Anonymous wrote:Redshirting is only an option for those who can afford an extra year of private childcare. It’s more common for the poorest kids to start kindergarten at the earliest possible opportunity, sometimes as young as 4. Redshirting is elitist and exacerbates inequality.

I think this is a troll post.

I don’t send my kids to private schools. The thread isn’t “redshirting in private schools”.

Anonymous wrote:Redshirting is only an option for those who can afford an extra year of private childcare. It’s more common for the poorest kids to start kindergarten at the earliest possible opportunity, sometimes as young as 4. Redshirting is elitist and exacerbates inequality.

Says the person sending her kids to private school and whining about it.

Do you even hear yourself?

Redshirting is only an option for those who can afford an extra year of private childcare. It’s more common for the poorest kids to start kindergarten at the earliest possible opportunity, sometimes as young as 4. Redshirting is elitist and exacerbates inequality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So explain to me like I am 5 why if a 12 months age gap is enough to show discrepancies in standardised test scores and special needs diagnosis that and bigger age gap wouldn’t be worse? Surely that’s an obvious conclusion to reach. Would you reasonably expect an average 17 year old to have a higher SATs score than an average 15 year old?

Because it's more than a 12 month age gap. It should be 12 months.

Oh really? Why, pray tell? Could it be…

NATURAL LAW?

Hi, Natural Law Lady! I’ve been away for a few months but it’s good to see that you’re still fighting the good fight against the unnatural abomination that is mixed-age classrooms! I can’t wait until you have children shipped off to regional centers that will allow for children to be in one of 365 classrooms, each covering only a 24 hour calendar day span.

Of course, these born at 12:01 AM would probably have an advantage over those born at 11:59 pm…

Anonymous wrote:Do you think he is behind or do you just feel you should because he would be the youngest?

This is very child specific and you don’t offer any detail about your child apart from is birthday.

No, we just think he willbwmore mature and a better lacrosse player with the redshirt

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this because the poster asking for data conveniently ignored it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

THE YOUNGEST KIDS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

So what will the schools do to make sure NOBODY is ever the youngest?

Reduce the age cohort age range from 12 months to 6 months in the younger school years. Someone will still be the youngest but all the evidence based disadvantages from relative age affect disappear with such a narrow age gap.

Could you provide some data backing the bolded up? That seems like a very strong claim to make, and I’m curious why you are able to make such a strong statement. I am assuming there is a lot of data supporting the assertion?

I’m personally a bit skeptical — that just seems like far too broad a claim to make — but I like to read actual studies on this topic so please link!

I refer you to Malcolm Gladwells work. My suggestion came from him.

https://youtu.be/t5sJRGmyZ3Y

Uh, no. I’m sorry, but Malcolm Gladwell is not a legitimate data source. He’s been debunked and widely criticized on so many different topics at this point that I don’t think academics of any repute will even mention his name.

Do you have cites, studies, essays, or recommendations from actual academics, not ten-year-old videos from debunked pop culture snake oil salesmen? I would genuinely like to read them.

Emily Oster covered this in depth as well in her new book, the family firm. Google it. Among other factors, the research showed that those who were the youngest in their grade were more likely to be diagnosed with adhd by age seven or so, and this was even more pronounced among boys who were the youngest in their classes. Overall the data showed disadvantage towards being the youngest. In my case, I’m not looking for an advantage for my kids, but I am lookingm to minimize disadvantage to them where I can.

Please for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Emily Oster and Malcolm Gladwell are your source material? I don’t even know how to respond to scientific illiteracy this profound.

Just scrolling because I’m bored.

I’m going to quote a friend who has counseled 100’s if not thousands of kids and families. He’s been doing this for about 40 years. He’s never met a parent who regretted keeping their summer child back, but he knows plenty who regretted not doing it.

I regretted it and child ended up skipping a grade to make up for it. People like your friend gave us very very bad advice. Now, kid is in all advanced classes despite being young for their age. Child is clear they wouldn't have wanted to be held back.

Right. You post this on DCUM all the time. So there is you, and nobody else with regrets. Noted.

The above PP is a liar. There's no way a young kid could be doing well. Doesn't he know he has been disadvantaged by the mere presence of kids a few months older? And as an aside it was a pretty easy fix to advance the kid a year. Making them repeat a grade is far more disastrous. You got very good advice and even if it did not work out, you were able to quickly fix it. We should all be so lucky.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this because the poster asking for data conveniently ignored it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

THE YOUNGEST KIDS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

So what will the schools do to make sure NOBODY is ever the youngest?

Reduce the age cohort age range from 12 months to 6 months in the younger school years. Someone will still be the youngest but all the evidence based disadvantages from relative age affect disappear with such a narrow age gap.

Could you provide some data backing the bolded up? That seems like a very strong claim to make, and I’m curious why you are able to make such a strong statement. I am assuming there is a lot of data supporting the assertion?

I’m personally a bit skeptical — that just seems like far too broad a claim to make — but I like to read actual studies on this topic so please link!

I refer you to Malcolm Gladwells work. My suggestion came from him.

https://youtu.be/t5sJRGmyZ3Y

Uh, no. I’m sorry, but Malcolm Gladwell is not a legitimate data source. He’s been debunked and widely criticized on so many different topics at this point that I don’t think academics of any repute will even mention his name.

Do you have cites, studies, essays, or recommendations from actual academics, not ten-year-old videos from debunked pop culture snake oil salesmen? I would genuinely like to read them.

Emily Oster covered this in depth as well in her new book, the family firm. Google it. Among other factors, the research showed that those who were the youngest in their grade were more likely to be diagnosed with adhd by age seven or so, and this was even more pronounced among boys who were the youngest in their classes. Overall the data showed disadvantage towards being the youngest. In my case, I’m not looking for an advantage for my kids, but I am lookingm to minimize disadvantage to them where I can.

Please for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Emily Oster and Malcolm Gladwell are your source material? I don’t even know how to respond to scientific illiteracy this profound.

Just scrolling because I’m bored.

I’m going to quote a friend who has counseled 100’s if not thousands of kids and families. He’s been doing this for about 40 years. He’s never met a parent who regretted keeping their summer child back, but he knows plenty who regretted not doing it.

I regretted it and child ended up skipping a grade to make up for it. People like your friend gave us very very bad advice. Now, kid is in all advanced classes despite being young for their age. Child is clear they wouldn't have wanted to be held back.

Right. You post this on DCUM all the time. So there is you, and nobody else with regrets. Noted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Parents of spring borns who are suddenly the youngest in their class and are unfairly disadvantaged for advanced programs and opportunities should care about those stacking the decks.

It's telling that there aren't actually in here crying about this grave injustice. It's almost as if they don't care and aren't threatened by it.

Don’t go to private schools that redshirt. Problem solved.

It's so obvious. The school doesn't have values that match yours. Your spring born might be the youngest. Why would you even want to send your child to such a school in the first place? It's a bad fit.

But I want my kids to go to private school!! I deserve that. Why won’t the private schools do what I want?

Anonymous wrote:
Parents of spring borns who are suddenly the youngest in their class and are unfairly disadvantaged for advanced programs and opportunities should care about those stacking the decks.

My youngest is in the most advanced classes... it is an issue for standardized tests that aren't age normed but no big deal. Started Algebra in 6th grade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this because the poster asking for data conveniently ignored it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

THE YOUNGEST KIDS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

So what will the schools do to make sure NOBODY is ever the youngest?

Reduce the age cohort age range from 12 months to 6 months in the younger school years. Someone will still be the youngest but all the evidence based disadvantages from relative age affect disappear with such a narrow age gap.

Could you provide some data backing the bolded up? That seems like a very strong claim to make, and I’m curious why you are able to make such a strong statement. I am assuming there is a lot of data supporting the assertion?

I’m personally a bit skeptical — that just seems like far too broad a claim to make — but I like to read actual studies on this topic so please link!

I refer you to Malcolm Gladwells work. My suggestion came from him.

https://youtu.be/t5sJRGmyZ3Y

Uh, no. I’m sorry, but Malcolm Gladwell is not a legitimate data source. He’s been debunked and widely criticized on so many different topics at this point that I don’t think academics of any repute will even mention his name.

Do you have cites, studies, essays, or recommendations from actual academics, not ten-year-old videos from debunked pop culture snake oil salesmen? I would genuinely like to read them.

Emily Oster covered this in depth as well in her new book, the family firm. Google it. Among other factors, the research showed that those who were the youngest in their grade were more likely to be diagnosed with adhd by age seven or so, and this was even more pronounced among boys who were the youngest in their classes. Overall the data showed disadvantage towards being the youngest. In my case, I’m not looking for an advantage for my kids, but I am lookingm to minimize disadvantage to them where I can.

Please for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Emily Oster and Malcolm Gladwell are your source material? I don’t even know how to respond to scientific illiteracy this profound.

Just scrolling because I’m bored.

I’m going to quote a friend who has counseled 100’s if not thousands of kids and families. He’s been doing this for about 40 years. He’s never met a parent who regretted keeping their summer child back, but he knows plenty who regretted not doing it.

I regretted it and child ended up skipping a grade to make up for it. People like your friend gave us very very bad advice. Now, kid is in all advanced classes despite being young for their age. Child is clear they wouldn't have wanted to be held back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this because the poster asking for data conveniently ignored it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

THE YOUNGEST KIDS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

So what will the schools do to make sure NOBODY is ever the youngest?

Reduce the age cohort age range from 12 months to 6 months in the younger school years. Someone will still be the youngest but all the evidence based disadvantages from relative age affect disappear with such a narrow age gap.

Could you provide some data backing the bolded up? That seems like a very strong claim to make, and I’m curious why you are able to make such a strong statement. I am assuming there is a lot of data supporting the assertion?

I’m personally a bit skeptical — that just seems like far too broad a claim to make — but I like to read actual studies on this topic so please link!

I refer you to Malcolm Gladwells work. My suggestion came from him.

https://youtu.be/t5sJRGmyZ3Y

Uh, no. I’m sorry, but Malcolm Gladwell is not a legitimate data source. He’s been debunked and widely criticized on so many different topics at this point that I don’t think academics of any repute will even mention his name.

Do you have cites, studies, essays, or recommendations from actual academics, not ten-year-old videos from debunked pop culture snake oil salesmen? I would genuinely like to read them.

Emily Oster covered this in depth as well in her new book, the family firm. Google it. Among other factors, the research showed that those who were the youngest in their grade were more likely to be diagnosed with adhd by age seven or so, and this was even more pronounced among boys who were the youngest in their classes. Overall the data showed disadvantage towards being the youngest. In my case, I’m not looking for an advantage for my kids, but I am lookingm to minimize disadvantage to them where I can.

Please for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Emily Oster and Malcolm Gladwell are your source material? I don’t even know how to respond to scientific illiteracy this profound.

Also, why do you have to be so nasty?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this because the poster asking for data conveniently ignored it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

THE YOUNGEST KIDS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

So what will the schools do to make sure NOBODY is ever the youngest?

Reduce the age cohort age range from 12 months to 6 months in the younger school years. Someone will still be the youngest but all the evidence based disadvantages from relative age affect disappear with such a narrow age gap.

Could you provide some data backing the bolded up? That seems like a very strong claim to make, and I’m curious why you are able to make such a strong statement. I am assuming there is a lot of data supporting the assertion?

I’m personally a bit skeptical — that just seems like far too broad a claim to make — but I like to read actual studies on this topic so please link!

I refer you to Malcolm Gladwells work. My suggestion came from him.

https://youtu.be/t5sJRGmyZ3Y

Uh, no. I’m sorry, but Malcolm Gladwell is not a legitimate data source. He’s been debunked and widely criticized on so many different topics at this point that I don’t think academics of any repute will even mention his name.

Do you have cites, studies, essays, or recommendations from actual academics, not ten-year-old videos from debunked pop culture snake oil salesmen? I would genuinely like to read them.

Emily Oster covered this in depth as well in her new book, the family firm. Google it. Among other factors, the research showed that those who were the youngest in their grade were more likely to be diagnosed with adhd by age seven or so, and this was even more pronounced among boys who were the youngest in their classes. Overall the data showed disadvantage towards being the youngest. In my case, I’m not looking for an advantage for my kids, but I am lookingm to minimize disadvantage to them where I can.

Please for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Emily Oster and Malcolm Gladwell are your source material? I don’t even know how to respond to scientific illiteracy this profound.

Emily oster is an Ivy League employed economist with a PhD in data. Who are you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this because the poster asking for data conveniently ignored it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

THE YOUNGEST KIDS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

So what will the schools do to make sure NOBODY is ever the youngest?

Reduce the age cohort age range from 12 months to 6 months in the younger school years. Someone will still be the youngest but all the evidence based disadvantages from relative age affect disappear with such a narrow age gap.

Could you provide some data backing the bolded up? That seems like a very strong claim to make, and I’m curious why you are able to make such a strong statement. I am assuming there is a lot of data supporting the assertion?

I’m personally a bit skeptical — that just seems like far too broad a claim to make — but I like to read actual studies on this topic so please link!

I refer you to Malcolm Gladwells work. My suggestion came from him.

https://youtu.be/t5sJRGmyZ3Y

Uh, no. I’m sorry, but Malcolm Gladwell is not a legitimate data source. He’s been debunked and widely criticized on so many different topics at this point that I don’t think academics of any repute will even mention his name.

Do you have cites, studies, essays, or recommendations from actual academics, not ten-year-old videos from debunked pop culture snake oil salesmen? I would genuinely like to read them.

Emily Oster covered this in depth as well in her new book, the family firm. Google it. Among other factors, the research showed that those who were the youngest in their grade were more likely to be diagnosed with adhd by age seven or so, and this was even more pronounced among boys who were the youngest in their classes. Overall the data showed disadvantage towards being the youngest. In my case, I’m not looking for an advantage for my kids, but I am lookingm to minimize disadvantage to them where I can.

Please for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Emily Oster and Malcolm Gladwell are your source material? I don’t even know how to respond to scientific illiteracy this profound.

Just scrolling because I’m bored.

I’m going to quote a friend who has counseled 100’s if not thousands of kids and families. He’s been doing this for about 40 years. He’s never met a parent who regretted keeping their summer child back, but he knows plenty who regretted not doing it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this because the poster asking for data conveniently ignored it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

THE YOUNGEST KIDS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

So what will the schools do to make sure NOBODY is ever the youngest?

Reduce the age cohort age range from 12 months to 6 months in the younger school years. Someone will still be the youngest but all the evidence based disadvantages from relative age affect disappear with such a narrow age gap.

Could you provide some data backing the bolded up? That seems like a very strong claim to make, and I’m curious why you are able to make such a strong statement. I am assuming there is a lot of data supporting the assertion?

I’m personally a bit skeptical — that just seems like far too broad a claim to make — but I like to read actual studies on this topic so please link!

I refer you to Malcolm Gladwells work. My suggestion came from him.

https://youtu.be/t5sJRGmyZ3Y

Uh, no. I’m sorry, but Malcolm Gladwell is not a legitimate data source. He’s been debunked and widely criticized on so many different topics at this point that I don’t think academics of any repute will even mention his name.

Do you have cites, studies, essays, or recommendations from actual academics, not ten-year-old videos from debunked pop culture snake oil salesmen? I would genuinely like to read them.

Emily Oster covered this in depth as well in her new book, the family firm. Google it. Among other factors, the research showed that those who were the youngest in their grade were more likely to be diagnosed with adhd by age seven or so, and this was even more pronounced among boys who were the youngest in their classes. Overall the data showed disadvantage towards being the youngest. In my case, I’m not looking for an advantage for my kids, but I am lookingm to minimize disadvantage to them where I can.

Please for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Emily Oster and Malcolm Gladwell are your source material? I don’t even know how to respond to scientific illiteracy this profound.

What is your explanation of why parents of UMC boys born in August tend to redshirt then. Every action has consequences and the redshirted kids advantage/loss of disadvantaged stacks the deck against the new youngest of the cohort.