"Red-Shirting" of kids

[Anonymous]

Curious-is the cutoff Sept 1 in some counties? I am in Fairfax country and the cutoff is Oct 1-We are late September and I kind of laugh that I am being considered "holding back" because of one day!!! Sorry if I have a choice I don't want my little guy to be the youngest in his class and graduate hs at 17 and enter college at 17--I am not worried about saving money on daycare either-this is what is right for us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Frankly, I don't care what the literature says. Redshirting worked for my kid and my family. Perhaps you should just worry about your own instead of the choices other families make for what's right for their child.

It becomes MY problem when your humongous 6 1/2 year old who is a full year+ older than my kid comes into K and is so freakin' bored with the curriculum that they act up and pull every other kid down with them. Oh, not YOUR perfect kid. Trust me, I'm watching it happen this year in DS's K class where one 6.25 yo boy who is more mature and frankly way beyond the K curriculum has affected the teachers and the other students. How is this fair to the other children who started K when they were supposed to??

So, this is really all just about doing what's best for YOUR kid, huh?

Your logic just does not cut it. If the boy in your DS's class is 6.25 right now, that means that his birthday was in August. Are you REALLY trying to argue that this kid is so much farther ahead than another who might have been born less than 30 days later (say Sept 2) and is the "proper" age for the class??? I think you're full of it and just trying to make excuses for the fact that your DS is not quite as far along as some.

No one here is arguing that parents should be allowed to redshirt a kid born before, say, April/May... but for a summer birthday, particularly July or Aug, it really should be up to the parents and school to place the child in today's advanced K curriculum when he/she is developmentally ready.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree. Kindergarten should be for five year olds (unless your DCs birthday is after the September 1st cut off). And I think it's hysterical when people brag that their DC is in the highest reading group or is "so bright". Your child is SIX or SEVEN years old in Kindergarten--they're doing well because they're OLD, not necessarily because they are smart.

This.

To boot, enjoy having the 19 year old high school student under your roof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. Kindergarten should be for five year olds (unless your DCs birthday is after the September 1st cut off). And I think it's hysterical when people brag that their DC is in the highest reading group or is "so bright". Your child is SIX or SEVEN years old in Kindergarten--they're doing well because they're OLD, not necessarily because they are smart.

This.

To boot, enjoy having the 19 year old high school student under your roof.

My age appropriate daughter will turn 18 her first week of senior year and 19 her first week of college. Sounds perfect to me. Why would this be a problem? My daughter's birthday is Sept 2 so she is the oldest child in her class that wasn't held back (cut off is Sept 1) Do I have a problem with her classmate who is 3 months older than her (because he was held back) being in her class? No. What's the big deal about 3 months? I just don't see what the big deal is. IF you have the youngest child in the class (with, say a late Aug bday) your child is already a year younger than the oldest. This is unavoidable (unless YOU hold him back). IF your young child is also a boy, there may be a large developmental lag, noticible esp at K and in middle school. This is the nature of boys vs. girls development and the fact that there is a one year spread. The difference of 3 extra months isn't going to make or break the success or failure of a child in this circumstance, but may highlight an existing issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree. Kindergarten should be for five year olds (unless your DCs birthday is after the September 1st cut off) .... Your child is SIX or SEVEN years old in Kindergarten--they're doing well because they're OLD, not necessarily because they are smart.

I think we've been here before. Who here can truthfully state that she there are any kids in your child's kindergarten class that already are seven years old on the first day of class (Sept 1)?

I seem to recall that when someone issued that challenge before, not one single person could raise her hand to report a seven-year-old kindergartner. BTW, if the statistics I read are correct, than about 6-9% of kindergartners nationwide are 6 years old on the first day of kindergarten.

[Anonymous]

There ARE some redshirted children that turn seven years old, during the course of the Kindergarten year. However, I haven't ready any post on this thread alleging that those children are seven years old on the FIRST day of class though--so clearly you just made that up.

But the PP raises an interesting point: If your redshirted child is older than the other Kindergartners, shouldn't they be at the top of the class due to developmental and intellectual advantages? And if for some reason your redshirted child is NOT at the top of the class, what's your excuse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Your logic just does not cut it. If the boy in your DS's class is 6.25 right now, that means that his birthday was in August. Are you REALLY trying to argue that this kid is so much farther ahead than another who might have been born less than 30 days later (say Sept 2) and is the "proper" age for the class??? I think you're full of it and just trying to make excuses for the fact that your DS is not quite as far along as some.

No one here is arguing that parents should be allowed to redshirt a kid born before, say, April/May... but for a summer birthday, particularly July or Aug, it really should be up to the parents and school to place the child in today's advanced K curriculum when he/she is developmentally ready.

This child is technically 6.33 pushing 6.4 so sue me. If I had said he was 6.5 you would have argued about that. He has an early July birthday when he turned 6 and he is a major behavior problem. He is reading on a 2nd grade level and the school tried to encourage the parents to move him up to 1st grade with no luck. So this goes against your argument that it should be up to the school to place the child because the school TRIED to place the child in 1st grade. He finishes his work so early and then starts in on the other kids (talking, prodding, encouraging them to engage in his behavior). Yes, the teacher can give him extra work but this goes back to my point about this child affecting the entire class including the teacher. So, she must work doubly hard to engage this child so he doesn't engage the other children in his obnoxious behavior. She has to spend so much time redirecting this child that it takes time away from the rest of the class and to me THIS IS NOT FAIR.

As for my child, he is 100% where he is supposed to be at age 5 -- restless in his seat, but 100% ready for the curriculum of kindergarten.

And as for the other posters, I am not AGAINST redshirting of kids on the cut-off WITH REASON, but I can't understand for the life of me redshirting a kid with a July birthday because he's a boy, the same kid who is reading on a 2nd grade level the following year. Am I to believe he was not READY for kindergarten the previous year?? I'm calling BS on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There ARE some redshirted children that turn seven years old, during the course of the Kindergarten year. However, I haven't ready any post on this thread alleging that those children are seven years old on the FIRST day of class though--so clearly you just made that up.

I'm not making it up. I think that's the clear implication of PP's post that I quoted. I quote it again below for your benefit. She correctly noted that most K kids are 5 at the start of the year, and turn 6 sometime during the year. So her sentence about SIX and SEVEN year old kids doing well is clearly not aimed at the "normal" kids who started at age 5. I read her sentence as referring to kids that might be SIX or SEVEN at the beginning of the year. (And thanks for your accusation that I "made it up" -- that really serves to elevate the tone of this discussion.)

PP wrote:I agree. Kindergarten should be for five year olds (unless your DCs birthday is after the September 1st cut off) .... Your child is SIX or SEVEN years old in Kindergarten--they're doing well because they're OLD, not necessarily because they are smart.

And I'll even update the challenge -- can anyone here truthfully claim that there is a seven-year-old child sitting in your DC's class TODAY? So that would include children who were held back approximately 9 months beyond the cut-off. I'd be surprised is one single person here can make that claim (absent some really abnormal circumstance).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If your redshirted child is older than the other Kindergartners, shouldn't they be at the top of the class due to developmental and intellectual advantages? And if for some reason your redshirted child is NOT at the top of the class, what's your excuse?

What business is that of yours? Why would I care?

Calm down. Raise your kid and let someone else raise their's

[Anonymous]

Except that your older kids who should be in first grade is being disruptive to the kindergartners, both by bullying the younger, smaller kids and by distraction because they are bored.

So it is easy to tell others to butt out, but your first grader is a disruptive force because they are sitting in a kindergarten class.

And to 12:40, yes there are 7 year olds sitting in kindergarten class right now.

[Anonymous]

You have a grammatical error in your sentence--should read "theirs" and not "their's". Were you redshirted as a child too?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your redshirted child is older than the other Kindergartners, shouldn't they be at the top of the class due to developmental and intellectual advantages? And if for some reason your redshirted child is NOT at the top of the class, what's your excuse?

What business is that of yours? Why would I care?

Calm down. Raise your kid and let someone else raise their's

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And to 12:40, yes there are 7 year olds sitting in kindergarten class right now.

Are you saying there are 7-year-olds sitting in your child's kindergarten class right now? What school? Or are you making some vague general claim that you believe there are seven year olds in other kindergartens out there somewhere?

[Anonymous]

Wow...somebody must have really pushed your buttons. Calm down there, Grandma...it's time to get back on your medication. LOL!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There ARE some redshirted children that turn seven years old, during the course of the Kindergarten year. However, I haven't ready any post on this thread alleging that those children are seven years old on the FIRST day of class though--so clearly you just made that up.

I'm not making it up. I think that's the clear implication of PP's post that I quoted. I quote it again below for your benefit. She correctly noted that most K kids are 5 at the start of the year, and turn 6 sometime during the year. So her sentence about SIX and SEVEN year old kids doing well is clearly not aimed at the "normal" kids who started at age 5. I read her sentence as referring to kids that might be SIX or SEVEN at the beginning of the year. (And thanks for your accusation that I "made it up" -- that really serves to elevate the tone of this discussion.)

PP wrote:I agree. Kindergarten should be for five year olds (unless your DCs birthday is after the September 1st cut off) .... Your child is SIX or SEVEN years old in Kindergarten--they're doing well because they're OLD, not necessarily because they are smart.

And I'll even update the challenge -- can anyone here truthfully claim that there is a seven-year-old child sitting in your DC's class TODAY? So that would include children who were held back approximately 9 months beyond the cut-off. I'd be surprised is one single person here can make that claim (absent some really abnormal circumstance).

[Anonymous]

kindergarten should be for 5 year-olds and first year college for 17 year olds and first year medical school for 21 year olds and first year graduate schools for 212 year olds..... what a dum statement by another dcummie!!!

Death for 77.5 year olds, too!!

[Anonymous]

You're right on one front--Kindergarten should be for five year olds...

Anonymous wrote:kindergarten should be for 5 year-olds and first year college for 17 year olds and first year medical school for 21 year olds and first year graduate schools for 212 year olds..... what a dum statement by another dcummie!!!

Death for 77.5 year olds, too!!