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

[Anonymous]

Sometimes redshirting makes a lot of sense for the situation. My son with an November birthday was not redshirted, he is the second oldest in class, tall for his age, doing great academically.

My mom was a teacher and she redshirted me and my twin with May birthdays but early birth at 7 months, and with low birth weight etc. Even so, we were the smallest kids in a class of 30. Academically we excelled, but I suspect mostly because our parents put a lot of effort into our education. Likely it also helped that we were more mature mentally than our classmates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes redshirting makes a lot of sense for the situation. My son with an November birthday was not redshirted, he is the second oldest in class, tall for his age, doing great academically.

My mom was a teacher and she redshirted me and my twin with May birthdays but early birth at 7 months, and with low birth weight etc. Even so, we were the smallest kids in a class of 30. Academically we excelled, but I suspect mostly because our parents put a lot of effort into our education. Likely it also helped that we were more mature mentally than our classmates.

Were you and your twin proud of yourselves for outperforming kids 8-to-19 months younger than you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes redshirting makes a lot of sense for the situation. My son with an November birthday was not redshirted, he is the second oldest in class, tall for his age, doing great academically.

My mom was a teacher and she redshirted me and my twin with May birthdays but early birth at 7 months, and with low birth weight etc. Even so, we were the smallest kids in a class of 30. Academically we excelled, but I suspect mostly because our parents put a lot of effort into our education. Likely it also helped that we were more mature mentally than our classmates.

Were you and your twin proud of yourselves for outperforming kids 8-to-19 months younger than you?

Go away with this ridiculous argument you insufferable moron. You know nothing about children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes redshirting makes a lot of sense for the situation. My son with an November birthday was not redshirted, he is the second oldest in class, tall for his age, doing great academically.

My mom was a teacher and she redshirted me and my twin with May birthdays but early birth at 7 months, and with low birth weight etc. Even so, we were the smallest kids in a class of 30. Academically we excelled, but I suspect mostly because our parents put a lot of effort into our education. Likely it also helped that we were more mature mentally than our classmates.

Were you and your twin proud of yourselves for outperforming kids 8-to-19 months younger than you?

Yes, we were proud. Different country, but we were very good at math, the best in what would be a small sized US state. Nobody cares about your age when you go to a math competition, and there were certain math prodigies that were good even at very early ages. What all had in common was strong parental involvement, which I think is the determining factor in student success, less so the 6-12 months difference in chronological age. Holding a student that is ready for one more year won’t help, in some cases it may even be detrimental. If the student is not ready developmentally it can make a positive difference.

As I said, it is dependent on the child, as a parent you’ll know best. It worked well for us, I ended up getting a PhD from MIT, my twin is on Wall Street making over half a million a year. My mother was right, and she had plenty of experience teaching thousands of elementary school students over her entire career.

[Anonymous]

There is some evidence that older children generally do better in academic tests, and that benefit extends to redshirted kids, although that correlation is not that strong.

Often people see a few redshirted kids that are doing really well and assume that their success is due to redshirting. In fact it may be that other factors are at play, parents that redshirt tend to be more educated, and are more wealthy, both correlating with academic performance. Also, just the act of redshirting means the parent is concerned enough about how the student will do in school that they will take preventive action to address real or perceived disadvantage. Likely that parent will be involved, provide resources and emphasize the child academics so not that surprisingly the student will do well in school along with others kids that have a similar family background but were not redshirted.

Another argument for redshirting is that if the child enters kindergarten and struggles, they will keep struggling for the rest of the time they are in school and will have a difficult time recovering. I think this is legitimate, it also helps if the child develops a self image of being good (sports or academics) because with this mindset they’ll try harder than the student assuming they are just not very good at it.

I’d rather wait one more year for my kid to do well easily and be in top student that will carry over a few years, than send him in early and be at the bottom or middle of the pack. Kindergarten is fairly easy and most students do well regardless. If this is the case, I don’t see a reason to redshirt and it may even be a disservice to the kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes redshirting makes a lot of sense for the situation. My son with an November birthday was not redshirted, he is the second oldest in class, tall for his age, doing great academically.

My mom was a teacher and she redshirted me and my twin with May birthdays but early birth at 7 months, and with low birth weight etc. Even so, we were the smallest kids in a class of 30. Academically we excelled, but I suspect mostly because our parents put a lot of effort into our education. Likely it also helped that we were more mature mentally than our classmates.

Were you and your twin proud of yourselves for outperforming kids 8-to-19 months younger than you?

Anyone who excels should be proud.

[Anonymous]

The selfishness on display here is revolting.

A child who is given the advantage of being the oldest and best is pushing another kid to be younger and worse in comparison.

Schools are a community where actions have consequences on others .

Why on earth should I lift a finger to help anyone if the world is just full of A-holes ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The selfishness on display here is revolting.

A child who is given the advantage of being the oldest and best is pushing another kid to be younger and worse in comparison.

Schools are a community where actions have consequences on others .

Why on earth should I lift a finger to help anyone if the world is just full of A-holes ?

DCUM anti-redshirters are SO bizarre. I didn't redshirt, and read these threads because of the entertainment value from the weirdo anti-redshirters. This one is perplexing, though. Is PP also arguing that no kids should have outside supplements? No tutoring? No moving to "good" school districts? All of those have far, far more documented impact on others than redshirting (which is statistically insignificant) but I suspect that PP is one of the hyper competitive parents who does all of that. If you want to call an action selfish, why pick one that is statistically irrelevant and ignore the actions where there are years of data documenting the adverse impact on other kids?

I just can't get over the naked hypocrisy of the anti-redshirters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We red-shirted because our local school district (SFUSD) pretty much did not open last year due to Covid and we had no faith they would be able to handle the crush of complex problems that would be showing up in classrooms this year as a result.

This makes zero sense.

You can't understand how a child would be better off in a high quality preschool than at SFUSD in any year, let alone in a year in which the entire district is being crushed by covid and it's consequences? Are you familiar with the problems at SFUSD overall?

[Anonymous]

This is a thread on REDSHITING so that is the focus of the posts.

I am strongly for affirmative action and subsidizing resources for the under privileged too and I have dedicated my career to providing government funded heath care and feel that the private sectors existence in that space is repulsive .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The selfishness on display here is revolting.

A child who is given the advantage of being the oldest and best is pushing another kid to be younger and worse in comparison.

Schools are a community where actions have consequences on others .

Why on earth should I lift a finger to help anyone if the world is just full of A-holes ?

DCUM anti-redshirters are SO bizarre. I didn't redshirt, and read these threads because of the entertainment value from the weirdo anti-redshirters. This one is perplexing, though. Is PP also arguing that no kids should have outside supplements? No tutoring? No moving to "good" school districts? All of those have far, far more documented impact on others than redshirting (which is statistically insignificant) but I suspect that PP is one of the hyper competitive parents who does all of that. If you want to call an action selfish, why pick one that is statistically irrelevant and ignore the actions where there are years of data documenting the adverse impact on other kids?

I just can't get over the naked hypocrisy of the anti-redshirters.

Agree with everything, except redshirting is statistically significant, but after you control for many other variables just barely. After 2-3 years it is indeed insignificant. So it’s just a very minor effect lasting for a short time. If you really want to “cheat” read to your child every day till kindergarten, this will have a much stronger effect on their academic success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The selfishness on display here is revolting.

A child who is given the advantage of being the oldest and best is pushing another kid to be younger and worse in comparison.

Schools are a community where actions have consequences on others .

Why on earth should I lift a finger to help anyone if the world is just full of A-holes ?

DCUM anti-redshirters are SO bizarre. I didn't redshirt, and read these threads because of the entertainment value from the weirdo anti-redshirters. This one is perplexing, though. Is PP also arguing that no kids should have outside supplements? No tutoring? No moving to "good" school districts? All of those have far, far more documented impact on others than redshirting (which is statistically insignificant) but I suspect that PP is one of the hyper competitive parents who does all of that. If you want to call an action selfish, why pick one that is statistically irrelevant and ignore the actions where there are years of data documenting the adverse impact on other kids?

I just can't get over the naked hypocrisy of the anti-redshirters.

Agree with everything, except redshirting is statistically significant, but after you control for many other variables just barely. After 2-3 years it is indeed insignificant. So it’s just a very minor effect lasting for a short time. If you really want to “cheat” read to your child every day till kindergarten, this will have a much stronger effect on their academic success.

For the bizarre anti redshirted, use the time you bash other peoples redshirting choices to do homework with your child. It will be more constructive and helpful for your kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The selfishness on display here is revolting.

A child who is given the advantage of being the oldest and best is pushing another kid to be younger and worse in comparison.

Schools are a community where actions have consequences on others .

Why on earth should I lift a finger to help anyone if the world is just full of A-holes ?

DCUM anti-redshirters are SO bizarre. I didn't redshirt, and read these threads because of the entertainment value from the weirdo anti-redshirters. This one is perplexing, though. Is PP also arguing that no kids should have outside supplements? No tutoring? No moving to "good" school districts? All of those have far, far more documented impact on others than redshirting (which is statistically insignificant) but I suspect that PP is one of the hyper competitive parents who does all of that. If you want to call an action selfish, why pick one that is statistically irrelevant and ignore the actions where there are years of data documenting the adverse impact on other kids?

I just can't get over the naked hypocrisy of the anti-redshirters.

Agree with everything, except redshirting is statistically significant, but after you control for many other variables just barely. After 2-3 years it is indeed insignificant. So it’s just a very minor effect lasting for a short time. If you really want to “cheat” read to your child every day till kindergarten, this will have a much stronger effect on their academic success.

For the bizarre anti redshirted, use the time you bash other peoples redshirting choices to do homework with your child. It will be more constructive and helpful for your kid.

I'm pretty sure this weirdo has mentioned before they don't even have kids. They have zero skin in the game and are full of opinions. They are so out of touch they don't even realize schools have moved on from the 12/31 cut off date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The selfishness on display here is revolting.

A child who is given the advantage of being the oldest and best is pushing another kid to be younger and worse in comparison.

Schools are a community where actions have consequences on others .

Why on earth should I lift a finger to help anyone if the world is just full of A-holes ?

DCUM anti-redshirters are SO bizarre. I didn't redshirt, and read these threads because of the entertainment value from the weirdo anti-redshirters. This one is perplexing, though. Is PP also arguing that no kids should have outside supplements? No tutoring? No moving to "good" school districts? All of those have far, far more documented impact on others than redshirting (which is statistically insignificant) but I suspect that PP is one of the hyper competitive parents who does all of that. If you want to call an action selfish, why pick one that is statistically irrelevant and ignore the actions where there are years of data documenting the adverse impact on other kids?

I just can't get over the naked hypocrisy of the anti-redshirters.

Agree with everything, except redshirting is statistically significant, but after you control for many other variables just barely. After 2-3 years it is indeed insignificant. So it’s just a very minor effect lasting for a short time. If you really want to “cheat” read to your child every day till kindergarten, this will have a much stronger effect on their academic success.

For the bizarre anti redshirted, use the time you bash other peoples redshirting choices to do homework with your child. It will be more constructive and helpful for your kid.

I'm pretty sure this weirdo has mentioned before they don't even have kids. They have zero skin in the game and are full of opinions. They are so out of touch they don't even realize schools have moved on from the 12/31 cut off date.

Lol, no, that can’t be. Anti-redshirter, your reputation is besmirched by malicious cheaters. Please defend your honor and say it isn’t so!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The selfishness on display here is revolting.

A child who is given the advantage of being the oldest and best is pushing another kid to be younger and worse in comparison.

Schools are a community where actions have consequences on others .

Why on earth should I lift a finger to help anyone if the world is just full of A-holes ?

DCUM anti-redshirters are SO bizarre. I didn't redshirt, and read these threads because of the entertainment value from the weirdo anti-redshirters. This one is perplexing, though. Is PP also arguing that no kids should have outside supplements? No tutoring? No moving to "good" school districts? All of those have far, far more documented impact on others than redshirting (which is statistically insignificant) but I suspect that PP is one of the hyper competitive parents who does all of that. If you want to call an action selfish, why pick one that is statistically irrelevant and ignore the actions where there are years of data documenting the adverse impact on other kids?

I just can't get over the naked hypocrisy of the anti-redshirters.

Agree with everything, except redshirting is statistically significant, but after you control for many other variables just barely. After 2-3 years it is indeed insignificant. So it’s just a very minor effect lasting for a short time. If you really want to “cheat” read to your child every day till kindergarten, this will have a much stronger effect on their academic success.

For the bizarre anti redshirted, use the time you bash other peoples redshirting choices to do homework with your child. It will be more constructive and helpful for your kid.

I'm pretty sure this weirdo has mentioned before they don't even have kids. They have zero skin in the game and are full of opinions. They are so out of touch they don't even realize schools have moved on from the 12/31 cut off date.

DP. Oh, that little weirdo bad been told plenty of times that 12/31 is an unusual cut off date. She knows schools don't use it. Bit still, she insists that it is "natural law" that the cutoff date is 12/31, and therefore that parents of fall birthday kids who sent their kids on time for their districts are actually redshirting their kids. Yes, you read that correctly.

It's just part of the parade of surreal hypocrisy that is DCUM anti-redshirters.