Anonymous wrote:

Who cares about the need for more poor or black squash players at Swarthmore? In life, many of the most talented and highest earning athletes are black (maybe some started out poor).

But the highest earning team owners who employ them are White? Maybe I'm wrong on this.

The most recent lockout in the NFL and the potential lockout in the NBA might give you some inkling of who really has the power (purse strings).

Who cares about the need for more poor or black squash players at Swarthmore? In life, many of the most talented and highest earning athletes are black (maybe some started out poor).

Anonymous wrote:
Do you think it relates to an obsession with sports (e.g., football and lacrosse) ..."quarterback and team captain" mentality?

It's all about maturity and size for a competitive advantage?

WT? Because no poor kids or black kids play competitive sports??

WT? Because no poor kids or black kids play competitive sports??

Anonymous wrote:Do you think it relates to an obsession with sports (e.g., football and lacrosse) ..."quarterback and team captain" mentality?

It's all about maturity and size for a competitive advantage?

Anonymous wrote:Redshirting -- an American cultural norm? Resounding yes, for the American leisure class

Redshirting is a luxury for America's leisure class. Those with disposable income and time. This phenomenon was the rule rather than the exception in elite NE boarding schools 50 years age (still is). As members of this leisure class began to settle for private metropolitan day schools and wealthy suburban public schools for their children this habit has spread to these enterprises.

The redshirting phenomena is an anathema in inner city schools and children of recent immigrants to America. Public school in the inner city provides a respite for struggling inner city parents (a free babby sitting service mandated by law). These families cannot afford to redshirt their children (even if they somehow wanted to, and they don't). Children of recent immigrants are prepared to compete for a place at America's table. The ages of the entitled ones do not engender fear and paranoia in the classroom. These kids assume American kids are naturally taller and bigger from a steady and plentiful American diet (and the best healthcare system on earth).

These immigrant children largely compete making no excuses for age, height, weight, lack of special educational accommodations in schools and on standardized tests. They do not perceive themselves at a disadvantage because some kids are older and bigger; or taking performance enhancing drugs, or getting accommodations for examinations. Many feel aptly honored and privileged to compete...and compete they do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The only reason it freaks people out in this context is that they are assuming the situation (kindergarten, remember) is a competitive one and that an older kid's presence puts their own kid at a disadvantage. That's why I see the anti-redshirters as the hypercompetitive ones.

I completely agree with this.

The schools make it competitive the admissions process is competitive. The average to above average 6 year old will gain admissions over the average to above average 5 year old.

No -- the test scores, for example, are all scaled (down to the month). And, of course, admission has ceased to be an issue once you're worried about the ages of other kids in your DC's class.

Anonymous wrote:Immigrants compete in America. They do not waste time redshirting, looking for accommodation in education, pharmacologic advantage and tutors. Older children in their classrooms or on the soccer field do not impede their performance. These youngsters and their parents are more concerned about their children's own success and not the age, height or weight of their children's classmates. Try checking the mean ages, weights and heights of all Intel winners, Math Olympiad and Mathcount Champions, Spelling Bee winners, National Merit Semifinalists and Finalists and AP winners? I suspect these folk were not the elders, tallest, heaviest and biggest kids in their classrooms! Their success was not blunted by redshirters! Only neuroic children, students and their parents worry about the age and size of children in the classroom.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then factor in the boys, the girls, the rich, the poor, the Indians, the Asian Americans, the learning disabled, the funny kid, the shy kid, the genius, the athlete, the artist, the musician, the geek, the beauty queen, the diplomat's kid, the English as a Second Language kid, the tall, the skinny . . . wow, what a wonderful opportunity for learning.