Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

Your feelings on this are irrelevant. Either make a case with real data or quit complaining.

Why arent they irrevelant? Because they oppose your convenient world view?

Because your feelings aren't supported by fact. How inconvenient for your world view.

The point that redshirting summer birthdays shifts who is the youngest in the class does not need to be "supported by fact" because it is fact!

So what? Someones has to be the youngest. And that can be good for the youngest to be around older peers.

Right, and I said that because the summer birthday kids all redshirt making themselves the oldest (advantage), the collateral damage of that decision falls on the May and April birthdays who then become the youngest by default (disadvanatge). So... when summer birthdays are redshirted they benefit at the expense of the May and April kids who now are the youngest in their cohort. So then the argument that it shifts the disadvantage (being the youngest in the case of this thread) stands. That was the whole point of this debate, someone claimed in an earlier post that their decision to redshirt doesnt hurt anyone and I am arguing that it does.

If it is good to be the youngest around older peers, then no one should need to redshirt in the first place. Choose your side of the argument.

I was one of those youngest with a late spring birthday. I never thought that I was "young" and I had no such issues. I was at no disadvantage. To the contrary I was extremely competitive with my peers which only helped me in the long run. You can argue all day long but unless you pony up some facts "because I said so" isn't very convincing and isn't going to change minds.

Right then no need to redshirt at all if being young is so great.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

Your feelings on this are irrelevant. Either make a case with real data or quit complaining.

Why arent they irrevelant? Because they oppose your convenient world view?

Because your feelings aren't supported by fact. How inconvenient for your world view.

The point that redshirting summer birthdays shifts who is the youngest in the class does not need to be "supported by fact" because it is fact!

So what? Someones has to be the youngest. And that can be good for the youngest to be around older peers.

Right, and I said that because the summer birthday kids all redshirt making themselves the oldest (advantage), the collateral damage of that decision falls on the May and April birthdays who then become the youngest by default (disadvanatge). So... when summer birthdays are redshirted they benefit at the expense of the May and April kids who now are the youngest in their cohort. So then the argument that it shifts the disadvantage (being the youngest in the case of this thread) stands. That was the whole point of this debate, someone claimed in an earlier post that their decision to redshirt doesnt hurt anyone and I am arguing that it does.

If it is good to be the youngest around older peers, then no one should need to redshirt in the first place. Choose your side of the argument.

I was one of those youngest with a late spring birthday. I never thought that I was "young" and I had no such issues. I was at no disadvantage. To the contrary I was extremely competitive with my peers which only helped me in the long run. You can argue all day long but unless you pony up some facts "because I said so" isn't very convincing and isn't going to change minds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

Your feelings on this are irrelevant. Either make a case with real data or quit complaining.

Why arent they irrevelant? Because they oppose your convenient world view?

Because your feelings aren't supported by fact. How inconvenient for your world view.

The point that redshirting summer birthdays shifts who is the youngest in the class does not need to be "supported by fact" because it is fact!

So what? Someones has to be the youngest. And that can be good for the youngest to be around older peers.

Right, and I said that because the summer birthday kids all redshirt making themselves the oldest (advantage), the collateral damage of that decision falls on the May and April birthdays who then become the youngest by default (disadvanatge). So... when summer birthdays are redshirted they benefit at the expense of the May and April kids who now are the youngest in their cohort. So then the argument that it shifts the disadvantage (being the youngest in the case of this thread) stands. That was the whole point of this debate, someone claimed in an earlier post that their decision to redshirt doesnt hurt anyone and I am arguing that it does.

If it is good to be the youngest around older peers, then no one should need to redshirt in the first place. Choose your side of the argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

Your feelings on this are irrelevant. Either make a case with real data or quit complaining.

Why arent they irrevelant? Because they oppose your convenient world view?

Because your feelings aren't supported by fact. How inconvenient for your world view.

The point that redshirting summer birthdays shifts who is the youngest in the class does not need to be "supported by fact" because it is fact!

So what? Someones has to be the youngest. And that can be good for the youngest to be around older peers.

+1. Who gets to decide that august born kids have to be the youngest when cutoffs are not enforced? Parents make the best decisions for their kids. Some think their kids are advanced and would be bored spending another year in PK. Some think their kids would benefit waiting a year. Both are fine options and right ones for some kids

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

Your feelings on this are irrelevant. Either make a case with real data or quit complaining.

Why arent they irrevelant? Because they oppose your convenient world view?

Because your feelings aren't supported by fact. How inconvenient for your world view.

The point that redshirting summer birthdays shifts who is the youngest in the class does not need to be "supported by fact" because it is fact!

So what? Someones has to be the youngest. And that can be good for the youngest to be around older peers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

Your feelings on this are irrelevant. Either make a case with real data or quit complaining.

Why arent they irrevelant? Because they oppose your convenient world view?

Because your feelings aren't supported by fact. How inconvenient for your world view.

The point that redshirting summer birthdays shifts who is the youngest in the class does not need to be "supported by fact" because it is fact!

I don't have a summer boy, but if I did, I probably would have redshirted him only because everyone else would have, too. I do have a summer girl that I did not redshirt, and when everyone starts with the but-girls-are-different rhetoric I have to suppress my eye rolls. I don't think girls (or at least, certainly not all girls) are naturally more mature and thus ready to handle K at a younger age. I think it is more likely that we worry more about boys being immature than we do about girls.

Ultimately, I think the onus needs to be on the schools to enforce an age cut-off date, whatever that may be. Now April boys are the youngest, and soon parents of those kids are going to start redshirting, and the pattern will continue. Parents will always make the best decision for their own kids, but schools will make the best decision for the collective group.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

Your feelings on this are irrelevant. Either make a case with real data or quit complaining.

Why arent they irrevelant? Because they oppose your convenient world view?

Because your feelings aren't supported by fact. How inconvenient for your world view.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Experiences with redshirting? He is a late August boy and would be youngest in his class.

Also, should we redshirt him in his current daycare or rather have him repeat a year in a new school?

If you’re looking at public schools, I think the debate can be had. It’s probably good for some children and not for others, so a decision that should be made on the basis of the individual child’s characteristics. But for private schools? No question, redshirt. Many schools will strongly recommend or require it. Anti-red shirters don’t seem to get this. Private schools, especially academically intense ones, like their classes to be composed a certain way.

My redshirted late summer birthday child is not even close to being the oldest in their class. There is zero social stigma because it’s normal. No regrets at all.

It’s not why we made the decision, but I’m also happy about having another year before they go off to college! Childhood is short.

Some private schools in the Baltimore area have pre-first grade. When I was growing up, our public school system had that too. Having kids start on time with the option of switching to pre-first if they are struggling provides an opportunity to obtain more information about how a kid will do in the school setting.

These discussions are hilarious, with some positive that redshirting provides an advantage and others who claim to have teaching expertise equally adamant that it does not. A fair middle ground position is that a late summer birthday should not be held back as a matter of course but should be considered if certain academic, social, and emotional factors suggest that a child would benefit from an extra year. For late summer birthdays, that puts a redshirted kid entering kindergarten on the same footing as those with September birthdays, which is not unreasonable. Additionally, if the factors supporting redshirting - ADD, executive function, social issues, (even size, depending on other factors), etc. - will be challenging even for redshirted kids, the extra year does not disadvantage non-redshirted kids or their crazy anti-redshirting parents.

Still, what makes these decisions even more difficult for late summer birthdays is parents who redshirt simply for more time with their kids or for reasons that aren't related to their development. These include kids with early summer or spring birthdays who are developmentally ready for school when they are age eligible. The more of those kids there are in a school setting, which is the case for many privates, the more disadvantaged kids who are young for the grade are, especially those who started on time despite factors that supported redshirting.

Regardless, I vote for bringing back pre-first.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

Then take it up with the schools, who require it. Our private school recommends summer birthdays redshirt. It is what it is. If you don’t like it, talk to the administration, not the parents who are following recommendations.

Require does not equal recommend. The parents would not follow the recommendation if it didn't benefit their child (and then shift who is the youngest in the class, who then are disadvantaged).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

Your feelings on this are irrelevant. Either make a case with real data or quit complaining.

Why arent they irrevelant? Because they oppose your convenient world view?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

What because one child is born a week before the cutoff? How is this child different from a kid born a couple of weeks later? Perhaps the first child was a preemie and the second was born at 41 weeks. This is not an argument worth making.

No she as an individual, but collectively they shifted who was the youngest, which puts those children at a disadvantage. This is an argument worth making.

Anonymous wrote:
Experiences with redshirting? He is a late August boy and would be youngest in his class.

Also, should we redshirt him in his current daycare or rather have him repeat a year in a new school?

If you’re looking at public schools, I think the debate can be had. It’s probably good for some children and not for others, so a decision that should be made on the basis of the individual child’s characteristics. But for private schools? No question, redshirt. Many schools will strongly recommend or require it. Anti-red shirters don’t seem to get this. Private schools, especially academically intense ones, like their classes to be composed a certain way.

My redshirted late summer birthday child is not even close to being the oldest in their class. There is zero social stigma because it’s normal. No regrets at all.

It’s not why we made the decision, but I’m also happy about having another year before they go off to college! Childhood is short.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

Then take it up with the schools, who require it. Our private school recommends summer birthdays redshirt. It is what it is. If you don’t like it, talk to the administration, not the parents who are following recommendations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

Your feelings on this are irrelevant. Either make a case with real data or quit complaining.