Anonymous wrote:My nephew is currently an 18 year old junior (November birthday). He will graduate at 19 1/2. My SIL is having issues with him, and we mentioned this would be an issue when she decided to redshirt him. They live in Florida, so rules must be different. He was very shy, but still bright as a young child.

My son is also a junior, but is 13 months younger. He has mentioned that D (nephew) is embarrassed, and D prefaces conversations about graduation/grade level with, "I should be a senior, but...".

It's difficult for him, and SIL came to the realization and corrected it with her younger son.

I'm not anti redshirting for summer birthdays, but beyond that for NT kids? Yes, there should be a limit.

Anonymous wrote:Best countries don't even begin to teach reading until 7. Holding back preschoolers is a GOOD practice under today's high pressure environment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-redshirting parents project their own competiveness and obsession with gaining every advantage for their kids only redshirting parents. They view what is an individualized decision taken for the good of the child as some kind of threat to their own child. They see everything through the lens of competition.

Dafuq? How are those saying all kids should go on time an "obsession with gaining every advantage for their kids?" Everyone following the rules is the essence of equal footing.

See? You're doing it again. You're seeing Kindergarten as a sports arena where everyone competes and should have "equal footing." But anyway, thanks for proving my point that you're obsessed with competitiveness in K.

Actually, no. I'm not making it a competition. I mean that it is best for all to be on equal footing, i.e., the children are developmentally all prepared for the curriculum being delivered.

Again, competition minded. Kids are always going to be developmentally in different places, and on the margins, it may be better for some to have an extra year. What you really want is for the kids who struggle to be in your kids class, so your kid seems better. That's nice.

Mine is the youngest and does better when he struggles/is challenged as it makes him work harder to keep up (and he does).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people I take issue with are those who redshirt in order to give their kid the "advantage" of being the oldest/biggest/most mature/etc kid in class. Those are the people in a race to the bottom, in my opinion.

That's different from the argument that all kids should start K at, say, 6, instead of 5. Assuming you're working within an annual grade framework, you're still always going to have an oldest kid and a youngest kid in class, and all of the challenges associated with having kids nearly a full year apart operating under the same curriculum. But at least you could argue here that even the youngest kid was "ready" to start K at the start of the school year.

One is wanting to redshirt because you want your kid to rule over all of the others; the other is in favor of redshirting everyone for the sake of community.

What is your issue with the first family? They want their kid to be the most mature in the class. So? What does it have to do with you or your kid?

My issue is that it's an arms race that ultimately widens the developmental range within the classroom. I'm not arguing that there's no benefit to being the most mature in the class, but you realize that when everyone skirts the "rules" (recognizing that it sounds like most of the schools in question are soft on the rules) you're just left with a bunch of older kids -- only one of whom will still be the "most" mature in class -- and a bunch of kids who are much much younger. The system starts to break down. Certainly other factors influence the classroom dynamics, including teaching styles, curriculum, and different family values (some prioritizing sports prowess, or wanting school to be a platform for excellence rather than a place where one can learn about failure and resilience, and excellence), but I strongly believe that redshirting contributes to an environment that I think is ultimately destructive to the community.

I'm the PP from several pages ago with a kid in the NYC public school system, where red shirting is not an option. I will not hold the NYC public school system up as the gold standard, but I will defend its prohibition on red shirting. FWIW, DD has a November birthday; grade cutoffs are Dec 31, so she's certainly among the youngest in her class. But there are kids ranging from Jan 1 to Dec 31 in her grade.

Once again: people redshirt TO EVEN THE DEVELOPMENTAL LEVEL. they redshirt BECAUSE their kid is delayed in some way. Stop your hyperventilating.

Most of these kids are not delayed in the real delay sense. Parents make up non-sense like they aren't mature or not ready. If they are not ready, parents failed to work with them at home and choose a crappy preschool that didn't prepare them. No child is mature at age 5 nor should be. If they are that mature, something is also terribly wrong. And, if they are that delayed that they need to be held back, kids should be evaluated and in services. Parents do it for their own needs - its easier on them and the teachers. Older kids can do homework and schoolwork on their own. Learning will come easier as they aren't as challenged as they should be, etc. Except if you are working multiple jobs/low income or another good reason there is no excuse for kids of middle and upper middle/upper class families to come in not knowing basic reading, math and writing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people I take issue with are those who redshirt in order to give their kid the "advantage" of being the oldest/biggest/most mature/etc kid in class. Those are the people in a race to the bottom, in my opinion.

That's different from the argument that all kids should start K at, say, 6, instead of 5. Assuming you're working within an annual grade framework, you're still always going to have an oldest kid and a youngest kid in class, and all of the challenges associated with having kids nearly a full year apart operating under the same curriculum. But at least you could argue here that even the youngest kid was "ready" to start K at the start of the school year.

One is wanting to redshirt because you want your kid to rule over all of the others; the other is in favor of redshirting everyone for the sake of community.

What is your issue with the first family? They want their kid to be the most mature in the class. So? What does it have to do with you or your kid?

My issue is that it's an arms race that ultimately widens the developmental range within the classroom. I'm not arguing that there's no benefit to being the most mature in the class, but you realize that when everyone skirts the "rules" (recognizing that it sounds like most of the schools in question are soft on the rules) you're just left with a bunch of older kids -- only one of whom will still be the "most" mature in class -- and a bunch of kids who are much much younger. The system starts to break down. Certainly other factors influence the classroom dynamics, including teaching styles, curriculum, and different family values (some prioritizing sports prowess, or wanting school to be a platform for excellence rather than a place where one can learn about failure and resilience, and excellence), but I strongly believe that redshirting contributes to an environment that I think is ultimately destructive to the community.

I'm the PP from several pages ago with a kid in the NYC public school system, where red shirting is not an option. I will not hold the NYC public school system up as the gold standard, but I will defend its prohibition on red shirting. FWIW, DD has a November birthday; grade cutoffs are Dec 31, so she's certainly among the youngest in her class. But there are kids ranging from Jan 1 to Dec 31 in her grade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-redshirting parents project their own competiveness and obsession with gaining every advantage for their kids only redshirting parents. They view what is an individualized decision taken for the good of the child as some kind of threat to their own child. They see everything through the lens of competition.

Dafuq? How are those saying all kids should go on time an "obsession with gaining every advantage for their kids?" Everyone following the rules is the essence of equal footing.

See? You're doing it again. You're seeing Kindergarten as a sports arena where everyone competes and should have "equal footing." But anyway, thanks for proving my point that you're obsessed with competitiveness in K.

Actually, no. I'm not making it a competition. I mean that it is best for all to be on equal footing, i.e., the children are developmentally all prepared for the curriculum being delivered.

Again, competition minded. Kids are always going to be developmentally in different places, and on the margins, it may be better for some to have an extra year. What you really want is for the kids who struggle to be in your kids class, so your kid seems better. That's nice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people I take issue with are those who redshirt in order to give their kid the "advantage" of being the oldest/biggest/most mature/etc kid in class. Those are the people in a race to the bottom, in my opinion.

That's different from the argument that all kids should start K at, say, 6, instead of 5. Assuming you're working within an annual grade framework, you're still always going to have an oldest kid and a youngest kid in class, and all of the challenges associated with having kids nearly a full year apart operating under the same curriculum. But at least you could argue here that even the youngest kid was "ready" to start K at the start of the school year.

One is wanting to redshirt because you want your kid to rule over all of the others; the other is in favor of redshirting everyone for the sake of community.

What is your issue with the first family? They want their kid to be the most mature in the class. So? What does it have to do with you or your kid?

My issue is that it's an arms race that ultimately widens the developmental range within the classroom. I'm not arguing that there's no benefit to being the most mature in the class, but you realize that when everyone skirts the "rules" (recognizing that it sounds like most of the schools in question are soft on the rules) you're just left with a bunch of older kids -- only one of whom will still be the "most" mature in class -- and a bunch of kids who are much much younger. The system starts to break down. Certainly other factors influence the classroom dynamics, including teaching styles, curriculum, and different family values (some prioritizing sports prowess, or wanting school to be a platform for excellence rather than a place where one can learn about failure and resilience, and excellence), but I strongly believe that redshirting contributes to an environment that I think is ultimately destructive to the community.

I'm the PP from several pages ago with a kid in the NYC public school system, where red shirting is not an option. I will not hold the NYC public school system up as the gold standard, but I will defend its prohibition on red shirting. FWIW, DD has a November birthday; grade cutoffs are Dec 31, so she's certainly among the youngest in her class. But there are kids ranging from Jan 1 to Dec 31 in her grade.

Once again: people redshirt TO EVEN THE DEVELOPMENTAL LEVEL. they redshirt BECAUSE their kid is delayed in some way. Stop your hyperventilating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people I take issue with are those who redshirt in order to give their kid the "advantage" of being the oldest/biggest/most mature/etc kid in class. Those are the people in a race to the bottom, in my opinion.

That's different from the argument that all kids should start K at, say, 6, instead of 5. Assuming you're working within an annual grade framework, you're still always going to have an oldest kid and a youngest kid in class, and all of the challenges associated with having kids nearly a full year apart operating under the same curriculum. But at least you could argue here that even the youngest kid was "ready" to start K at the start of the school year.

One is wanting to redshirt because you want your kid to rule over all of the others; the other is in favor of redshirting everyone for the sake of community.

There are very, very few people who do that. People redshirt because their child is developmentally delayed; lags in social skills; and their teachers or therapists recommend it. Kids repeat K because they're behind on reading and need an extra year. The idea that there's some kind of rampaging sector redshirting in public schools to give their child a leg up is a myth, and it belies that the anti-redshirters are the ones obsessed with the relative status of their own child.

Not a myth! I am living this now. There are almost 7 yo in my DS K class reading at 3rd grade level. Surely they were not held back for any kind of delay. My summer birthday child is at the bottom of the class despite being bright. He has to work extra hard to keep up with kids almost 2 years older, how is this fair?

They are almost 7, but your child is almost 6. So he is one year younger, not two. If he’s behind, and he has a summer birthday, then you should push to have him repeat kindergarten. Frankly, I think this is more beneficial to kids than three years of preschool anyway.

The anti-redshirt posters can't do basic math. You have to do it for them.

how many times are you going to say the same thing? Good Lord. We get it, you're proud of your 10 year old first grader. Stand down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people I take issue with are those who redshirt in order to give their kid the "advantage" of being the oldest/biggest/most mature/etc kid in class. Those are the people in a race to the bottom, in my opinion.

That's different from the argument that all kids should start K at, say, 6, instead of 5. Assuming you're working within an annual grade framework, you're still always going to have an oldest kid and a youngest kid in class, and all of the challenges associated with having kids nearly a full year apart operating under the same curriculum. But at least you could argue here that even the youngest kid was "ready" to start K at the start of the school year.

One is wanting to redshirt because you want your kid to rule over all of the others; the other is in favor of redshirting everyone for the sake of community.

There are very, very few people who do that. People redshirt because their child is developmentally delayed; lags in social skills; and their teachers or therapists recommend it. Kids repeat K because they're behind on reading and need an extra year. The idea that there's some kind of rampaging sector redshirting in public schools to give their child a leg up is a myth, and it belies that the anti-redshirters are the ones obsessed with the relative status of their own child.

Not a myth! I am living this now. There are almost 7 yo in my DS K class reading at 3rd grade level. Surely they were not held back for any kind of delay. My summer birthday child is at the bottom of the class despite being bright. He has to work extra hard to keep up with kids almost 2 years older, how is this fair?

They are almost 7, but your child is almost 6. So he is one year younger, not two. If he’s behind, and he has a summer birthday, then you should push to have him repeat kindergarten. Frankly, I think this is more beneficial to kids than three years of preschool anyway.

The anti-redshirt posters can't do basic math. You have to do it for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people I take issue with are those who redshirt in order to give their kid the "advantage" of being the oldest/biggest/most mature/etc kid in class. Those are the people in a race to the bottom, in my opinion.

That's different from the argument that all kids should start K at, say, 6, instead of 5. Assuming you're working within an annual grade framework, you're still always going to have an oldest kid and a youngest kid in class, and all of the challenges associated with having kids nearly a full year apart operating under the same curriculum. But at least you could argue here that even the youngest kid was "ready" to start K at the start of the school year.

One is wanting to redshirt because you want your kid to rule over all of the others; the other is in favor of redshirting everyone for the sake of community.

There are very, very few people who do that. People redshirt because their child is developmentally delayed; lags in social skills; and their teachers or therapists recommend it. Kids repeat K because they're behind on reading and need an extra year. The idea that there's some kind of rampaging sector redshirting in public schools to give their child a leg up is a myth, and it belies that the anti-redshirters are the ones obsessed with the relative status of their own child.

Not a myth! I am living this now. There are almost 7 yo in my DS K class reading at 3rd grade level. Surely they were not held back for any kind of delay. My summer birthday child is at the bottom of the class despite being bright. He has to work extra hard to keep up with kids almost 2 years older, how is this fair?

They are almost 7, but your child is almost 6. So he is one year younger, not two. If he’s behind, and he has a summer birthday, then you should push to have him repeat kindergarten. Frankly, I think this is more beneficial to kids than three years of preschool anyway.

The anti-redshirt posters can't do basic math. You have to do it for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s interesting to me is I live in “flyover” now. No one redshirts. Your kid goes to school at age. Ther is no “rowdiness”, any more then there is a rigorous preschool curriculum and education. So anyone saying it’s not competitive (save for certain circumstances) to redshirt is talking our of their behind.

They mean it’s only not competitive when they hold back their kids for a leg up. If someone else wants them to have equal footing they are being competitive

Where do you live? I have lived in Omaha, Cincinnati, St Louis, and Cleveland. There is plenty of redshirting. And there are plenty of rigorous preschool curriculums.
These things are more about being at a certain income level than about living in a particular location.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people I take issue with are those who redshirt in order to give their kid the "advantage" of being the oldest/biggest/most mature/etc kid in class. Those are the people in a race to the bottom, in my opinion.

That's different from the argument that all kids should start K at, say, 6, instead of 5. Assuming you're working within an annual grade framework, you're still always going to have an oldest kid and a youngest kid in class, and all of the challenges associated with having kids nearly a full year apart operating under the same curriculum. But at least you could argue here that even the youngest kid was "ready" to start K at the start of the school year.

One is wanting to redshirt because you want your kid to rule over all of the others; the other is in favor of redshirting everyone for the sake of community.

There are very, very few people who do that. People redshirt because their child is developmentally delayed; lags in social skills; and their teachers or therapists recommend it. Kids repeat K because they're behind on reading and need an extra year. The idea that there's some kind of rampaging sector redshirting in public schools to give their child a leg up is a myth, and it belies that the anti-redshirters are the ones obsessed with the relative status of their own child.

Not a myth! I am living this now. There are almost 7 yo in my DS K class reading at 3rd grade level. Surely they were not held back for any kind of delay. My summer birthday child is at the bottom of the class despite being bright. He has to work extra hard to keep up with kids almost 2 years older, how is this fair?

They are almost 7, but your child is almost 6. So he is one year younger, not two. If he’s behind, and he has a summer birthday, then you should push to have him repeat kindergarten. Frankly, I think this is more beneficial to kids than three years of preschool anyway.