will appear fidgety as compared to him and the other 6 year olds, who have had a year to develop. So their parents get told the kids have ADHD. He can read -- some of the younger ones can't -- they go to a "reading specialist." He can run fast and throw well -- the other boys feel bad, and it affects their self-esteem.
But, of course, the redshirting parents aren't thinking about this. They are only thinking about thmselves. Therein lies the problem

Do not worry the world is not fair. Ask the native American Indians. The redshirters will not hurt or impede the progress of your children. Non-redshirter 2 years younger than classmates (redtrouser)

[Anonymous]

Immigrants compete in America. They do not waste time redshirting, looking for accommodation in education, pharmacologic advantage and tutors. Older children in their classrooms or on the soccer field do not impede their performance. These youngsters and their parents are more concerned about their children's own success and not the age, height or weight of their children's classmates. Try checking the mean ages, weights and heights of all Intel winners, Math Olympiad and Mathcount Champions, Spelling Bee winners, National Merit Semifinalists and Finalists and AP winners? I suspect these folk were not the elders, tallest, heaviest and biggest kids in their classrooms! Their success was not blunted by redshirters! Only neuroic children, students and their parents worry about the age and size of children in the classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So with a cut off of Sept 1, and you are referring to an April b-day who is a year older...factor in the summer kids and then the kids who are even older than the April kid, and you can begin to get a clearer picture of the distribution and spread in these classrooms.

Then factor in the boys, the girls, the rich, the poor, the Indians, the Asian Americans, the learning disabled, the funny kid, the shy kid, the genius, the athlete, the artist, the musician, the geek, the beauty queen, the diplomat's kid, the English as a Second Language kid, the tall, the skinny . . . wow, what a wonderful opportunity for learning.