Anonymous wrote:10:58, I don't have a fully formed opinion on this subject yet (unlike most people, but would seem), but is your friend perhaps not telling the truth? My son also has a late spring birthday, and we did the preK admissions rounds of top schools this year. NONE of the schools asked that he be held back till next year---it would really be absurd, given that the cutoff is September---and yes, he was admitted to our top choices.

Depends on the kid. I'm not the PP you're addressing but the friends I know who were given this advice got it after the playdate, took it, and then their kid got accepted. I knew they'd applied for the other grade initially (was told in real time) and was asked whether I thought the school had a point (it did).

Anonymous wrote:

And I think that if everyone sent their kids at the same time, you'd actually see a greater spread. Parents generally decide to hold kids back because they're concerned that their kids would be outliers in a classroom full of age-mates.

I'm the poster you quote, and we will just have to agree to disagree. Like some of the PPs have mentioned I know many people who hold their kids back for "the gift of time", to "be a leader" and MANY of them "because that is what you do with boys here". I do know a few people who have held their children back for various developmental reasons and I'm not sure it was a good thing in those cases either. For the people I know, it led to their children being diagnosed with various issues (ADHD, dyslexia, dysgraphia, HFA) at a later age than they probably would have been diagnosed earlier if they had been sent on time.

I don't deny that parents should have options, but I think that this is not an option without consequences for the children and for their classmates.

Again, my question has been how do the classmates suffer? I don't see it. (And my DC is the classmate in these scenarios). I'd rather have her in a class where everyone's basically ready for the work. And the kids who are beyond ready for the work at these schools are usually way beyond ready so the "gift of time" doesn't move those given it to the head of the class. At best, it just lets them be competent from the start rather than begin school poised for failure. And if that kid does soar later, it's not because he's a year older. It's because he's gifted or talented.

Sounds like the phenomenon you're seeing (and I'm not -- but I'm certainly willing to believe you that it exists) is parents who think that one year's delay will transform their kid from slightly behind the curve to master of their private school universe. Not happening. (Which is part of the reason why I don't see much validity to the notion that this practice puts other kids at a competitive disadvantage.)

It would be interesting to do a study to figure out whether early redshirting ends up being highly correlated with a later gifted/LD diagnosis. At ages 4-7 it could be difficult to separate asynchronous normal development from a GT/LD situation. That said, it's not clear that accurate diagnosis of kids in the latter category would have happened any earlier had they not been red-shirted.

10:58, I don't have a fully formed opinion on this subject yet (unlike most people, but would seem), but is your friend perhaps not telling the truth? My son also has a late spring birthday, and we did the preK admissions rounds of top schools this year. NONE of the schools asked that he be held back till next year---it would really be absurd, given that the cutoff is September---and yes, he was admitted to our top choices.

Anonymous wrote:The older ones age into school sports and where should the person turning 19 as a junior play as a senior?

A child turning 19 as a junior?!? That strikes me as complete bullshit. Please show us some examples of 19-year-old juniors. I'm sure some must exist somewhere in the nation, but I bet you can't find any significant number. And if anyone on DCUM claims to have a 19-year-old junior at your school, I dare you to name the school so that others can verify your claim.

I don't have strong views on redshirting (pro or con), but this is where the anti-redshirting crowd always loses all credibility for me. Why do you have to exaggerate so much? If you want to complain about how a large number of kids that are 6+ months over the traditional age lines are messing up classroom dynamics for the other students, then I can at least understand your concern. But when anti-redshirters try to convince me with dire predictions of a mythical 19-year-old junior or packs of 20-year-old seniors preying on my 14-year-old freshman daughter, I think you're just bullshitting.

If you want to convince people, don't oversell so much.

Anonymous wrote:You know how Harvard decided a few years ago to end early admission? And because it's H.A.R.V.A.R.D, well, everyone took notice and additional schools followed suit. It's probably doing the right thing for the right reasons, and because it's Harvard .... it can.

I wish one or more elite private schools in DC would, for once and all, put children in the correct grade. When the admission committee is holding the application of a nearly 6 yr old, I wish, say, Sidwell's admission committee would have the balls to say Hey guess what? You don't belong in kindergarten. I wish that Beauvoir, for example, would put 4 year olds in preK and 5 year olds in K. The applicants whose child will turn 7 will have to apply elsewhere, in my dream scenario.

Many times it is the admission committee - not the parents who makes the decision. I have a good friend with a son who has a late May birthday. She was preparing applications for K and was told by all the elite private schools in DC that they would not consider him for K - rather PreK. She just followed the school's guidance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My sense, especially since the metaphor is borrowed from sports, is that whether you accept or reject the practice probably relates to how you look at schools. I'm an educator so I look at them as places whose primary function is to foster learning. From that perspective, the practice makes lots of sense. If, by contrast, school's primarily an arena for competition I guess some people will resent any practice that helps some other kid but doesn't benefit their own. I just don't think it's such a zero-sum game.

But it isn't always that simple, especially if your kid happens to have very asynchronous development. So if a child is advanced academically and behind socially/emotionally, what to do? Some think those kids should be held back, but in many cases it can make their social issues worse to be the oldest. But because so many people hold their kids back, sending them on time becomes not such a great choice either.

I guess it just seems to make sense to me that if everyone sent their kids on time, then it would make the overall spread in the classroom less than what it is now. By holding kids back we enable schools to perpetuate developmentally inapprorpiate curriculum.

I'm the PP you quoted and I agree that it can be a tough choice. What seems simple to me is the decision that it's an option that should be available to parents in such situations.

And I think that if everyone sent their kids at the same time, you'd actually see a greater spread. Parents generally decide to hold kids back because they're concerned that their kids would be outliers in a classroom full of age-mates. So the logic is increase the age spread to narrow the readiness spread (or, more accurately, since these schools are generally quite rigid about enforcing the minimum age, to minimize the number of kids for whom readiness could be a problem).

I think that whether or not the curriculum is age-appropriate has less to do with the kids than with parents, politics, markets, etc.

You would have a 12 month spread if everyone sent their child on time. Sorry but one dad who held his march child back said he felt forced into it after the older one got action figures for Xmas and others electric razors. Another spring told me she[and DH] wanted to ensure another year of growth and confidence for college sports potential. People in the public school universe thought the March extremely odd but it was not unusual at the private attended by the child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My children are older and the only redshirts we/I have seen were NOT based on academics. Multiple children in various high socioeconomic publics and high priced priv ates. Boys who had big booster parents in youth sports. It created quite the tizzy when lacrosse went to birth years not grades in MD then VA.

Which suggests that you don't have to mess up schools/education to solve what, if anything, is a competitive athletics problem.

So maybe people who are bent out of shape re this issue should address the issue by lobbying the relevant league/sport authority to define eligibility in ways that don't create the wrong incentive structure re school placement. And leave the older kindergarteners and their parents in peace!!

Excuse me? The older ones age into school sports and where should the person turning 19 as a junior play as a senior?

And I think that if everyone sent their kids at the same time, you'd actually see a greater spread. Parents generally decide to hold kids back because they're concerned that their kids would be outliers in a classroom full of age-mates.

I'm the poster you quote, and we will just have to agree to disagree. Like some of the PPs have mentioned I know many people who hold their kids back for "the gift of time", to "be a leader" and MANY of them "because that is what you do with boys here". I do know a few people who have held their children back for various developmental reasons and I'm not sure it was a good thing in those cases either. For the people I know, it led to their children being diagnosed with various issues (ADHD, dyslexia, dysgraphia, HFA) at a later age than they probably would have been diagnosed earlier if they had been sent on time.

I don't deny that parents should have options, but I think that this is not an option without consequences for the children and for their classmates.

Anonymous wrote:My children are older and the only redshirts we/I have seen were NOT based on academics. Multiple children in various high socioeconomic publics and high priced priv ates. Boys who had big booster parents in youth sports. It created quite the tizzy when lacrosse went to birth years not grades in MD then VA.

Which suggests that you don't have to mess up schools/education to solve what, if anything, is a competitive athletics problem.

So maybe people who are bent out of shape re this issue should address the issue by lobbying the relevant league/sport authority to define eligibility in ways that don't create the wrong incentive structure re school placement. And leave the older kindergarteners and their parents in peace!!

Anonymous wrote:

My sense, especially since the metaphor is borrowed from sports, is that whether you accept or reject the practice probably relates to how you look at schools. I'm an educator so I look at them as places whose primary function is to foster learning. From that perspective, the practice makes lots of sense. If, by contrast, school's primarily an arena for competition I guess some people will resent any practice that helps some other kid but doesn't benefit their own. I just don't think it's such a zero-sum game.

But it isn't always that simple, especially if your kid happens to have very asynchronous development. So if a child is advanced academically and behind socially/emotionally, what to do? Some think those kids should be held back, but in many cases it can make their social issues worse to be the oldest. But because so many people hold their kids back, sending them on time becomes not such a great choice either.

I guess it just seems to make sense to me that if everyone sent their kids on time, then it would make the overall spread in the classroom less than what it is now. By holding kids back we enable schools to perpetuate developmentally inapprorpiate curriculum.

I'm the PP you quoted and I agree that it can be a tough choice. What seems simple to me is the decision that it's an option that should be available to parents in such situations.

And I think that if everyone sent their kids at the same time, you'd actually see a greater spread. Parents generally decide to hold kids back because they're concerned that their kids would be outliers in a classroom full of age-mates. So the logic is increase the age spread to narrow the readiness spread (or, more accurately, since these schools are generally quite rigid about enforcing the minimum age, to minimize the number of kids for whom readiness could be a problem).

I think that whether or not the curriculum is age-appropriate has less to do with the kids than with parents, politics, markets, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

My sense, especially since the metaphor is borrowed from sports, is that whether you accept or reject the practice probably relates to how you look at schools. I'm an educator so I look at them as places whose primary function is to foster learning. From that perspective, the practice makes lots of sense. If, by contrast, school's primarily an arena for competition I guess some people will resent any practice that helps some other kid but doesn't benefit their own. I just don't think it's such a zero-sum game.

But it isn't always that simple, especially if your kid happens to have very asynchronous development. So if a child is advanced academically and behind socially/emotionally, what to do? Some think those kids should be held back, but in many cases it can make their social issues worse to be the oldest. But because so many people hold their kids back, sending them on time becomes not such a great choice either.

I guess it just seems to make sense to me that if everyone sent their kids on time, then it would make the overall spread in the classroom less than what it is now. By holding kids back we enable schools to perpetuate developmentally inapprorpiate curriculum.

My children are older and the only redshirts we/I have seen were NOT based on academics. Multiple children in various high socioeconomic publics and high priced priv ates. Boys who had big booster parents in youth sports. It created quite the tizzy when lacrosse went to birth years not grades in MD then VA.

Anonymous wrote:I guess it just seems to make sense to me that if everyone sent their kids on time, then it would make the overall spread in the classroom less than what it is now. By holding kids back we enable schools to perpetuate developmentally inapprorpiate curriculum.

It would reduce the age spread, but it would not necessarily reduce the readiness/ability spread, which in academics at least seems more important.

(Not the PP you're quoting.)

My sense, especially since the metaphor is borrowed from sports, is that whether you accept or reject the practice probably relates to how you look at schools. I'm an educator so I look at them as places whose primary function is to foster learning. From that perspective, the practice makes lots of sense. If, by contrast, school's primarily an arena for competition I guess some people will resent any practice that helps some other kid but doesn't benefit their own. I just don't think it's such a zero-sum game.

But it isn't always that simple, especially if your kid happens to have very asynchronous development. So if a child is advanced academically and behind socially/emotionally, what to do? Some think those kids should be held back, but in many cases it can make their social issues worse to be the oldest. But because so many people hold their kids back, sending them on time becomes not such a great choice either.

I guess it just seems to make sense to me that if everyone sent their kids on time, then it would make the overall spread in the classroom less than what it is now. By holding kids back we enable schools to perpetuate developmentally inapprorpiate curriculum.

Anonymous wrote:My sense, especially since the metaphor is borrowed from sports, is that whether you accept or reject the practice probably relates to how you look at schools. I'm an educator so I look at them as places whose primary function is to foster learning. From that perspective, the practice makes lots of sense. If, by contrast, school's primarily an arena for competition I guess some people will resent any practice that helps some other kid but doesn't benefit their own. I just don't think it's such a zero-sum game.

It's interesting how attitudes have changed now that "redshirting" has replaced "holding back." In sports, redshirting is done to gain a competitive advantage. In schools, by contrast, most parents seem to argue that they are not pursuing an advantage but trying to make sure their kids can keep up with the rest of the class. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that. (Maybe we should go back to calling it "holding back.") However, there do seem to be a few people who want to give their kids "the gift of time" so that their kids will be the oldest, the biggest, the strongest, the most able, etc. It's this kind of competitive redshirting--which I think is relatively rare--which tends to raise hackles.

Anonymous wrote:How many years are you willing fund public education?

Not really a relevant question when (a) people are talking about private schools and (b) the situation being discussed involves delayed entry rather than adding (or repeating) grades.

But since you asked, I'd have no problem going beyond the current max of 17-18 (PreK or K-12 + BA).