Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if some of the angst of the anti redshirters is economic. Academic redshirting is done by those who can afford it if they see the need. People who can't afford another year of childcare may feel bitter about this.

I can't speak for all anti-redshirters, but for me, the issue has nothing to do with economics. I can afford to keep my September DD home for another year, but I'm not going to. My issue with parents who redshirt is that it seems to be the latest example of how our society is more concerned about making things easier for kids to excel than it is with equipping them with the skills needed to work hard and deal with set backs. Instead of manipulating situations to make them easier for our kids to handle, why aren't we allowing them to be in situations where they may struggle a bit so that they can build confidence, resiliency, and grit?

+1 ITA.. these are lawnmower parents.

My kids, my DH and I are ALL summer babies, and we ALL started school on time, so right at the cutoff.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a November birthday (so not redshirted) who struggled with the expectations in first grade that I should be reading. I was about 7 when I learned to read. I can't believe that people are saying that 4 year olds should be reading. OMG it makes me stressed out for these kids.

+1 these poor kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Redshirting perpetuates the society-backed artificial dominance of men over women, by getting it started early on in a classroom full of 6 year old boys and 5 year old girls, who are academically mostly equals. It is unacceptable.

Um, aren't girls killing it academically over boys now? Not sure your point?

Interesting theory tho. There are articles about girls (not) speaking up in class as much in later grades.

Girls do better in school than boys by nearly every measure. It's harder to get into college as a girl because girls have higher scores, higher grades, and apply to college in greater numbers.

I'm just thinking about this today for the first time in these past few days, but I'll posit that it's not grades that is hurting women in the workplace, but maybe it's these speaking in school measures that start at an early age.

Just a random quick sampling:

Why Girls Beat Boys at School and Lose to Them at the Office:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/opinion/sunday/girls-school-confidence.html?fbclid=IwAR15FMeVbXTrse30s9cDZ2ot2UNRG2nnwhRIheiEzMI-nI8Ic1D2JAjZFRE

Boys Speak Up, Girls Silenced in the Classroom:
https://www.newswise.com/articles/boys-speak-up-girls-silenced-in-the-classroom

GIRLS’ VOICES ARE NON-NEGOTIABLE
Here’s How to Keep Girls Raising Their Voices in a Confusing Culture
https://girlsleadership.org/resources/videos/raising-our-daughters-to-speak-up/

Interrupt the Gender Bias of Speaking
https://www.2civility.org/interrupt-gender-bias-speaking/

Speaking Up Gender Imbalance in the Classroom
http://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2018/10/speaking-up-gender-imbalance-in-the-classroom

Anonymous wrote:Redshirting perpetuates the society-backed artificial dominance of men over women, by getting it started early on in a classroom full of 6 year old boys and 5 year old girls, who are academically mostly equals. It is unacceptable.

I actually disagree. Girls perform so much better in school than boys.

Senior year the boys are noticeably older and not in a good way. Think failure to launch. If anything I think it perpetuates the underformace by men. As in, you’re not that bright so you need another year of school and girls do not.

I'm a November birthday (so not redshirted) who struggled with the expectations in first grade that I should be reading. I was about 7 when I learned to read. I can't believe that people are saying that 4 year olds should be reading. OMG it makes me stressed out for these kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

Why the rush?

I don't GAF if my kids are the oldest or youngest. I wanted them to wait for school until it was more age-appropriate. Sounds corny, but it really is the gift of time.

The only people who are comparing ages or worried about "the competition" are the hysterical anti-redshirters. MYOB, ignorant twits.

School is age appropriate. What is wrong with you to think its not? We wonder why the current generations of young people behave like they do and its because of parenting.

Guess you have little understanding of early childhood development.

http://neatoday.org/2015/06/19/the-reading-rush-what-educators-say-about-kindergarten-reading-expectations/

http://redtri.com/the-correct-age-for-starting-kindergarten-according-to-research/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/10/07/delaying-kindergarten-until-age-7-offers-key-benefits-to-kids-study/

“Many early childhood experts have expressed concern about forcing very young children to sit and do academic work, arguing that kids learn best through structured play.”

So, keep your kids home till it is developmentally appropriate. At what age is that - 8, 10, 12? It is appropriate to teach kids to sit and do academic work. My child did best with a structured preschool and play based was terrible. Experts are looking for money and attention. Its not what is best for all kids. You can find study after study as studies are geared to a specific outcome the researchers are looking for to prove their point. Its ironic that the same people who argue K. is not developmentally appropriate are also saying kids need to be independent and yelling at anything about other parents. The issue is that at age 4, kids should be starting basic reading and learning to function in a classroom instead of just playing all day. There needs to be a balance and if not parents and preschools failed them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Redshirting perpetuates the society-backed artificial dominance of men over women, by getting it started early on in a classroom full of 6 year old boys and 5 year old girls, who are academically mostly equals. It is unacceptable.

Um, aren't girls killing it academically over boys now? Not sure your point?

Interesting theory tho. There are articles about girls (not) speaking up in class as much in later grades.

Girls do better in school than boys by nearly every measure. It's harder to get into college as a girl because girls have higher scores, higher grades, and apply to college in greater numbers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Redshirting perpetuates the society-backed artificial dominance of men over women, by getting it started early on in a classroom full of 6 year old boys and 5 year old girls, who are academically mostly equals. It is unacceptable.

Plenty of people redshirt girls. Plus do tell how a September birthday boy is so dominant over an October birthday girl. Would love to hear it.

You are missing the forest.
The problem isn't a Sept. boy to an Oct. girl. At minimum, the problem is comparing a Sept. boy a year older to a Sept. girl a year younger.

+1.

Anonymous wrote:My kid is in 2nd grade and we recently got cogat scores. On eof the reasons I liked cogat was because it compares my kid to other 7 year olds. I realized recently that many of the kids in her class are nearly 9 years old. All school year I felt my kid was behind both academically and socially but there is a big difference between 7 and 9. Some of the 2nd grade girls even started menstration which I wasnt prepares for from a 7 year old but it turns out the girls are 9 it makes more sense.

Are they 9 or "nearly 9". I have trouble believing that there are multiple menstruating 9 year old girls in your kid's 2nd grade class.

Some 8 year old who will turn 9 in the future, more boys than girls, one or whom has precocious puberty? I could believe that.

If you're going to describe 8 year olds as 9 then your need to describe your kid as an 8 year old.