Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading these threads, I really wonder whether it's the kids who are not "ready" to start school or whether it's that the parents aren't ready to send the kids. Some of the examples given as reasons for redshirting are ridiculous - sports, camp, dealing with mean girls, worries about whether 10 years down the road she'll be able to handle high school boys. If you think being the youngest is going to be a challenge for your kid - so what? That's not necessarily a bad thing. Why not help your kid rise to the occasion by giving them skills to handle different kinds of environments?

And guess what? Your kids will be just fine even if they're the last ones in their friend group to get their driver's license, or they start high school at age 14, or they don't turn 18 until just before starting college.

DP. I sent my September birthday DS on time, as did several of my friends. Others held their August/September birthday DCs back a year.

All of the on-time kids struggled, including mine, for years. All of the held-back kids did not struggle, in K or 1st or 2nd.

You can laugh off kindergarten if you like. From firsthand experience, I now know that it's developmentally inappropriate.

I think this is a faulty conclusion based on what you've presented. What do you mean by "struggled?" That they had to work really hard? That things didn't come easy to them? Being challenged is not a bad thing in and of itself.

Not pp, but for me “struggled”=Lots of crying, meltdowns, behavior problems, getting in trouble with teacher/being disliked by teacher, not wanting to do schoolwork, “hating school,” no friendships. I mean, could it all strengthen his character in the long run? Maybe. But it isn’t just “having to work really hard” on an academic sense.

This was my experience with my immature 5 yo. She went from a perfectly happy kid in August to one giant melt down once K started. It's February and she's still "adjusting." She's also reading level J. The hard part isn't academics at all.

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of people consider redshirting because they themselves were top of their class academically, and want to ensure that their kids are also. They wouldn't be content if they're children were middle of the pack.

I have absolutely no data to back this up--this is just my suspicion given the demographic that tends to post here.

On another note, white boys from affluent families are most likely to be redshirted. There is some evidence that redshirting exacerbates the achievement gap--I'd suspected this, but first article I'm seeing that supports this possibility:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09645292.2018.1468873

I think this is an ungenerous assumption and not true for anyone I know. Affluent families are probably more likely to have kids diagnosed younger with ADHD, learning and speech disorders. I would guess this is a bigger factor. Plus they can pay for preschool so the choice exists for them.

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of people consider redshirting because they themselves were top of their class academically, and want to ensure that their kids are also. They wouldn't be content if they're children were middle of the pack.

I have absolutely no data to back this up--this is just my suspicion given the demographic that tends to post here.

On another note, white boys from affluent families are most likely to be redshirted. There is some evidence that redshirting exacerbates the achievement gap--I'd suspected this, but first article I'm seeing that supports this possibility:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09645292.2018.1468873

Whoops, excuse typos.

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of people consider redshirting because they themselves were top of their class academically, and want to ensure that their kids are also. They wouldn't be content if they're children were middle of the pack.

I have absolutely no data to back this up--this is just my suspicion given the demographic that tends to post here.

On another note, white boys from affluent families are most likely to be redshirted. There is some evidence that redshirting exacerbates the achievement gap--I'd suspected this, but first article I'm seeing that supports this possibility:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09645292.2018.1468873

I spoke too soon--there is some evidence that a sense of competition influences parents' decisions to redshirt their boys:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09540253.2017.1309009

I think a lot of people consider redshirting because they themselves were top of their class academically, and want to ensure that their kids are also. They wouldn't be content if they're children were middle of the pack.

I have absolutely no data to back this up--this is just my suspicion given the demographic that tends to post here.

On another note, white boys from affluent families are most likely to be redshirted. There is some evidence that redshirting exacerbates the achievement gap--I'd suspected this, but first article I'm seeing that supports this possibility:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09645292.2018.1468873

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading these threads, I really wonder whether it's the kids who are not "ready" to start school or whether it's that the parents aren't ready to send the kids. Some of the examples given as reasons for redshirting are ridiculous - sports, camp, dealing with mean girls, worries about whether 10 years down the road she'll be able to handle high school boys. If you think being the youngest is going to be a challenge for your kid - so what? That's not necessarily a bad thing. Why not help your kid rise to the occasion by giving them skills to handle different kinds of environments?

And guess what? Your kids will be just fine even if they're the last ones in their friend group to get their driver's license, or they start high school at age 14, or they don't turn 18 until just before starting college.

DP. I sent my September birthday DS on time, as did several of my friends. Others held their August/September birthday DCs back a year.

All of the on-time kids struggled, including mine, for years. All of the held-back kids did not struggle, in K or 1st or 2nd.

You can laugh off kindergarten if you like. From firsthand experience, I now know that it's developmentally inappropriate.

I think this is a faulty conclusion based on what you've presented. What do you mean by "struggled?" That they had to work really hard? That things didn't come easy to them? Being challenged is not a bad thing in and of itself.

Not pp, but for me “struggled”=Lots of crying, meltdowns, behavior problems, getting in trouble with teacher/being disliked by teacher, not wanting to do schoolwork, “hating school,” no friendships. I mean, could it all strengthen his character in the long run? Maybe. But it isn’t just “having to work really hard” on an academic sense.

Anonymous wrote:I have not read all of this thread but I am a woman who was essentially red-shirted. I missed the school cutoff by a few days. Where I grew up, most parents with kids in my position sent their kid to private school for one year, and then switched them back to public so they could start "on time." My parents did not. I was always on the old range for my classes, and when I grew up and went to an elite college (actually elite, HYPS) I was significantly older than many of my classmates who were "advanced" for their ages. I'm a full 18 months older than some of my college classmates. I wish now that my parents had started me on time. In the grand scheme of things it's not a huge deal, but just adding that to this convo if it hasn't been said already.

How old were you when you graduated HS?

At my top 10 college we had a wide range of ages -- people who skipped 1-2 years of school, people who took a gap year. Different states had different cut-off months. It didn't seem like a big deal at all and I was one of the youngest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading these threads, I really wonder whether it's the kids who are not "ready" to start school or whether it's that the parents aren't ready to send the kids. Some of the examples given as reasons for redshirting are ridiculous - sports, camp, dealing with mean girls, worries about whether 10 years down the road she'll be able to handle high school boys. If you think being the youngest is going to be a challenge for your kid - so what? That's not necessarily a bad thing. Why not help your kid rise to the occasion by giving them skills to handle different kinds of environments?

And guess what? Your kids will be just fine even if they're the last ones in their friend group to get their driver's license, or they start high school at age 14, or they don't turn 18 until just before starting college.

DP. I sent my September birthday DS on time, as did several of my friends. Others held their August/September birthday DCs back a year.

All of the on-time kids struggled, including mine, for years. All of the held-back kids did not struggle, in K or 1st or 2nd.

You can laugh off kindergarten if you like. From firsthand experience, I now know that it's developmentally inappropriate.

I think this is a faulty conclusion based on what you've presented. What do you mean by "struggled?" That they had to work really hard? That things didn't come easy to them? Being challenged is not a bad thing in and of itself.

My DD is super old for her year (not due to redshirting; early Oct birthday) in a class with no redshirters. I hate it. She is very obviously more verbal and better socialized than her peers. She is several inches taller than most of the class. Some of this is genetics (she is tall for her age and verbal for her age), but obviously it is exacerbated by being the oldest in the class; the better socialized I think is only a function of age — she is about the same as all of her little friends with birthdays within a month or two of her. The teachers basically use her to model good behavior. I assume this will get less important as she gets older, but I 100% would have started her early if I could have. I think being younger makes you try and being older gives you a bad attitude because you are so much better at everything than everyone else. At least that’s my purely anecdotal experience.

I started my 5 yr old on time who is the youngest in class with an early September birthday.

At the Oct. parent-teacher conference the teacher said: Well, DC has achieved all of the K milestones so good job! any questions for me? the entire meeting lasted about 4minutes.

6 months later, all is well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading these threads, I really wonder whether it's the kids who are not "ready" to start school or whether it's that the parents aren't ready to send the kids. Some of the examples given as reasons for redshirting are ridiculous - sports, camp, dealing with mean girls, worries about whether 10 years down the road she'll be able to handle high school boys. If you think being the youngest is going to be a challenge for your kid - so what? That's not necessarily a bad thing. Why not help your kid rise to the occasion by giving them skills to handle different kinds of environments?

And guess what? Your kids will be just fine even if they're the last ones in their friend group to get their driver's license, or they start high school at age 14, or they don't turn 18 until just before starting college.

DP. I sent my September birthday DS on time, as did several of my friends. Others held their August/September birthday DCs back a year.

All of the on-time kids struggled, including mine, for years. All of the held-back kids did not struggle, in K or 1st or 2nd.

You can laugh off kindergarten if you like. From firsthand experience, I now know that it's developmentally inappropriate.

It's developmentally inappropriate to send your kid to school on time??

The way they do kindergarten now, yes.

+100000

I have not read all of this thread but I am a woman who was essentially red-shirted. I missed the school cutoff by a few days. Where I grew up, most parents with kids in my position sent their kid to private school for one year, and then switched them back to public so they could start "on time." My parents did not. I was always on the old range for my classes, and when I grew up and went to an elite college (actually elite, HYPS) I was significantly older than many of my classmates who were "advanced" for their ages. I'm a full 18 months older than some of my college classmates. I wish now that my parents had started me on time. In the grand scheme of things it's not a huge deal, but just adding that to this convo if it hasn't been said already.

Younger kids having more grit is an interesting point I’ve seen discussed elsewhere

I'm interested in this topic, so I am conducting my own anecdotal study on my own children In general, absent extenuating circumstances, I believe in sending my kids to school on time however they fall within the cutoff. My oldest has a summer bday and my younger two have winter bdays.

My school aged kids attend FCPS. In general I believe in play based preschool and I don't go out of my way to teach my kids to read before K.

My oldest started K on time. He didn't know how to read before K. In grades K-2 he was never in the highest reading group, and never had "above" on his report card in grades 1-2 for reading level when that started in 1st grade. The NNAT and Cogat are age normed, and he happened to do really well on the Cogat (no prep) and he tested in to the pool for AAP, and was admitted on the first round. He received an 11 GBRS - and I do think the lower GBRS was possibly due to him being younger / less mature. He was also never flagged for Level II AAP in grades 1-2. Now he's in 4th grade at the AAP center, and since starting there in 3rd grade, his report card says "above" for reading level. I really don't know everyone's birthdays but I seem to encounter more summer bday boys at the Center than at our base school in his grade, so my initial read is that there may be fewer redshirted kids in his AAP cohort at the center. This kid has a lot of grit, and I do kind of chalk that up to him being young for his grade and having to keep up with the older kids.

Now my middle kid is in 1st grade (winter bday). He taught himself to read CVC words on his own before K. In K, and now in 1st grade - he's in the highest reading group and his report card in first grade flags him for Level II AAP. Now, he hasn't taken the Cogat yet, but he did do worse on the NNAT that DC1. I think a lot of things come easily to him, and I see him get frustrated on the rare occasions something does not come as easily to him. I think he may not test in or get into AAP, which is fine, but I also do think he would likely have a higher GBRS than DC1.

DC3 is in preschool.

ANYWAY those are just my random comments. They'll probably all have similar educational outcomes coming from the same family - but I just think all of this is interesting and it's maybe not what I would have predicted. Well, I suppose I am still surprised at how poorly DC2 did on the NNAT and probably also at how well DC1 did on COGAT but DC1 is really thriving academically at the Center so maybe I should stop being surprised.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading these threads, I really wonder whether it's the kids who are not "ready" to start school or whether it's that the parents aren't ready to send the kids. Some of the examples given as reasons for redshirting are ridiculous - sports, camp, dealing with mean girls, worries about whether 10 years down the road she'll be able to handle high school boys. If you think being the youngest is going to be a challenge for your kid - so what? That's not necessarily a bad thing. Why not help your kid rise to the occasion by giving them skills to handle different kinds of environments?

And guess what? Your kids will be just fine even if they're the last ones in their friend group to get their driver's license, or they start high school at age 14, or they don't turn 18 until just before starting college.

The thinking probably is why not give the advantage if given the choice. Life is hard enough.

How is it an advantage? Life is hard so you need to prepare your kids for life challenges. Its funny the same parents who scream about others being involved parents are so hands off that they do't realize their kids are not prepared till school time and then instead of working with them, simply hold them back.

So then why do you care so much? Makes no sense.