Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where being youngest in the class is strongly correlated with ADHD diagnosis and medication (something that generally holds true across the world, including places that strictly bar redshirting*), it strikes me as entirely unethical to demand families not redshirt. You don’t get to demand another child goes down a likely medical pathway because you are willing to take on that risk for your own child.

* The only place where the study results haven’t been replicated is the one country that allows parents a large two-year leeway in start time decisions.

My youngest has neither of those issues. If you hold back saying your kid has issues you should be required to get them help. Time does not cure those things and they need support.

Do you understand that not all children are exactly like yours?

I have a kid who is one of the younger ones in the class and I cannot imagine a world in which I’d ever write what you just did. It is insanely rigid and badly incorrect thinking.

Do you realize it's bad logic to hold back a struggling child without getting them evaluated and help? You think time will fix things, no. Being older may mask things but if your child is truly delayed and you are not doing something about it, you are doing far more harm than good to hold back your child. Its one thing to hold them back to do intensive therapies, but just to be bigger and older makes no sense.

By what authority do you make your sweeping proclamations? You act like we all don't know our own kids or can see other kids thriving around us directly refuting the garbage you spew. You have zero authority on this topic which is why nobody is listening to you.

Honey, if you think people are redshirting for legitimate reasons, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Where can we meet so I can collect money from you?

Many people have legit reasons, so yes

I know of 1 legitimate case out of over upwards of 20 students. Most are not legit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where being youngest in the class is strongly correlated with ADHD diagnosis and medication (something that generally holds true across the world, including places that strictly bar redshirting*), it strikes me as entirely unethical to demand families not redshirt. You don’t get to demand another child goes down a likely medical pathway because you are willing to take on that risk for your own child.

* The only place where the study results haven’t been replicated is the one country that allows parents a large two-year leeway in start time decisions.

My youngest has neither of those issues. If you hold back saying your kid has issues you should be required to get them help. Time does not cure those things and they need support.

Do you understand that not all children are exactly like yours?

I have a kid who is one of the younger ones in the class and I cannot imagine a world in which I’d ever write what you just did. It is insanely rigid and badly incorrect thinking.

Do you realize it's bad logic to hold back a struggling child without getting them evaluated and help? You think time will fix things, no. Being older may mask things but if your child is truly delayed and you are not doing something about it, you are doing far more harm than good to hold back your child. Its one thing to hold them back to do intensive therapies, but just to be bigger and older makes no sense.

By what authority do you make your sweeping proclamations? You act like we all don't know our own kids or can see other kids thriving around us directly refuting the garbage you spew. You have zero authority on this topic which is why nobody is listening to you.

Honey, if you think people are redshirting for legitimate reasons, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Where can we meet so I can collect money from you?

Many people have legit reasons, so yes

I know of 1 legitimate case out of over upwards of 20 students. Most are not legit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where being youngest in the class is strongly correlated with ADHD diagnosis and medication (something that generally holds true across the world, including places that strictly bar redshirting*), it strikes me as entirely unethical to demand families not redshirt. You don’t get to demand another child goes down a likely medical pathway because you are willing to take on that risk for your own child.

* The only place where the study results haven’t been replicated is the one country that allows parents a large two-year leeway in start time decisions.

My youngest has neither of those issues. If you hold back saying your kid has issues you should be required to get them help. Time does not cure those things and they need support.

Do you understand that not all children are exactly like yours?

I have a kid who is one of the younger ones in the class and I cannot imagine a world in which I’d ever write what you just did. It is insanely rigid and badly incorrect thinking.

Do you realize it's bad logic to hold back a struggling child without getting them evaluated and help? You think time will fix things, no. Being older may mask things but if your child is truly delayed and you are not doing something about it, you are doing far more harm than good to hold back your child. Its one thing to hold them back to do intensive therapies, but just to be bigger and older makes no sense.

By what authority do you make your sweeping proclamations? You act like we all don't know our own kids or can see other kids thriving around us directly refuting the garbage you spew. You have zero authority on this topic which is why nobody is listening to you.

Honey, if you think people are redshirting for legitimate reasons, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Where can we meet so I can collect money from you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where being youngest in the class is strongly correlated with ADHD diagnosis and medication (something that generally holds true across the world, including places that strictly bar redshirting*), it strikes me as entirely unethical to demand families not redshirt. You don’t get to demand another child goes down a likely medical pathway because you are willing to take on that risk for your own child.

* The only place where the study results haven’t been replicated is the one country that allows parents a large two-year leeway in start time decisions.

My youngest has neither of those issues. If you hold back saying your kid has issues you should be required to get them help. Time does not cure those things and they need support.

Do you understand that not all children are exactly like yours?

I have a kid who is one of the younger ones in the class and I cannot imagine a world in which I’d ever write what you just did. It is insanely rigid and badly incorrect thinking.

Do you realize it's bad logic to hold back a struggling child without getting them evaluated and help? You think time will fix things, no. Being older may mask things but if your child is truly delayed and you are not doing something about it, you are doing far more harm than good to hold back your child. Its one thing to hold them back to do intensive therapies, but just to be bigger and older makes no sense.

By what authority do you make your sweeping proclamations? You act like we all don't know our own kids or can see other kids thriving around us directly refuting the garbage you spew. You have zero authority on this topic which is why nobody is listening to you.

Honey, if you think people are redshirting for legitimate reasons, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Where can we meet so I can collect money from you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where being youngest in the class is strongly correlated with ADHD diagnosis and medication (something that generally holds true across the world, including places that strictly bar redshirting*), it strikes me as entirely unethical to demand families not redshirt. You don’t get to demand another child goes down a likely medical pathway because you are willing to take on that risk for your own child.

* The only place where the study results haven’t been replicated is the one country that allows parents a large two-year leeway in start time decisions.

My youngest has neither of those issues. If you hold back saying your kid has issues you should be required to get them help. Time does not cure those things and they need support.

This is demonstrably false.

If all kids who are redshirted need therapeutic intervention, and time won’t cure their pathology, why are so many redshirt kids thriving? Why do you not hear parents regretting their choices and saying, oh, no, if only I had let my late blooming child be the youngest in the class, and instead gotten therapeutic intervention?

Some kids are late bloomers, and some kids are early bloomers. If your kid is in an early bloomer, then they’re fine with being the youngest in the class, and many kids will thrive that way. If your kid is a late bloomer, then may be doing them a disservice by letting them be the youngest. And it seems absolutely batshit to me to put them through therapy when all they need is time.

My kid is in a private school that offered a strong recommendation that he do an extra year. You know what? They were absolutely right. Those 12 months were all he needed to go from being anxious and emotionally overwhelmed at the end of the day to happy and thriving. I will never be sorry that we went with the school recommendation.

Kids develop differently. If my late bloomer had not been born in the summer, he might’ve been fine with his school-year cohort. Or if he’d been born in the summer, but an early bloomer. But he wasn’t, so we made a choice. It’s worked out great. I can’t see that we should have sacrificed his well-being for your arbitrary desire to have a 12 month classroom span.

The issue though is that these 'late bloomers' are then being compared to kids much younger than them- so they likely could still have the same issues that really should have been addressed but they are artificially covered up because they're 1+ years older than kids in the same class. There's a huge difference between a 5 and 6 year old.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where being youngest in the class is strongly correlated with ADHD diagnosis and medication (something that generally holds true across the world, including places that strictly bar redshirting*), it strikes me as entirely unethical to demand families not redshirt. You don’t get to demand another child goes down a likely medical pathway because you are willing to take on that risk for your own child.

* The only place where the study results haven’t been replicated is the one country that allows parents a large two-year leeway in start time decisions.

My youngest has neither of those issues. If you hold back saying your kid has issues you should be required to get them help. Time does not cure those things and they need support.

Do you understand that not all children are exactly like yours?

I have a kid who is one of the younger ones in the class and I cannot imagine a world in which I’d ever write what you just did. It is insanely rigid and badly incorrect thinking.

Do you realize it's bad logic to hold back a struggling child without getting them evaluated and help? You think time will fix things, no. Being older may mask things but if your child is truly delayed and you are not doing something about it, you are doing far more harm than good to hold back your child. Its one thing to hold them back to do intensive therapies, but just to be bigger and older makes no sense.

By what authority do you make your sweeping proclamations? You act like we all don't know our own kids or can see other kids thriving around us directly refuting the garbage you spew. You have zero authority on this topic which is why nobody is listening to you.

Honey, if you think people are redshirting for legitimate reasons, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Where can we meet so I can collect money from you?

Many people have legit reasons, so yes

I know of 1 legitimate case out of over upwards of 20 students. Most are not legit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where being youngest in the class is strongly correlated with ADHD diagnosis and medication (something that generally holds true across the world, including places that strictly bar redshirting*), it strikes me as entirely unethical to demand families not redshirt. You don’t get to demand another child goes down a likely medical pathway because you are willing to take on that risk for your own child.

* The only place where the study results haven’t been replicated is the one country that allows parents a large two-year leeway in start time decisions.

My youngest has neither of those issues. If you hold back saying your kid has issues you should be required to get them help. Time does not cure those things and they need support.

Do you understand that not all children are exactly like yours?

I have a kid who is one of the younger ones in the class and I cannot imagine a world in which I’d ever write what you just did. It is insanely rigid and badly incorrect thinking.

Do you realize it's bad logic to hold back a struggling child without getting them evaluated and help? You think time will fix things, no. Being older may mask things but if your child is truly delayed and you are not doing something about it, you are doing far more harm than good to hold back your child. Its one thing to hold them back to do intensive therapies, but just to be bigger and older makes no sense.

Speaking of bad logic, let’s see all these studies that prove what you’ve said here. You keep repeating this nonsense with no support, no studies, and no evidence. So prove your point with hard evidence. Where are all the voluminous studies showing that redshirting kids does “far more harm than good”? You speak with such authority that surely you must have pages and pages of good, validated medical research to share with me! Can’t wait to read them all!

Common sense should be all you need to know what the pp you are talking to is saying. But since you have no common sense…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where being youngest in the class is strongly correlated with ADHD diagnosis and medication (something that generally holds true across the world, including places that strictly bar redshirting*), it strikes me as entirely unethical to demand families not redshirt. You don’t get to demand another child goes down a likely medical pathway because you are willing to take on that risk for your own child.

* The only place where the study results haven’t been replicated is the one country that allows parents a large two-year leeway in start time decisions.

My youngest has neither of those issues. If you hold back saying your kid has issues you should be required to get them help. Time does not cure those things and they need support.

Do you understand that not all children are exactly like yours?

I have a kid who is one of the younger ones in the class and I cannot imagine a world in which I’d ever write what you just did. It is insanely rigid and badly incorrect thinking.

Do you realize it's bad logic to hold back a struggling child without getting them evaluated and help? You think time will fix things, no. Being older may mask things but if your child is truly delayed and you are not doing something about it, you are doing far more harm than good to hold back your child. Its one thing to hold them back to do intensive therapies, but just to be bigger and older makes no sense.

By what authority do you make your sweeping proclamations? You act like we all don't know our own kids or can see other kids thriving around us directly refuting the garbage you spew. You have zero authority on this topic which is why nobody is listening to you.

Honey, if you think people are redshirting for legitimate reasons, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Where can we meet so I can collect money from you?

Many people have legit reasons, so yes

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where being youngest in the class is strongly correlated with ADHD diagnosis and medication (something that generally holds true across the world, including places that strictly bar redshirting*), it strikes me as entirely unethical to demand families not redshirt. You don’t get to demand another child goes down a likely medical pathway because you are willing to take on that risk for your own child.

* The only place where the study results haven’t been replicated is the one country that allows parents a large two-year leeway in start time decisions.

My youngest has neither of those issues. If you hold back saying your kid has issues you should be required to get them help. Time does not cure those things and they need support.

Do you understand that not all children are exactly like yours?

I have a kid who is one of the younger ones in the class and I cannot imagine a world in which I’d ever write what you just did. It is insanely rigid and badly incorrect thinking.

Do you realize it's bad logic to hold back a struggling child without getting them evaluated and help? You think time will fix things, no. Being older may mask things but if your child is truly delayed and you are not doing something about it, you are doing far more harm than good to hold back your child. Its one thing to hold them back to do intensive therapies, but just to be bigger and older makes no sense.

By what authority do you make your sweeping proclamations? You act like we all don't know our own kids or can see other kids thriving around us directly refuting the garbage you spew. You have zero authority on this topic which is why nobody is listening to you.

Honey, if you think people are redshirting for legitimate reasons, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Where can we meet so I can collect money from you?

Many people have legit reasons, so yes

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where being youngest in the class is strongly correlated with ADHD diagnosis and medication (something that generally holds true across the world, including places that strictly bar redshirting*), it strikes me as entirely unethical to demand families not redshirt. You don’t get to demand another child goes down a likely medical pathway because you are willing to take on that risk for your own child.

* The only place where the study results haven’t been replicated is the one country that allows parents a large two-year leeway in start time decisions.

My youngest has neither of those issues. If you hold back saying your kid has issues you should be required to get them help. Time does not cure those things and they need support.

Do you understand that not all children are exactly like yours?

I have a kid who is one of the younger ones in the class and I cannot imagine a world in which I’d ever write what you just did. It is insanely rigid and badly incorrect thinking.

Do you realize it's bad logic to hold back a struggling child without getting them evaluated and help? You think time will fix things, no. Being older may mask things but if your child is truly delayed and you are not doing something about it, you are doing far more harm than good to hold back your child. Its one thing to hold them back to do intensive therapies, but just to be bigger and older makes no sense.

By what authority do you make your sweeping proclamations? You act like we all don't know our own kids or can see other kids thriving around us directly refuting the garbage you spew. You have zero authority on this topic which is why nobody is listening to you.

Honey, if you think people are redshirting for legitimate reasons, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Where can we meet so I can collect money from you?

Many people have legit reasons, so yes

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where being youngest in the class is strongly correlated with ADHD diagnosis and medication (something that generally holds true across the world, including places that strictly bar redshirting*), it strikes me as entirely unethical to demand families not redshirt. You don’t get to demand another child goes down a likely medical pathway because you are willing to take on that risk for your own child.

* The only place where the study results haven’t been replicated is the one country that allows parents a large two-year leeway in start time decisions.

My youngest has neither of those issues. If you hold back saying your kid has issues you should be required to get them help. Time does not cure those things and they need support.

Do you understand that not all children are exactly like yours?

I have a kid who is one of the younger ones in the class and I cannot imagine a world in which I’d ever write what you just did. It is insanely rigid and badly incorrect thinking.

Do you realize it's bad logic to hold back a struggling child without getting them evaluated and help? You think time will fix things, no. Being older may mask things but if your child is truly delayed and you are not doing something about it, you are doing far more harm than good to hold back your child. Its one thing to hold them back to do intensive therapies, but just to be bigger and older makes no sense.

By what authority do you make your sweeping proclamations? You act like we all don't know our own kids or can see other kids thriving around us directly refuting the garbage you spew. You have zero authority on this topic which is why nobody is listening to you.

Honey, if you think people are redshirting for legitimate reasons, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Where can we meet so I can collect money from you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a child was born Sept 4 they have to wait until they are 5 to start K by Sept 1. So they start kindergarten Sept 1 and a few days later they turn 6 years old. This is the child who is tupically the oldest in a K class, with the youngest just barely turning 5 years old on August 31/Sept 1

If someone redshirted a child born August 1, then they are 6 yrs, 1 month when they start kindergarten.... born in May they are 6 yrs, 4 months when they start kindergarten. So THEY are the oldest.

How in the heck did someone keep their child back an entire year so that by February they are 7 years old???? That's crazy and not in the intention of redshirting.

So, for you, OP, you can and should INSIST that those 7 year olds NOT be in your child's classroom in 1st grade. Tell them it's because they are bullies and too old for the room, and not working for your child. And tell them not to move OTHER 7 year olds into your child's 1st grade classroom (assuming you have multiple K classes in your school)

You have the right to request that. You can also work hard to change policy going forward, but all you can do now is try to keep your child from being in a room from now on with children who are nearly 2 years older than your child.

I missed this gem. Definitely do this, OP, and report back!

The crazy always leaks out. Always.

The school is never going to do this. You don’t even know if these kids were redshirted. My nephew was held back in first grade with a March 10th birthday. So he turned 8 in March of his second year of first grade. And nobody cared. He graduated high school at 19 and is in his junior year of college now at almost 22. He was never advanced academically or bullying any other kids, if anything it was the opposite.

People noticed but no one is going to shame a child for their parent's choices. In 1st grade, my child was 6. That's a huge difference between 6 and 8.

Yes, he was six when he first went to 1st grade as well. The school held him back, not my sister. Which might also be the case with these 7 year olds in Kindergarten. They don’t promote your child to the next grade just because a parent wants them to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where being youngest in the class is strongly correlated with ADHD diagnosis and medication (something that generally holds true across the world, including places that strictly bar redshirting*), it strikes me as entirely unethical to demand families not redshirt. You don’t get to demand another child goes down a likely medical pathway because you are willing to take on that risk for your own child.

* The only place where the study results haven’t been replicated is the one country that allows parents a large two-year leeway in start time decisions.

My youngest has neither of those issues. If you hold back saying your kid has issues you should be required to get them help. Time does not cure those things and they need support.

Do you understand that not all children are exactly like yours?

I have a kid who is one of the younger ones in the class and I cannot imagine a world in which I’d ever write what you just did. It is insanely rigid and badly incorrect thinking.

Do you realize it's bad logic to hold back a struggling child without getting them evaluated and help? You think time will fix things, no. Being older may mask things but if your child is truly delayed and you are not doing something about it, you are doing far more harm than good to hold back your child. Its one thing to hold them back to do intensive therapies, but just to be bigger and older makes no sense.

By what authority do you make your sweeping proclamations? You act like we all don't know our own kids or can see other kids thriving around us directly refuting the garbage you spew. You have zero authority on this topic which is why nobody is listening to you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a child was born Sept 4 they have to wait until they are 5 to start K by Sept 1. So they start kindergarten Sept 1 and a few days later they turn 6 years old. This is the child who is tupically the oldest in a K class, with the youngest just barely turning 5 years old on August 31/Sept 1

If someone redshirted a child born August 1, then they are 6 yrs, 1 month when they start kindergarten.... born in May they are 6 yrs, 4 months when they start kindergarten. So THEY are the oldest.

How in the heck did someone keep their child back an entire year so that by February they are 7 years old???? That's crazy and not in the intention of redshirting.

So, for you, OP, you can and should INSIST that those 7 year olds NOT be in your child's classroom in 1st grade. Tell them it's because they are bullies and too old for the room, and not working for your child. And tell them not to move OTHER 7 year olds into your child's 1st grade classroom (assuming you have multiple K classes in your school)

You have the right to request that. You can also work hard to change policy going forward, but all you can do now is try to keep your child from being in a room from now on with children who are nearly 2 years older than your child.

I missed this gem. Definitely do this, OP, and report back!

The crazy always leaks out. Always.

The school is never going to do this. You don’t even know if these kids were redshirted. My nephew was held back in first grade with a March 10th birthday. So he turned 8 in March of his second year of first grade. And nobody cared. He graduated high school at 19 and is in his junior year of college now at almost 22. He was never advanced academically or bullying any other kids, if anything it was the opposite.

People noticed but no one is going to shame a child for their parent's choices. In 1st grade, my child was 6. That's a huge difference between 6 and 8.