Anonymous wrote:Quite simply, if kids were not redshirted there would be a more even distribution of ages in each grade and those with summer birthdays would have a larger cohort. Instead, Redshirting just stacks the year with older kids which includes then includes kids more than a year older than their classmates.

In my experience kids become more competitive by end of third grade and certainly by fourth and are aware of who has been redshirted and who is youngest. I’m happy to see that in fact the youngest boys have not been picked on - but kids are much more irritated by their peers who were given a competitive leg up - this starts to come out when class divisions based on academics start to happen and kids start developing physically. The differences are more noticeable, especially br 5th grade, and kids are not stupid. Parents in affluent areas are competitive and it trickles (or rains down on) the kids. Even if you are not a competitive family, kids talk. But hey, life is not fair and competition exists. Might as well learn this now. We tell our kids we don’t control what other families do so just do your best.

Is this a public school thing? Maybe related to gifted/talented/whatever it's called? Because I went to private and the first time it occurred to me that some kids were older than me was when they turned 16 and got to drive before me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have no dog in this fight because my girls have spring birthdays and we never considered redshirting them and they'll generally fall in the middle of the pack one way or the other, but you are complaining that parents who choose to redshirt their child based on what's best for their child should be considering what impact their decision has on children they don't know? That seems crazy to me. How is a parent supposed to know what the make up of their child's class will be before they even start school? How should they know that there will be other children with late summer or early fall birthdays whose parents did not redshirt them and that those children will (purportedly) be negatively impacted by the redshirted child? I am neither pro nor anti redshirting, but I am pro doing what parents think is best for their child. To accuse them of being short-sighted because they should have considered the impact on the other students and families, who they don't yet know, is just rude.

It's not rude. It's acknowledging that decisions you make for personal reasons nonetheless may have an effect on the public. In fact, Kant's categorical imperative (basically: what if everybody did this?) explicitly addresses the ethics of this kind of decision-making. For example: what if everybody redshirted because they didn't want their children to be among the youngest in the class? Which is pretty obviously different from: what if everybody with a child with a serious illness redshirted their child?

I personally don't care - I was always the youngest by over a year, my older kid is among the oldest in a public school where redshirting is minimal, and my younger kid is the youngest by over a year. I'm just saying that there are actually well-known ethical implications.

Um, if everyone redshirted then kindergartners would just be a year older. So what's your well-known ethical implication here exactly?

I think everyone should redshirt. Let your kids be kids. But I know all parents can’t afford another year of preschool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have no dog in this fight because my girls have spring birthdays and we never considered redshirting them and they'll generally fall in the middle of the pack one way or the other, but you are complaining that parents who choose to redshirt their child based on what's best for their child should be considering what impact their decision has on children they don't know? That seems crazy to me. How is a parent supposed to know what the make up of their child's class will be before they even start school? How should they know that there will be other children with late summer or early fall birthdays whose parents did not redshirt them and that those children will (purportedly) be negatively impacted by the redshirted child? I am neither pro nor anti redshirting, but I am pro doing what parents think is best for their child. To accuse them of being short-sighted because they should have considered the impact on the other students and families, who they don't yet know, is just rude.

It's not rude. It's acknowledging that decisions you make for personal reasons nonetheless may have an effect on the public. In fact, Kant's categorical imperative (basically: what if everybody did this?) explicitly addresses the ethics of this kind of decision-making. For example: what if everybody redshirted because they didn't want their children to be among the youngest in the class? Which is pretty obviously different from: what if everybody with a child with a serious illness redshirted their child?

I personally don't care - I was always the youngest by over a year, my older kid is among the oldest in a public school where redshirting is minimal, and my younger kid is the youngest by over a year. I'm just saying that there are actually well-known ethical implications.

Um, if everyone redshirted then kindergartners would just be a year older. So what's your well-known ethical implication here exactly?

Well, if all kindergartners were a year older, then everybody would be starting at 6 instead of 5. So that's already something. But then, of course, somebody would still be the youngest, so then if everybody redshirted, then everybody would be starting at 7 instead of 6...

You don't have to agree with Kant, you know. If you want to decide that it's ethical to do something that would have terrible effects if everybody did it, because not everybody is going to do it, that's up to you. The point is that there's been a lot of thought about the public implications of private decisions. It's not a topic that can be dismissed by calling it rude.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:playing by the rules is never rude

If you're responding to my post where I called the PP rude, I did so because of his/her accusation of redshirting parents, not his/er decision to not redshirt his/her child.

What exactly was the accusation?

That parents who redshirt their kids are short-sighted because they don't consider the implications on their other children and their families. If I were deciding whether or not to redshirt my child from a K class full of kids I don't know, how am I supposed to consider the implications on those children and their families? Maybe all the other children have been redshirted, maybe none of them have. Presumably I would make the decision that was best for my child based on their maturity level and a whole host of other factors and not worry that I couldn't imagine the possible impacts on a classroom full of children I don't know. I don't think that makes someone short-sighted at all, and I think accusing them of being so when they're doing what's best for their child is rude.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We aren't talking about Special Needs. We are never talking about Special Needs when we vent and red-shirting. It isn't about you. Special Needs parents, stop making it ALWAYS about you.

I guess you are classifying anyone with a medical condition as “special needs”? How do you know which kids are “special needs”?

I know which ones are NOT when they say they didn’t want their kids to be the youngest & then they show up at kindergarten orientation asking to confirm what high reading level books will be available for their kid and how to make sure they’re challenged academically.

Not all medical issues would affect reading abilities.

When you hear hoofbeats, look for horses not zebras.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We aren't talking about Special Needs. We are never talking about Special Needs when we vent and red-shirting. It isn't about you. Special Needs parents, stop making it ALWAYS about you.

I guess you are classifying anyone with a medical condition as “special needs”? How do you know which kids are “special needs”?

I know which ones are NOT when they say they didn’t want their kids to be the youngest & then they show up at kindergarten orientation asking to confirm what high reading level books will be available for their kid and how to make sure they’re challenged academically.

Not all medical issues would affect reading abilities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have no dog in this fight because my girls have spring birthdays and we never considered redshirting them and they'll generally fall in the middle of the pack one way or the other, but you are complaining that parents who choose to redshirt their child based on what's best for their child should be considering what impact their decision has on children they don't know? That seems crazy to me. How is a parent supposed to know what the make up of their child's class will be before they even start school? How should they know that there will be other children with late summer or early fall birthdays whose parents did not redshirt them and that those children will (purportedly) be negatively impacted by the redshirted child? I am neither pro nor anti redshirting, but I am pro doing what parents think is best for their child. To accuse them of being short-sighted because they should have considered the impact on the other students and families, who they don't yet know, is just rude.

It's not rude. It's acknowledging that decisions you make for personal reasons nonetheless may have an effect on the public. In fact, Kant's categorical imperative (basically: what if everybody did this?) explicitly addresses the ethics of this kind of decision-making. For example: what if everybody redshirted because they didn't want their children to be among the youngest in the class? Which is pretty obviously different from: what if everybody with a child with a serious illness redshirted their child?

I personally don't care - I was always the youngest by over a year, my older kid is among the oldest in a public school where redshirting is minimal, and my younger kid is the youngest by over a year. I'm just saying that there are actually well-known ethical implications.

Um, if everyone redshirted then kindergartners would just be a year older. So what's your well-known ethical implication here exactly?

Quite simply, if kids were not redshirted there would be a more even distribution of ages in each grade and those with summer birthdays would have a larger cohort. Instead, Redshirting just stacks the year with older kids which includes then includes kids more than a year older than their classmates.

In my experience kids become more competitive by end of third grade and certainly by fourth and are aware of who has been redshirted and who is youngest. I’m happy to see that in fact the youngest boys have not been picked on - but kids are much more irritated by their peers who were given a competitive leg up - this starts to come out when class divisions based on academics start to happen and kids start developing physically. The differences are more noticeable, especially br 5th grade, and kids are not stupid. Parents in affluent areas are competitive and it trickles (or rains down on) the kids. Even if you are not a competitive family, kids talk. But hey, life is not fair and competition exists. Might as well learn this now. We tell our kids we don’t control what other families do so just do your best.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We aren't talking about Special Needs. We are never talking about Special Needs when we vent and red-shirting. It isn't about you. Special Needs parents, stop making it ALWAYS about you.

I guess you are classifying anyone with a medical condition as “special needs”? How do you know which kids are “special needs”?

I know which ones are NOT when they say they didn’t want their kids to be the youngest & then they show up at kindergarten orientation asking to confirm what high reading level books will be available for their kid and how to make sure they’re challenged academically.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:playing by the rules is never rude

This.

The school system sets a date. Just follow it. Not an issue.

If the child has issues, address then as they arise.

The rule in VA is you can start K from 4-6. End of story.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:playing by the rules is never rude

If you're responding to my post where I called the PP rude, I did so because of his/her accusation of redshirting parents, not his/er decision to not redshirt his/her child.

What exactly was the accusation?

Anonymous wrote:We aren't talking about Special Needs. We are never talking about Special Needs when we vent and red-shirting. It isn't about you. Special Needs parents, stop making it ALWAYS about you.

I guess you are classifying anyone with a medical condition as “special needs”? How do you know which kids are “special needs”?

Anonymous wrote:playing by the rules is never rude

If you're responding to my post where I called the PP rude, I did so because of his/her accusation of redshirting parents, not his/er decision to not redshirt his/her child.

Anonymous wrote:

I have no dog in this fight because my girls have spring birthdays and we never considered redshirting them and they'll generally fall in the middle of the pack one way or the other, but you are complaining that parents who choose to redshirt their child based on what's best for their child should be considering what impact their decision has on children they don't know? That seems crazy to me. How is a parent supposed to know what the make up of their child's class will be before they even start school? How should they know that there will be other children with late summer or early fall birthdays whose parents did not redshirt them and that those children will (purportedly) be negatively impacted by the redshirted child? I am neither pro nor anti redshirting, but I am pro doing what parents think is best for their child. To accuse them of being short-sighted because they should have considered the impact on the other students and families, who they don't yet know, is just rude.

It's not rude. It's acknowledging that decisions you make for personal reasons nonetheless may have an effect on the public. In fact, Kant's categorical imperative (basically: what if everybody did this?) explicitly addresses the ethics of this kind of decision-making. For example: what if everybody redshirted because they didn't want their children to be among the youngest in the class? Which is pretty obviously different from: what if everybody with a child with a serious illness redshirted their child?

I personally don't care - I was always the youngest by over a year, my older kid is among the oldest in a public school where redshirting is minimal, and my younger kid is the youngest by over a year. I'm just saying that there are actually well-known ethical implications.

Anonymous wrote:playing by the rules is never rude

This.

The school system sets a date. Just follow it. Not an issue.

If the child has issues, address then as they arise.