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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think it has to do with the history of retention. Post-integration, children of color (especially boys) were the kids most likely to be held back (failed, retained, forced to repeat a grade, told to wait to enroll) by school administrators and it became, in part, a civil rights issue in the public schools. With that history, it's hard to see your kid being the oldest one in class as a perk. The oldest/biggest black boy in class is more likely to be assumed to be stupid (and maybe a thug) than (like his affluent white boy counterpart) a natural leader. I still hear variations on this theme in conversations about Wilson High School so I think that the double standard is alive and well.

[Anonymous]

But the expert overnight poster argued with certainty that the poor and the blacks never held their kids back and that was saved for the elite whites with choices. Hilarious how you guys argue with such conviction regarding history, education, blacks, whites, the poor, American Indians, etc. etc. You're typing doesn't make it true -- even if you find the bold button.

[Anonymous]

Of course, the fact that two posters disagree hardly makes both wrong (or equally full of shit).

In this particular case, it'd be pretty easy either to reconcile the two claims or to do a bit of research to assess the credibility of either.

See, for example, http://www.clemson.edu/centers-institutes/houston/documents/policyreport1008.pdf and http://voices.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2008/04/dc_schools_folly_nearadults_in.html to corroborate some of the claims in 9:22.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course, the fact that two posters disagree hardly makes both wrong (or equally full of shit).

OK, one argues that the poor and blacks all hold their kids back and the other argues that the poor and blacks all push their kids ahead. You say neither is overstating his/her case, you're both right. Then you can both go to the treasure box and pick out a prize.

[Anonymous]

No -- one says only affluent whites hold their kids back; poor people and people of color don't have that choice.

Another says that poor people/people of color have disproportionately had their kids held back by public school administrators and, as a result, see the practice as stigmatizing rather than empowering. So in cases where people of color *do* have the same choice as affluent whites they might not be inclined to use it in the same way.

Arguably, the relationship between the two posts isn't diametrical opposition but that the second adds nuance to the first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear there will be blue, green, and stripped shirts in this fall's classes. And that the K class will actually be the 1st grade class, just rebranded. Can't wait to see the class lists...

Gee, I hope no one comes in a stripped shirt. Who sends their kids to school in tatters? Better to give them a gap year.

Whether the OP meant "stripped" or striped, I have no clue what is being conveyed here.

Please clarify what you mean.

[Anonymous]

Here is a seasoned independent school educator talking about some of the complications schools face with increased numbers of delayed entrants. She suggests schools have a difficult time avoiding teaching to the older students at the expense of the younger students.


www.beyondthebrochure.blogspot.com/2011/08/paradox-of-redshirting-view-from-inside.html

[Anonymous]

And thereby the younger students, who are where they are supposed to be, suffer esteem and other issues at the expense of those who have given the precious gift of time.

[Anonymous]

This phenomenon wil bring out the best in the youngsters. Stop complaining.

[Anonymous]

But what she doesn't really establish is causality. Are we red-shirting because the curriculum has been accelerated or accelerating because we've been red-shirting.

In the public school context, acceleration seems to have come first/independently. And I certainly see demands for it coming from parents. (I also suspect it's not unrelated to the fact that in some demographics (e.g. ours), K is not when "school" begins for most children, so its traditional function has changed.)

The red-shirted kids in DC's PreK/K were not among the kids who were most academically advanced (i.e. who, on this blogger's logic, would be setting the pace). And it was a PreK/K situation, so the curriculum and teachers were designed for a group whose ages ranged over more than 2 years.

Honestly, much of this conversation has seemed unhinged from at least the local private school reality I've encountered. The K curriculum doesn't involve sitting still, shutting up, and reading. The older kids aren't the natural leaders or ahead of the pack academically. Either we're talking different schools or it's a situation where some red-shirting parents drive other parents (of smaller boys with Spring birthdays) slightly crazy in advance of actual experience.

[Anonymous]

Those complainig and petrified by older kids in the classroom are simply nuts. This longstanding WASP educational ruse that once was the underpinning of their "educational supremacy" up and down the East coast (the muscular philosophy of sound body and sound mind in these male educational preparatory "prep" enclaves) and later dominance of the political and economic axis of America is dead. Older and redshirted children are not the smartest, most athletic and most handsome in the class after all.

[Anonymous]

If we're still talking about the article, here's what the author actually concluded:

Schools must adjust their programs to fit the new profile of their students – larger age spans and greater differences in size and capability perhaps. This can be done well if the school and its teachers resist the temptation to simply accelerate their program and truly reframe their curriculum and methodologies to fit the needs of the students they have. If this is accomplished, students can have the best of all possible worlds.

Wow, don't we all want the best of both worlds? To the private school parent, you have the choice to look around and find the school that best fits your needs. To the public school parents, there should be some confidence/trust to the non-neurotic parents that we live in an area of some of the best public schools our tax dollars can buy. Send your child to K when you think is best for your child and allow the K teacher to do his/her job.

And I've heard several seasoned educators agree that K is essentially the new 1st grade in terms of academics because parents demand it often in private and public and there is a federal law still on the books (NCLB) that demands certain proficiencies by the 3rd grade for public schools.

[Anonymous]

My experience (beyond summer birthdays and developmental issues) is the simple case of parents holding their kids back so they can be the oldest/biggest. So, my experience is a little different from 8:43.

[Anonymous]

This was the longstanding WASP formula to get their kids to school Senior Prefect, Ivy, Wall Street and the Secret Service.

[Anonymous]

Right, because Wall Street makes decisions based on age of enrollment in kindergarten.

And because any average kid will look like a genius next to any kid who is a year an a half younger.

You clearly don't know WTF you're talking about.

Historically, the WASP "formula" was much more straightforward -- exclusions based on race, gender, and wealth.