Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You realize that your statements are an actual advertisement for redshirting right? Stay back a year. Get better grades. Be more confident. Excel in school and social activities. Get in to better colleges. Win In fact, win big.

Can somebody please explain to me what satisfaction there is in "winning" something when you know you only did better because of you had a huge advantage over the other competitors? I think most kids would have a hard time feeling proud of themselves for doing better in school solely because they were older.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You realize that your statements are an actual advertisement for redshirting right? Stay back a year. Get better grades. Be more confident. Excel in school and social activities. Get in to better colleges. Win In fact, win big.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So glad I never had to worry about this. We have a sept 1st cutoff and all of my kids are sept and oct bdays.

Yes, but OP incorrectly lumps you in with redshirting. I think there is a lot less redshirting than people assume— they are just bad at reading the calendar.

Natural law anti-redshirter is entertaining for sure.

What I meant by natural law in this case was the way things were meant to be. School was designed to group kids by age with no overlap. School was designed so that the youngest student in grade n would always be older than the oldest student in grade n-1. Redshirting open up the possibility of this rule being violated Let's say a kid born at the beginning of October is redshirted. That means that they'll be older than roughly a quarter of the kids in the grade above them. It is not normal or natural for there to be a case of a student in grade n being younger than a student in grade n-1. This is why I'm against both redshirting and greenshirting.

You keep on coming back to demonstrate your craziness and total lack of understanding of the history of education.

Why are DCUM anti-redshirt posters so absolutely bonkers? They are hands down the weirdest group on DCUM.

I love it, and I hope they continue to grace us with their wild and half-baked ideas forever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So glad I never had to worry about this. We have a sept 1st cutoff and all of my kids are sept and oct bdays.

Yes, but OP incorrectly lumps you in with redshirting. I think there is a lot less redshirting than people assume— they are just bad at reading the calendar.

Natural law anti-redshirter is entertaining for sure.

What I meant by natural law in this case was the way things were meant to be. School was designed to group kids by age with no overlap. School was designed so that the youngest student in grade n would always be older than the oldest student in grade n-1. Redshirting open up the possibility of this rule being violated Let's say a kid born at the beginning of October is redshirted. That means that they'll be older than roughly a quarter of the kids in the grade above them. It is not normal or natural for there to be a case of a student in grade n being younger than a student in grade n-1. This is why I'm against both redshirting and greenshirting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So glad I never had to worry about this. We have a sept 1st cutoff and all of my kids are sept and oct bdays.

Yes, but OP incorrectly lumps you in with redshirting. I think there is a lot less redshirting than people assume— they are just bad at reading the calendar.

Natural law anti-redshirter is entertaining for sure.

What I meant by natural law in this case was the way things were meant to be. School was designed to group kids by age with no overlap. School was designed so that the youngest student in grade n would always be older than the oldest student in grade n-1. Redshirting open up the possibility of this rule being violated Let's say a kid born at the beginning of October is redshirted. That means that they'll be older than roughly a quarter of the kids in the grade above them. It is not normal or natural for there to be a case of a student in grade n being younger than a student in grade n-1. This is why I'm against both redshirting and greenshirting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So glad I never had to worry about this. We have a sept 1st cutoff and all of my kids are sept and oct bdays.

Yes, but OP incorrectly lumps you in with redshirting. I think there is a lot less redshirting than people assume— they are just bad at reading the calendar.

Natural law anti-redshirter is entertaining for sure.

What I meant by natural law in this case was the way things were meant to be. School was designed to group kids by age with no overlap. School was designed so that the youngest student in grade n would always be older than the oldest student in grade n-1. Redshirting open up the possibility of this rule being violated Let's say a kid born at the beginning of October is redshirted. That means that they'll be older than roughly a quarter of the kids in the grade above them. It is not normal or natural for there to be a case of a student in grade n being younger than a student in grade n-1. This is why I'm against both redshirting and greenshirting.

You keep on coming back to demonstrate your craziness and total lack of understanding of the history of education.

Why are DCUM anti-redshirt posters so absolutely bonkers? They are hands down the weirdest group on DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So glad I never had to worry about this. We have a sept 1st cutoff and all of my kids are sept and oct bdays.

Yes, but OP incorrectly lumps you in with redshirting. I think there is a lot less redshirting than people assume— they are just bad at reading the calendar.

Natural law anti-redshirter is entertaining for sure.

What I meant by natural law in this case was the way things were meant to be. School was designed to group kids by age with no overlap. School was designed so that the youngest student in grade n would always be older than the oldest student in grade n-1. Redshirting open up the possibility of this rule being violated Let's say a kid born at the beginning of October is redshirted. That means that they'll be older than roughly a quarter of the kids in the grade above them. It is not normal or natural for there to be a case of a student in grade n being younger than a student in grade n-1. This is why I'm against both redshirting and greenshirting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m redshirting my July daughter

Ditto. She's 4 and my youngest child and she's not happy about that. She's always the youngest in the class too and she's more immature. Another year of childhood seems like a great gift to give her.

She isn't less mature. You are not comparing her to her actual peers and kids a year younger. You are doing it for her, not you. You aren't giving her an extra year of childhood. You are taking away a year of being an adult and forcing them to continue being a child.

Meh I'd rather my kid enter adulthood mature, ready for the next step, and with confidence than launching them too soon. I'll take my chances with the gift of time rather than roll the dice and find out that it would be an uphill battle and struggle by forcing them before they were ready because of an arbitrary cutoff. You only get one chance to get it right. I know people who regret sending the kids on time when they were young and immature, I don't know anyone who regrets redshirting. It's not robbing them of a year of adulthood, it's making sure they are as ready and a prepared as they can be to get the most out of their education. It's not a race.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So glad I never had to worry about this. We have a sept 1st cutoff and all of my kids are sept and oct bdays.

Yes, but OP incorrectly lumps you in with redshirting. I think there is a lot less redshirting than people assume— they are just bad at reading the calendar.

Natural law anti-redshirter is entertaining for sure.

What I meant by natural law in this case was the way things were meant to be. School was designed to group kids by age with no overlap. School was designed so that the youngest student in grade n would always be older than the oldest student in grade n-1. Redshirting open up the possibility of this rule being violated Let's say a kid born at the beginning of October is redshirted. That means that they'll be older than roughly a quarter of the kids in the grade above them. It is not normal or natural for there to be a case of a student in grade n being younger than a student in grade n-1. This is why I'm against both redshirting and greenshirting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So glad I never had to worry about this. We have a sept 1st cutoff and all of my kids are sept and oct bdays.

Yes, but OP incorrectly lumps you in with redshirting. I think there is a lot less redshirting than people assume— they are just bad at reading the calendar.

Natural law anti-redshirter is entertaining for sure.

What I meant by natural law in this case was the way things were meant to be. School was designed to group kids by age with no overlap. School was designed so that the youngest student in grade n would always be older than the oldest student in grade n-1. Redshirting open up the possibility of this rule being violated Let's say a kid born at the beginning of October is redshirted. That means that they'll be older than roughly a quarter of the kids in the grade above them. It is not normal or natural for there to be a case of a student in grade n being younger than a student in grade n-1. This is why I'm against both redshirting and greenshirting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So glad I never had to worry about this. We have a sept 1st cutoff and all of my kids are sept and oct bdays.

Yes, but OP incorrectly lumps you in with redshirting. I think there is a lot less redshirting than people assume— they are just bad at reading the calendar.

Natural law anti-redshirter is entertaining for sure.

Anonymous wrote:It’s not just about being able to sit still on the kindergarten rug. There are long term issues. By later grades the kid can be bored or hit puberty before others, etc. kids should start school on time unless there is an underlying issue. But OP, a Nov bday is not redshirting. Sumner and sometimes late spring bdays are redshirting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At that point they will green-shirt.

I can't understand parents who green-shirt. It's almost as if they want their kid to do less well.

Not if the kid is advanced socially, academically, emotionally, mentally and physically. If you have an anxious kid who is struggling with normal social interactions, academics, physical dexterity, mental acuity etc it makes sense to redshirt them. Similarly if you have a high performing, confident, high IQ and EQ kids in a stable and happy family then they need to be green-shirted so that they can get the instruction and socialization for which they are ready.

I have never seen a green-shirted kid do poorly as most of them are high achievers.

The red-shirted kids on the other hand are perpetually behind, insecure and odd.

I've watched these threads for years, and I've always wondered just who exactly these anti-redshirters are. They exist in an imaginary reality, they can't do basic math, they can't read statistics or studies, they are viciously mean, wildly socially awkward, and with clearly strained and challenged family relationships.

And then I realized: they are exactly what they accuse redshirted children (children!) of being. They are like much of Qanon, actually fighting the demons in the mirror.

It's sad. They deserve compassion.

I’m a NP, haven’t said anything in this debate yet. But here I am, the parent of a (gasp!) a kid who skipped a grade. Both parents are Very well educated, happily married and employed, our family is well adjusted, social and stable. We read the “studies” that are listed here. I don’t live in an imaginary reality, I’m not mean or socially awkward. But, My kid is wackadoodle smart and it was the right thing to do.

I have friends who redshirted, lots actually, and never once made a big deal about this. When it comes up, I just say “X is young for their grade.” The only place I see this kind of vitriol is on DCUM

Every kid is different and every parent does what they think is right for their kid. Period.

The post above is describing DCUM anti-redshirters. You aren't anti-redshirt if you actually believe the bolded, so it doesn't apply to you. DCUM anti-redshirt posters can't see nuance like the bolded.

Correct, I am not anti-redshirt. I just hope that someone reads this post and sees that not every parent who has a “young” kid in their grade is some kind of monster. We really aren’t.

Nobody rational thinks that. Relax.

DCUMs antiredshirters are a markedly strange group who aren't rational.

There's a 8 year old in my kid's K this year. Are they a double red shirt?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I redshirted my twins. Both a smart but socially immature. They were premies with an August birthday when they should have at least been September. Given this information, I made the decision. One twin may "skip" a grade but both will probably end up in gifted. They just really needed that extra year to catch up socially.

Does it make you proud that they're outperforming kids a year younger than them?