Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A friend of mine is planning to hold back her late July son. He does have some social issues that, when looked at separate from everything, make sense to hold him back. Socially he seems on par with my daughter who is a late September birthday, a full year younger. So 14 months apart.

That being said, he is WAY ahead academically. So our kids will end up the same year. Socially- sure- they will be great. But the 14 month gap will really show in the academics.

And this is the issue being raised here. It's fine that you make a choice to hold your child back for whatever reason. It may be good- it may not. I am not one to judge. But if you do this you have to be aware that the academic rigor of the program cannot change for your child alone. Differentiation in kindergarten is just not going to be as catered to your child as you would like. In order to be with a group you think fits better socially, he might be bored with the academics. You make the choice but you can't complain later about it. At least not to parents of kids that are more than a year younger than your child who may find the curriculum perfectly challenging.

My son is just like that! Right now I am leaning towards sending him on time, but fully expecting we may need to get him an IEP to make it through a few yesrs until he matures. For those of you saying this is "vanity redshirting" shame on you. You have no clue what is involved and what a big decision it is.

Anonymous wrote:Ok- I can't say this publicly but it really makes me mad.

I have a daughter with an August Birthday and your son is a full 17 months older than my daughter and they are in the same class.
I can't stand it that you say that the classwork is too easy and your son is not academically challenged.
Perhaps you wouldn't feel that way if you sent your son to school on time. I bet my daughter would look really talented too if she were compared to kids much younger- rather than just a hardworking kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is great too. It says that red-shirting can be as low as 4.5% in some areas but as high as 20% in white affluent areas.

https://www.noodle.com/articles/new-data-suggest-redshirting-in-kindergarten-doesnt-help138

And here is the bigger, social issue at play. People with lower incomes cannot even make these choices. They have to send their children as soon as possible to the least expensive option. And so, when you choose to red shirt- you are focusing on your child and his or her specific needs. But the impact of that choice is on more that just your child. It impacts the whole class- with a teacher needing to find ways to meet the more advanced academic needs of our child. But it also impacts society as a whole. Red shirting absolutely contributes to the achievement gap. And- while I don't think it should be the only factor- I think more people need to consider the implications of these choices on society as a whole.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is great too. It says that red-shirting can be as low as 4.5% in some areas but as high as 20% in white affluent areas.

https://www.noodle.com/articles/new-data-suggest-redshirting-in-kindergarten-doesnt-help138

And here is the bigger, social issue at play. People with lower incomes cannot even make these choices. They have to send their children as soon as possible to the least expensive option. And so, when you choose to red shirt- you are focusing on your child and his or her specific needs. But the impact of that choice is on more that just your child. It impacts the whole class- with a teacher needing to find ways to meet the more advanced academic needs of our child. But it also impacts society as a whole. Red shirting absolutely contributes to the achievement gap. And- while I don't think it should be the only factor- I think more people need to consider the implications of these choices on society as a whole.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A friend of mine is planning to hold back her late July son. He does have some social issues that, when looked at separate from everything, make sense to hold him back. Socially he seems on par with my daughter who is a late September birthday, a full year younger. So 14 months apart.

That being said, he is WAY ahead academically. So our kids will end up the same year. Socially- sure- they will be great. But the 14 month gap will really show in the academics.

And this is the issue being raised here. It's fine that you make a choice to hold your child back for whatever reason. It may be good- it may not. I am not one to judge. But if you do this you have to be aware that the academic rigor of the program cannot change for your child alone. Differentiation in kindergarten is just not going to be as catered to your child as you would like. In order to be with a group you think fits better socially, he might be bored with the academics. You make the choice but you can't complain later about it. At least not to parents of kids that are more than a year younger than your child who may find the curriculum perfectly challenging.

My son is just like that! Right now I am leaning towards sending him on time, but fully expecting we may need to get him an IEP to make it through a few yesrs until he matures. For those of you saying this is "vanity redshirting" shame on you. You have no clue what is involved and what a big decision it is.

Anonymous wrote:A friend of mine is planning to hold back her late July son. He does have some social issues that, when looked at separate from everything, make sense to hold him back. Socially he seems on par with my daughter who is a late September birthday, a full year younger. So 14 months apart.

That being said, he is WAY ahead academically. So our kids will end up the same year. Socially- sure- they will be great. But the 14 month gap will really show in the academics.

And this is the issue being raised here. It's fine that you make a choice to hold your child back for whatever reason. It may be good- it may not. I am not one to judge. But if you do this you have to be aware that the academic rigor of the program cannot change for your child alone. Differentiation in kindergarten is just not going to be as catered to your child as you would like. In order to be with a group you think fits better socially, he might be bored with the academics. You make the choice but you can't complain later about it. At least not to parents of kids that are more than a year younger than your child who may find the curriculum perfectly challenging.

Anonymous wrote:A friend of mine is planning to hold back her late July son. He does have some social issues that, when looked at separate from everything, make sense to hold him back. Socially he seems on par with my daughter who is a late September birthday, a full year younger. So 14 months apart.

That being said, he is WAY ahead academically. So our kids will end up the same year. Socially- sure- they will be great. But the 14 month gap will really show in the academics.

And this is the issue being raised here. It's fine that you make a choice to hold your child back for whatever reason. It may be good- it may not. I am not one to judge. But if you do this you have to be aware that the academic rigor of the program cannot change for your child alone. Differentiation in kindergarten is just not going to be as catered to your child as you would like. In order to be with a group you think fits better socially, he might be bored with the academics. You make the choice but you can't complain later about it. At least not to parents of kids that are more than a year younger than your child who may find the curriculum perfectly challenging.

Anonymous wrote:This article is great too. It says that red-shirting can be as low as 4.5% in some areas but as high as 20% in white affluent areas.

https://www.noodle.com/articles/new-data-suggest-redshirting-in-kindergarten-doesnt-help138

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a great article that smashes all these ADHD issues and rationalizations of red-shirting.


http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/youngest-kid-smartest-kid

Well, the article also says "younger students benefit from having older peers" so not sure why everyone is freaking out.

Also that article suffers from huge leaps of logic. It assumes (unwarrantedly) that redshirting is due to nothing more than a desire to game the system. I don't see the evidence for that at all. It does not focus on kids who already have any developmental issues. And it does not address the increased risk of ADHD diagnosis based on relative age, which has been found in many studies. This is just more crappy science journalism.

More recent research shows that " a delayed school start dramatically reduces hyperactivity at ages 7 and 11, a measure with strong negative links to student achievement."

http://www.sole-jole.org/15074.pdf

So, what you are arguing is ADHD is environmental, if it is as simple as delaying a child a school year vs. something medical. Then, why are so many kids medicated, if it is as simple as holding them back from school a year? (the bigger issue is teachers need more training and we need better teachers who can handle a range of issues)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a great article that smashes all these ADHD issues and rationalizations of red-shirting.


http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/youngest-kid-smartest-kid

Well, the article also says "younger students benefit from having older peers" so not sure why everyone is freaking out.

Also that article suffers from huge leaps of logic. It assumes (unwarrantedly) that redshirting is due to nothing more than a desire to game the system. I don't see the evidence for that at all. It does not focus on kids who already have any developmental issues. And it does not address the increased risk of ADHD diagnosis based on relative age, which has been found in many studies. This is just more crappy science journalism.

More recent research shows that " a delayed school start dramatically reduces hyperactivity at ages 7 and 11, a measure with strong negative links to student achievement."

http://www.sole-jole.org/15074.pdf

So, what you are arguing is ADHD is environmental, if it is as simple as delaying a child a school year vs. something medical. Then, why are so many kids medicated, if it is as simple as holding them back from school a year? (the bigger issue is teachers need more training and we need better teachers who can handle a range of issues)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a great article that smashes all these ADHD issues and rationalizations of red-shirting.


http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/youngest-kid-smartest-kid

Well, the article also says "younger students benefit from having older peers" so not sure why everyone is freaking out.

Not peers that are 1.5 and 2 years older than them. Peers that are a "couple of months" older than them.

Anecdotally, my immature child behaves much much better around his cousins, who are several years older than him, than he does around his little brothers and sisters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a great article that smashes all these ADHD issues and rationalizations of red-shirting.


http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/youngest-kid-smartest-kid

Well, the article also says "younger students benefit from having older peers" so not sure why everyone is freaking out.

Also that article suffers from huge leaps of logic. It assumes (unwarrantedly) that redshirting is due to nothing more than a desire to game the system. I don't see the evidence for that at all. It does not focus on kids who already have any developmental issues. And it does not address the increased risk of ADHD diagnosis based on relative age, which has been found in many studies. This is just more crappy science journalism.

More recent research shows that " a delayed school start dramatically reduces hyperactivity at ages 7 and 11, a measure with strong negative links to student achievement."

http://www.sole-jole.org/15074.pdf