Did a 180 and decided to redshirt my child- question for parents who decided to do the same

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, where I live (Toronto), people brag when their kids are the youngest in the class. My sister brags nonstop that her daughter was still 17 when she started university.

There is no redshirting here. Everyone born in the calendar year starts at the same time. Cut off is December 31. I know people who get induced to have a baby that can start school sooner.

You Americans are nuts.

You are correct that redshirting isn't common in Canada. Yet one of the biggest, most statistically sound studies linking diagnosis of ADHD with relative age of the child in the classrooms came out of Canada: Influence of relative age on diagnosis and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children, CMAJ. 2012 Apr 17:

Boys who were born in December were 30% more likely (relative risk [RR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23–1.37) to receive a diagnosis of ADHD than boys born in January. Girls born in December were 70% more likely (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.53–1.88) to receive a diagnosis of ADHD than girls born in January. Similarly, boys were 41% more likely (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.33–1.50) and girls 77% more likely (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.57–2.00) to be given a prescription for a medication to treat ADHD if they were born in December than if they were born in January.

OP is obviously nuts and likely a troll but that doesn't mean Canada has figured out how to group kids best. Unless, of course, you're totally okay with misdiagnosis of ADHD for younger children. I've come to the conclusion that some of the anti-redshirt people here are DCUM are fine with that, but YMMV.

No.

Redshirting makes it so much harder for age appopriate kindergartners (5 year olds) because holding them to the behavior standards and attention ability of older six and seven year olds makes normal, age appropriate, grade appropriate five year old behavior seem like a problem.

Red shirting hurts these kids the most.

[Anonymous]

This thread is hysterical, in every meaning of the word. Apparently most DCUMers haven't yet figured out that 95 percent of seniors turn 18 for some portion of the year, and close to half will be 18 by the time the year is halfway over. OP's son would be 19 for a week or two at the end of the year.

[Anonymous]

Good Lord, I redshirted my DS and didn't spend an ounce of energy caring what anyone here thought about my decision. I could care less what others think of me and the decisions I make on behalf of my family. Grow up, OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question regarding red shirting, is pre-first still a thing? Could you send a kid on time and then repeat k or whatever if he or she isn't ready? That was my husband's path and it seems like a balanced solution all around...

It's a thing at Baltimore private schools. Our late-summer boy will be doing pre first next year, per the teacher's recommendation. I have mixed feelings aboug redshirting so I'm kind of glad that the school we're in makes strong recommendations for individual kids.

I will say that it was hard for him being one of the youngest in K. I'm glad that next year he'll be with a peer group and then next year he'll be in the middle if the pack.

Baltimore private schools have wholeheartedly embraced redshirting for decades. Nearly all spring and summer kids are placed with the younger cohort of fall/winter babies with pre-first being the mechanism for doing so. Must work for them given how long this practice has existed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, where I live (Toronto), people brag when their kids are the youngest in the class. My sister brags nonstop that her daughter was still 17 when she started university.

There is no redshirting here. Everyone born in the calendar year starts at the same time. Cut off is December 31. I know people who get induced to have a baby that can start school sooner.

You Americans are nuts.

You are correct that redshirting isn't common in Canada. Yet one of the biggest, most statistically sound studies linking diagnosis of ADHD with relative age of the child in the classrooms came out of Canada: Influence of relative age on diagnosis and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children, CMAJ. 2012 Apr 17:

Boys who were born in December were 30% more likely (relative risk [RR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23–1.37) to receive a diagnosis of ADHD than boys born in January. Girls born in December were 70% more likely (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.53–1.88) to receive a diagnosis of ADHD than girls born in January. Similarly, boys were 41% more likely (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.33–1.50) and girls 77% more likely (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.57–2.00) to be given a prescription for a medication to treat ADHD if they were born in December than if they were born in January.

OP is obviously nuts and likely a troll but that doesn't mean Canada has figured out how to group kids best. Unless, of course, you're totally okay with misdiagnosis of ADHD for younger children. I've come to the conclusion that some of the anti-redshirt people here are DCUM are fine with that, but YMMV.

No.

Redshirting makes it so much harder for age appopriate kindergartners (5 year olds) because holding them to the behavior standards and attention ability of older six and seven year olds makes normal, age appropriate, grade appropriate five year old behavior seem like a problem.

Red shirting hurts these kids the most.

This study comes out of Canada, where there isn't a lot of redshirting -- not redshirting did not help these children.

The reality is that all the options suck because of how kids are grouped in classrooms. I can't blame a parent for looking at his or her own child and deciding that the risk of an unfounded ADHD diagnosis outweighs some of the other risks that come with redshirting (and there are some). I don't know anybody who redshirted for sports, but I do know people who had four-year-olds who were worried about ADHD diagnosis and years later have no regrets about redshirting (and in some cases, likely avoiding mis-diagnosis of ADHD).

But I think a lot of anti-redshirt people don't really care about ADHD mis-diagnosis issues. They are basically willing to say, oh, it's fine to break a few eggs so long as the omelet gets made exactly the way they want it, rather than facing the fact that there are real problems with how we age group children in classrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, where I live (Toronto), people brag when their kids are the youngest in the class. My sister brags nonstop that her daughter was still 17 when she started university.

There is no redshirting here. Everyone born in the calendar year starts at the same time. Cut off is December 31. I know people who get induced to have a baby that can start school sooner.

You Americans are nuts.

You are correct that redshirting isn't common in Canada. Yet one of the biggest, most statistically sound studies linking diagnosis of ADHD with relative age of the child in the classrooms came out of Canada: Influence of relative age on diagnosis and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children, CMAJ. 2012 Apr 17:

Boys who were born in December were 30% more likely (relative risk [RR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23–1.37) to receive a diagnosis of ADHD than boys born in January. Girls born in December were 70% more likely (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.53–1.88) to receive a diagnosis of ADHD than girls born in January. Similarly, boys were 41% more likely (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.33–1.50) and girls 77% more likely (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.57–2.00) to be given a prescription for a medication to treat ADHD if they were born in December than if they were born in January.

OP is obviously nuts and likely a troll but that doesn't mean Canada has figured out how to group kids best. Unless, of course, you're totally okay with misdiagnosis of ADHD for younger children. I've come to the conclusion that some of the anti-redshirt people here are DCUM are fine with that, but YMMV.

No.

Redshirting makes it so much harder for age appopriate kindergartners (5 year olds) because holding them to the behavior standards and attention ability of older six and seven year olds makes normal, age appropriate, grade appropriate five year old behavior seem like a problem.

Red shirting hurts these kids the most.

This study comes out of Canada, where there isn't a lot of redshirting -- not redshirting did not help these children.

The reality is that all the options suck because of how kids are grouped in classrooms. I can't blame a parent for looking at his or her own child and deciding that the risk of an unfounded ADHD diagnosis outweighs some of the other risks that come with redshirting (and there are some). I don't know anybody who redshirted for sports, but I do know people who had four-year-olds who were worried about ADHD diagnosis and years later have no regrets about redshirting (and in some cases, likely avoiding mis-diagnosis of ADHD).

But I think a lot of anti-redshirt people don't really care about ADHD mis-diagnosis issues. They are basically willing to say, oh, it's fine to break a few eggs so long as the omelet gets made exactly the way they want it, rather than facing the fact that there are real problems with how we age group children in classrooms.

I'm an "anti-redshirter" because of this study. I have a socially immature 4.5 year old who will be starting K this fall. Being happy about OP redshirting her mature/advanced 5 year old is silly.

While Canada, that does not redshirt, has found that the youngest children are most likely to be diagnosed ADHD, it seems clear to me that redshirting would exacerbate that rather than ameliorate it, as you seem to say.

[Anonymous]

If there is one thing redshirting debates tell me is that the decision to start formal schooling at five is a misguided one as a matter of policy. I come from a country where children begin school at age seven, yes, seven, and there is no such thing as redshirting there. Everyone is ready at age seven. If anything, there are families who petition to enroll their children at age six, since some kids are ready sooner than seven. But five is just too young. Hence the hand-wringing over it.

[Anonymous]

re Canada pushing kids ahead, there's a great section in Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers", where he discusses the birth months of the top players in the Canadian Hockey League. The age cut off for youth hockey teams is January 1. There are an incredible number of elite players born in Jan/Feb/March (40%) and around 10% were born between Oct and December. Because those who are older at the start of the year tend to be bigger as youngsters, they are more likely to get picked for travel teams and special training early on and hence to make it to the big leagues as adults.

He then goes onto to discuss the same phenomenon in education, citing a study by Bedard and Dhuey that concludes "at four-year colleges in the United States - the highest stream of post secondary education - students belonging to the relatively youngest group in their class are under-represented by about 11.6 percent." p 29

I thought it was a very interesting discussion of the lottery that birth dates represent.

[Anonymous]

Redshirting is a rich thing. Poor and working class people who struggle to pay daycare and preschools don't have that luxury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm an "anti-redshirter" because of this study. I have a socially immature 4.5 year old who will be starting K this fall. Being happy about OP redshirting her mature/advanced 5 year old is silly.

While Canada, that does not redshirt, has found that the youngest children are most likely to be diagnosed ADHD, it seems clear to me that redshirting would exacerbate that rather than ameliorate it, as you seem to say.

OP is probably a troll. But are you saying that you'd insist that a parent with a 4.5 year old who is worried about ADHD misdiagnosis send their child on time? Even in the face of the numerous studies (there are more than one) that show what this Canadian study shows? What do you think those parents should do?

It may be clear to you that a wider age range in classrooms exacerbates rather than ameliorates the problem, but as far as I know (and I have read nearly every study I can find on this topic), that hasn't been yet shown as an impact. It might be the case and the studies just haven't been done yet. But there are also arguments that a wider age range ameliorates the problem because teachers stop having expectations that all children act as if they are the same age. Neither theory has been proven statistically yet, but just because you feel something is the way it is, doesn't mean it's going to be borne out in the actual statistical analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm an "anti-redshirter" because of this study. I have a socially immature 4.5 year old who will be starting K this fall. Being happy about OP redshirting her mature/advanced 5 year old is silly.

While Canada, that does not redshirt, has found that the youngest children are most likely to be diagnosed ADHD, it seems clear to me that redshirting would exacerbate that rather than ameliorate it, as you seem to say.

OP is probably a troll. But are you saying that you'd insist that a parent with a 4.5 year old who is worried about ADHD misdiagnosis send their child on time? Even in the face of the numerous studies (there are more than one) that show what this Canadian study shows? What do you think those parents should do?

It may be clear to you that a wider age range in classrooms exacerbates rather than ameliorates the problem, but as far as I know (and I have read nearly every study I can find on this topic), that hasn't been yet shown as an impact. It might be the case and the studies just haven't been done yet. But there are also arguments that a wider age range ameliorates the problem because teachers stop having expectations that all children act as if they are the same age. Neither theory has been proven statistically yet, but just because you feel something is the way it is, doesn't mean it's going to be borne out in the actual statistical analysis.

I'm in VA, which does not allow early entry. So a wider range of ages would only skew expectations "older". And for a fall birthday, to decide to redshirt, seems misguided but probably not an issue on a wider scale. Redshirting a May child is very problematic, imo. But we can agree to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm an "anti-redshirter" because of this study. I have a socially immature 4.5 year old who will be starting K this fall. Being happy about OP redshirting her mature/advanced 5 year old is silly.

While Canada, that does not redshirt, has found that the youngest children are most likely to be diagnosed ADHD, it seems clear to me that redshirting would exacerbate that rather than ameliorate it, as you seem to say.

OP is probably a troll. But are you saying that you'd insist that a parent with a 4.5 year old who is worried about ADHD misdiagnosis send their child on time? Even in the face of the numerous studies (there are more than one) that show what this Canadian study shows? What do you think those parents should do?

It may be clear to you that a wider age range in classrooms exacerbates rather than ameliorates the problem, but as far as I know (and I have read nearly every study I can find on this topic), that hasn't been yet shown as an impact. It might be the case and the studies just haven't been done yet. But there are also arguments that a wider age range ameliorates the problem because teachers stop having expectations that all children act as if they are the same age. Neither theory has been proven statistically yet, but just because you feel something is the way it is, doesn't mean it's going to be borne out in the actual statistical analysis.

I'm in VA, which does not allow early entry. So a wider range of ages would only skew expectations "older". And for a fall birthday, to decide to redshirt, seems misguided but probably not an issue on a wider scale. Redshirting a May child is very problematic, imo. But we can agree to disagree.

You didn't answer the question. What do you think that parents of younger/youngest children who are worried about ADHD mid-diagnosis should do?

[Anonymous]

I think do what's right for the family. I will say I have seen families who held their kid back and then were not pleased/grumbling about academic challenge. I think that is something you need to sincerely be careful about for your child's education. Consider what you expect the school to do and how you expect the teachers to challenge your child. It's not fair to hold your kid back and then get updset that they're not being sufficiently challenged for their academic ability when they are developmentally 15-20 months ahead if kids in their grade.

[Anonymous]

I live in Ontario where the cutoff for starting junior kindergarten is turning 4 by December 31. My son was born December 26. As the PP mentioned I have never heard of anyone red-shirting up here. I sent my son to school on time. Almost everybody sends their 4-year-olds to public junior kindergarten and their 5-year-olds to kindergarten.

My son had a very hard time socially in junior kindergarten. He could not sit still for story time. He had no impulse control. He hit kids out of frustration. He was disruptive. I thought he might have ADHD, but the school told me that he was little and needed some time to mature.

In kindergarten, the behavior improved, but only slightly. I wrote to my friends DCUM and everyone told me to get him evaluated. The school told me he was young and he would be fine. I didn't get him evaluated and did no outside interventions.

My son just completed first grade. His behavior in school was perfect. He was quiet, respectful, participated in class and excelled academically.

I am very happy my son is in the correct class and that the staff at his school were so sensible. He will be fine from now on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think do what's right for the family. I will say I have seen families who held their kid back and then were not pleased/grumbling about academic challenge. I think that is something you need to sincerely be careful about for your child's education. Consider what you expect the school to do and how you expect the teachers to challenge your child. It's not fair to hold your kid back and then get updset that they're not being sufficiently challenged for their academic ability when they are developmentally 15-20 months ahead if kids in their grade.

+1