Anonymous wrote:So with a cut off of Sept 1, and you are referring to an April b-day who is a year older...factor in the summer kids and then the kids who are even older than the April kid, and you can begin to get a clearer picture of the distribution and spread in these classrooms.
The poster who called it a race to the bottom hit the nail on the head. My April-born 5 year old DS can sometimes be really immature. LIKE ALL FIVE YEAR OLDS. But I witness that he refuses to share, fights with his little sister, whatever. So maybe I decide he's "socially immature." He needs another year of emotional development. He doesn't like to sit still!! He hates to wait in line!! He wants his way all the time!! So I tell the school this. They say ok. We keep him back.
He is smart, tall, very strong and athletic. But hey, he's an april baby -- i can hold him back!! And he will be even taller, stronger, and smarter, compared with the kids 13-18 months younger than him! It wouldn't be fair to those kids. They will be judged against him, of course. Some of them will appear fidgety as compared to him and the other 6 year olds, who have had a year to develop. So their parents get told the kids have ADHD. He can read -- some of the younger ones can't -- they go to a "reading specialist." He can run fast and throw well -- the other boys feel bad, and it affects their self-esteem.
But, of course, the redshirting parents aren't thinking about this. They are only thinking about thmselves. Therein lies the problem
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
By contrast, the redshirters want to wait until their kid can handle school's demands. What's at stake for them isn't academic success vs. stellar performance. It's incompetence vs. competence. The school, apparently, agrees with the parents' POV in these cases (we're talking private schools here, so they always have the option of just rejecting the application for admission). Does it make sense to let some third party decide that the older kid should flounder in school just so that their child can be shown to better advantage? That's screwed up.
Your argument is logically flawed. This is why -- it ASSUMES that the redshirted children are all "incompetent" -- to use your word. This is a flawed assumption. There is no "competence" standard at all -- they are held back merely because their parents -- often competitive and/or misguided -- determine it to be so.
So your argument fails.
Even if the school is involved in the decision, they have little information other than what the parents tell them -- hardly an objective view.
The poster who called it a race to the bottom hit the nail on the head. My April-born 5 year old DS can sometimes be really immature. LIKE ALL FIVE YEAR OLDS. But I witness that he refuses to share, fights with his little sister, whatever. So maybe I decide he's "socially immature." He needs another year of emotional development. He doesn't like to sit still!! He hates to wait in line!! He wants his way all the time!! So I tell the school this. They say ok. We keep him back.
He is smart, tall, very strong and athletic. But hey, he's an april baby -- i can hold him back!! And he will be even taller, stronger, and smarter, compared with the kids 13-18 months younger than him! It wouldn't be fair to those kids. They will be judged against him, of course. Some of them will appear fidgety as compared to him and the other 6 year olds, who have had a year to develop. So their parents get told the kids have ADHD. He can read -- some of the younger ones can't -- they go to a "reading specialist." He can run fast and throw well -- the other boys feel bad, and it affects their self-esteem.
But, of course, the redshirting parents aren't thinking about this. They are only thinking about thmselves. Therein lies the problem.
Anonymous wrote:
By contrast, the redshirters want to wait until their kid can handle school's demands. What's at stake for them isn't academic success vs. stellar performance. It's incompetence vs. competence. The school, apparently, agrees with the parents' POV in these cases (we're talking private schools here, so they always have the option of just rejecting the application for admission). Does it make sense to let some third party decide that the older kid should flounder in school just so that their child can be shown to better advantage? That's screwed up.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I can only speak from my experiences and I see kids redshirted because Mom and Dad feel better when their kid is most advanced---physically, socially or academically.
I find the "you worry about your child and I'll worry about mine" argument hollow because when you put a kid 18 months older than mine, it effects my kid.
I agree with this. My son's birthday is in April. He is starting K in the fall. He went camp at the school in June, and two boys in his camp group will be in his K class. They were already 6 -- in June. I don't know when their birthdays are, so perhaps they turned 6 right before camp. But I am already worried. This is not what I signed up for.
O.M.G. It won't end. But really how many "normally developing" children can possibly be 18 months older than your child (assuming you know all about the redshirted kid's development)? If your kid is turning 5 and starting school in September ("on time"), you're complaining about March birthday kids being held back (so that they'll turn 7 in K)? Really, how many kids "normally developing" are turning 7 by March of their K year? I don't know of one and find it hard to believe that it's "several." Give it a rest.
And, btw, the grammar police need to issue tickets regarding the use of affect/effect that's running wild on this thread.
8 out of 12 of my neighbors is quite a stat to work with, don't you all think so?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I can only speak from my experiences and I see kids redshirted because Mom and Dad feel better when their kid is most advanced---physically, socially or academically.
I find the "you worry about your child and I'll worry about mine" argument hollow because when you put a kid 18 months older than mine, it effects my kid.
I agree with this. My son's birthday is in April. He is starting K in the fall. He went camp at the school in June, and two boys in his camp group will be in his K class. They were already 6 -- in June. I don't know when their birthdays are, so perhaps they turned 6 right before camp. But I am already worried. This is not what I signed up for.
O.M.G. It won't end. But really how many "normally developing" children can possibly be 18 months older than your child (assuming you know all about the redshirted kid's development)? If your kid is turning 5 and starting school in September ("on time"), you're complaining about March birthday kids being held back (so that they'll turn 7 in K)? Really, how many kids "normally developing" are turning 7 by March of their K year? I don't know of one and find it hard to believe that it's "several." Give it a rest.
And, btw, the grammar police need to issue tickets regarding the use of affect/effect that's running wild on this thread.
Anonymous wrote:Many are writing on this thread not to eachother but to get the attention of the schools. It is an indirect but likely effective (over time) strategy. Perhaps the school administrators were unaware of some of the sound research showing impacts of held back students on the rest of the class.
Anonymous wrote:Many are writing on this thread not to eachother but to get the attention of the schools. It is an indirect but likely effective (over time) strategy. Perhaps the school administrators were unaware of some of the sound research showing impacts of held back students on the rest of the class.
Has the percent of each class that is held back changed over the last 10, 20 years for DC independents? Only the schools will know this with any certainty.