Anonymous wrote:What I don't understand is that when you have a 2nd or 3rd child, you can clearly see the advantage they have intellectually and socially from trying to emulate their older sibling, so why do people consider it an advantage to be the oldest? I think I can answer my own question. Parents want their kids to be successful, and if you are older than you can at least guarantee your kids are more than developmentally ready to learn what's required in school. It's like parents what to eliminate any chance of failing, no matter how small the failure, but it is struggling through these youthful challenges that build the character and the resilience to actually become successful in life.

I agree.

What I don't understand is that when you have a 2nd or 3rd child, you can clearly see the advantage they have intellectually and socially from trying to emulate their older sibling, so why do people consider it an advantage to be the oldest? I think I can answer my own question. Parents want their kids to be successful, and if you are older than you can at least guarantee your kids are more than developmentally ready to learn what's required in school. It's like parents what to eliminate any chance of failing, no matter how small the failure, but it is struggling through these youthful challenges that build the character and the resilience to actually become successful in life.

The thing is, there are diagnostic tests that kids can take to determine whether they are ready.Some affluent districts in CA use them. This isn't something that needs to be left to the biased, ill informed judgment of parents.

Anonymous wrote:Because there are some children with a genuine need. Usually due to some kind of physical or intellectual disability or delay, for whom the extra year of maturity and preparation makes an enormous difference in their ability to work in/closer to the "typical" range, and thus to be more successful in school. Of course, though, there will always be people who look to take advantage of such leniency just to get a perceived edge over other students.

I'm a special ed teacher, and not the OP, and research has clearly demonstrated that kids with intellectual disabilities in particular, need to be in school on time, as they benefit from the intensity of a full day of school during those early formative years. In addition, Federal law guarantees children with significant disabilities the right to public education until 21, so when parents redshirt kids with ID, they are denying them a year of post high school education which is when crucial vocational skills are developed.

Most school districts address this by essentially disallowing redshirting for kids with ID by refusing to provide services, or limiting services during that year, which means that almost all kids with ID go to Kindergarten on time. When parents of kids with average or above average cognitive skills redshirt, it can place kids with significant disabilities in the position of being both significantly younger than some of their peers plus the disadvantages that come with their disability.

I can see pros and cons of redshirting from the point of view of kids without ID, I'm not saying the decision to allow or disallow redshirting should be made solely because of the needs of kids with Intellectual Disability, but I will say that allowing redshirting is not in the best interest of kids with ID.

Anonymous wrote:You know why parents do it - to skew things to their kid's advantage. School systems allow it based on the precedent that, in very rare cases especially special needs, it is needed.

Exactly. And there should be documented proof that it's needed (in cases of serious special needs - not because it would marginally benefit the child).

Anonymous wrote:
Aren't you lucky, OP,
Not having to deal with a child with special needs?

Most special needs are invisible to the casual observer like you. Some children desperately need time to further develop their skillset, instead of falling behind and costing the taxpayer - YOU ! - tons in academic support and interventions.

But it's not enough. You must needs go on DCUM and start a thread about it.
I'm not disputing that some children are redshirted for no good reason.
But your question was why it was allowed AT ALL.
That is a genuinely ignorant and insensitive question.

Give me a break. I think you know what I mean. - OP

Basic childhood development. Kids progress unevenly. Some kids are more uneven than others, and would benefit from another year before entering school.

But why should there be a hard and fast rule? If I were in charge, I'd have a general cut-off, but kids within, say, 4 weeks of the cut-off in either direction could choose to go ahead or stay back.

My child's birthday is 4 days before the cut-off and she was much too socially immature to handle being the youngest. I have a friend whose child's birthday is 3 days after the cut-off and he was socially and academically advanced and should have started a year before he did. Neither child was well served by a hard and fast cut-off.

Aren't you lucky, OP,
Not having to deal with a child with special needs?

Most special needs are invisible to the casual observer like you. Some children desperately need time to further develop their skillset, instead of falling behind and costing the taxpayer - YOU ! - tons in academic support and interventions.

But it's not enough. You must needs go on DCUM and start a thread about it.
I'm not disputing that some children are redshirted for no good reason.
But your question was why it was allowed AT ALL.
That is a genuinely ignorant and insensitive question.

It gets hard socially to put a child in a grade on time when the rest of the parents aren't doing so. At our child's school at least 1/4 of the boys are redshirted, another fourth have late fall birthdays another fourth have winter birthdays, leaving only one fourth of the boys having birthdays between March and September.

You know why parents do it - to skew things to their kid's advantage. School systems allow it based on the precedent that, in very rare cases especially special needs, it is needed.

Anonymous wrote:I'd rather have an older child who can pay attention and not pull an unequal amount of attention away from the other child, than one that is too immature to sit through a full day of k and causes tons of disruptions.

The parents who choose to do it for reasons other than maturity level are ridiculous and I agree with you on that front.

It seems to me there are way more of the latter than the former and some kind of genuine reason should be required.

I'd rather have an older child who can pay attention and not pull an unequal amount of attention away from the other child, than one that is too immature to sit through a full day of k and causes tons of disruptions.

The parents who choose to do it for reasons other than maturity level are ridiculous and I agree with you on that front.

Because there are some children with a genuine need. Usually due to some kind of physical or intellectual disability or delay, for whom the extra year of maturity and preparation makes an enormous difference in their ability to work in/closer to the "typical" range, and thus to be more successful in school. Of course, though, there will always be people who look to take advantage of such leniency just to get a perceived edge over other students.

Let me start by saying I have no dog in this fight – I have two kids with April and November birthdays. I just genuinely don't get this redshirting fad (yes, it seems like a fad to me). Why aren't the rules the rules? Why isn't the deadline hard and fast? Someone will be the oldest and youngest - my older kid is the smallest, though not the youngest, in his class - do what? The teachers know how to deal with it, and it's part of school life. I really don't see why this is even allowed.