Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We didn't redshirt because we didn't want to waste a year of our son's life.

+1, its different to be taking about a 5 year old vs. 18/19 year old. They will not remember being 5, they will remember being held back as a Senior.

Anonymous wrote:We didn't redshirt because we didn't want to waste a year of our son's life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because caring for children is a nightmare and expensive. Parents send their kids as soon as they can.

Then why did even have children in the first place? Were they forced at gun-point?

Daycare is very expensive. It's typically $20k for an extra year of daycare. Parents weigh the other uses of that money. Forget the nightmare part of PPs post. It's not a nightmare. It's the expense. That’s also why people get so worked up about redshirting being "cheating". They feel bad about not wanting to spend the money.

But I'm asking about affluent parents; parents for whom k20 is pennies. Clearly, they have the means to redshirt, yet the vast majority don't.

That’s not true at private schools. In my DC’s private school class, there were very few kids with summer birthdays that went on time. The schools actively encourage red shirting and often reject kids and tell them to reapply the next year.

So when $$ truly isn’t an issue — another year of daycare/preschool vs private school tuition, most people “red shirt.”

My son went to ritzy preschool. The ones holding their kids back and redshirting them were the parents of kids with behavioral challenges. Otherwise most parents would want their kid to stay with their cohort.

Did your kid go private in elementary? My kid’s preschool, which is a feeder for private schools, had an entire class of summer birthday kids doing another year before going to private K. The private schools *say* their cut off is Aug. 1, but it is much earlier than that in reality. Really more like May/June. In fact, the only two parents that I know who had kids with late summer birthdays who sent them “on time” to private school regretted it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people say that it gives the child one less year to work and earn money - it leaves them at a disadvantage.

Hahaha. Classic. So Type A. Money and work. Not extended irreplaceable childhood. Perfect distorted liberal priorities.

Anonymous wrote:Some people say that it gives the child one less year to work and earn money - it leaves them at a disadvantage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our kids are tall enough so they get on the carnival rides they want.

Is there any relevance to this discussion that I'm missing?

I assume it was a comment that suggests the absurdity of this whole conversation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because caring for children is a nightmare and expensive. Parents send their kids as soon as they can.

Then why did even have children in the first place? Were they forced at gun-point?

Daycare is very expensive. It's typically $20k for an extra year of daycare. Parents weigh the other uses of that money. Forget the nightmare part of PPs post. It's not a nightmare. It's the expense. That’s also why people get so worked up about redshirting being "cheating". They feel bad about not wanting to spend the money.

But I'm asking about affluent parents; parents for whom k20 is pennies. Clearly, they have the means to redshirt, yet the vast majority don't.

That’s not true at private schools. In my DC’s private school class, there were very few kids with summer birthdays that went on time. The schools actively encourage red shirting and often reject kids and tell them to reapply the next year.

So when $$ truly isn’t an issue — another year of daycare/preschool vs private school tuition, most people “red shirt.”

My son went to ritzy preschool. The ones holding their kids back and redshirting them were the parents of kids with behavioral challenges. Otherwise most parents would want their kid to stay with their cohort.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because caring for children is a nightmare and expensive. Parents send their kids as soon as they can.

Then why did even have children in the first place? Were they forced at gun-point?

Daycare is very expensive. It's typically $20k for an extra year of daycare. Parents weigh the other uses of that money. Forget the nightmare part of PPs post. It's not a nightmare. It's the expense. That’s also why people get so worked up about redshirting being "cheating". They feel bad about not wanting to spend the money.

But I'm asking about affluent parents; parents for whom k20 is pennies. Clearly, they have the means to redshirt, yet the vast majority don't.

That’s not true at private schools. In my DC’s private school class, there were very few kids with summer birthdays that went on time. The schools actively encourage red shirting and often reject kids and tell them to reapply the next year.

So when $$ truly isn’t an issue — another year of daycare/preschool vs private school tuition, most people “red shirt.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because caring for children is a nightmare and expensive. Parents send their kids as soon as they can.

Then why did even have children in the first place? Were they forced at gun-point?

Daycare is very expensive. It's typically $20k for an extra year of daycare. Parents weigh the other uses of that money. Forget the nightmare part of PPs post. It's not a nightmare. It's the expense. That’s also why people get so worked up about redshirting being "cheating". They feel bad about not wanting to spend the money.

But I'm asking about affluent parents; parents for whom k20 is pennies. Clearly, they have the means to redshirt, yet the vast majority don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again - redshirting has nothing to do with K-5. It matters when kids hit puberty.

That makes no sense. The older two people get, the LESS their age difference matters. The difference between a 5-year-old and a 6-year-old is equivalent to the difference between a 10-year-old and a 12-year-old, which is obviously bigger than the difference between an 11-year-old and a 12-year-old. I understand that a year still makes a huge difference in junior high and high school, but just not as big of a difference as in elementary school. The longer you live, the smaller a fraction a year is of your life.

Getting kids into high school with more physical and mental maturity will help them do better at all aspects of school - academic and social.

Well, that's sort of true. Any child would get better marks in a lower grade than a higher grade. Any 10-year-old would get better grades in 4th grade than in 5th grade, any 14-year-old would get better grades in 8th grade than in 9th grade; but it's not an apples to apples comparison. A 9th grader getting B's still probably knows more than an 8th grader getting A's. At any given point in time, a redshirted student is not going to be more mature than they would be had they not been redshirted; they'll just be less educated. A redshirted student getting straight A's really doesn't mean all that much when you consider that most kids their age are in the grade above and have already mastered the material the redshirted student is studying.

Let's take, for example, a hypothetical kid more in October of 2016. They're going to hit puberty whenever their body decides, and whether or not they're redshirted isn't going to change that. A redshirted kid won't hit puberty any earlier than they were meant to, but they will be less educated than they should be when they do hit puberty. A kid born in October of 2016 will be able to drive in October of 2032, redshirted or not; the only difference is that if they were redshirted, they'll have 10 years of education under their belt instead of 11 year. If this kid becomes valedictorian, it really won't be that impressive when you consider that they should have finished a year of college already. A kid born in October of 2016 will be able to drink in October of 2037, redshirted or not; the only difference is that if they were redshirted, they'll only be halfway done with their Bachelor's Degree, instead of 3 quarters done.

In short, I never of a redshirted kid as being the first in their grade to hit puberty, drive, and drink; I think of them as being the last in their age group to hit their educational milestones, such as graduating from high school and college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our kids are tall enough so they get on the carnival rides they want.

Is there any relevance to this discussion that I'm missing?

Anonymous wrote:Our kids are tall enough so they get on the carnival rides they want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. I did not know colleges looked at a graduating seniors’ ages and said - “well older kids in the graduating class have better grades, better test scores, did more and are way more accomplished, but they are 10 months older so we will not accept them and instead we will go with the kid who gets lower grades and did less.

Certainly that will work with athletics too. My daughter played college soccer for 4 years. I am sure that coaches are out looking for younger players who are not as accomplished when they are recruiting.

Also, I'm not aware of a special award for graduating high school as the youngest in class. Is there a "most educated with the fewest days on Earth" award out there?

There's no official, on-paper, award for that. It's an award in and of itself. The more you know at a given point in time, the better. And actually, in a way, there is an award, just not a cut-and-dry one. A non-redshirted kid will have a high school diploma at 17 when, at that given point in time, they wouldn't have a high school diploma had they been redshirted. A nont-redshirted kid will have a bachelor's degree at 21 when. at that given point in time, they wouldn't have a bachelor's degree had they been redshirted.

He never fit in with kids in his class, his friends were the kids in the grade below, and he never liked school and struggled to get a 4 year degree. Another year of maturity would have served him well, not a barely earned HS diploma at 17 that only got him into a lackluster school. So, what's the point?

Why didn't he just take a gap-year between high school and college, so that he could've graduated college at 22 instead of 21?

I think the fear is real that if a kid takes a year off they won't ever go back to school.

That fear would only be legit for enabling parents. When I told my parents I wanted to take time off to work before going to college, they made it crystal clear that I had one, and only one, year before I had to go to college. Parents who put their foot down shouldn't have to worry about their kids never going to school.

Oh, come on. A high school grad taking a gap year is an adult. Parents can't force anything. The peer pressure of everyone going off to college together has an influence. After a gap year, that pressure is significantly diminished.

They most certainly can, if parents are paying or contributing financially. If you don’t go in a year, we won’t pay. Done.