Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The modern school system was established in 1910 when life expectancy was 50 years. Pushing kids out of the school system by 18 and out of college by 21/22 was created during a time when life expectancy was 50 years. Life expectancy today is 80 years. When you're expected to only live until 50 it was important to join the workforce at 18/21. An 18 year old today is very different from an 18 year old a hundred years ago. I don't understand the rush to push kids out of the system. My DS who's in HS is a summer baby. He wasn't redshirted and he's doing fine academically and is social but he still looks like a little kid and people often assume he's younger. If I had to do it again, I might have redshirted him because in the whole scheme of things one more year in school is by no means going to put him behind in the very long life we expect his generation to have but, rather, help him be that much more prepared because he will have had more time to mature.
So why not a gap year? That's becoming more common anyway.
I did not view starting my summer birthday child "on time" as a rush to get them out of the house and employed by 18. It just made sense -- if a child is 5 by the time K starts, and they have no delays, they can usually not only handle K but are often excited about learning to read and getting more academic instruction. At least that was the case with mine. I think another year of singing songs and free-play in preschool would have been okay but felt a little bit repetitive at some point.
We would absolutely be supportive of a gap year. My point is it should be ab individual choice and people shouldn't feel too bound by the cut off age because, as some pointed out, that even varies by school system. Parents also shouldn't feel "bad" or "embarrassed", as one poster commented, because their kid will be the oldest (someone's gotta be!) or 18 for their year of senior year. That's just silly.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The modern school system was established in 1910 when life expectancy was 50 years. Pushing kids out of the school system by 18 and out of college by 21/22 was created during a time when life expectancy was 50 years. Life expectancy today is 80 years. When you're expected to only live until 50 it was important to join the workforce at 18/21. An 18 year old today is very different from an 18 year old a hundred years ago. I don't understand the rush to push kids out of the system. My DS who's in HS is a summer baby. He wasn't redshirted and he's doing fine academically and is social but he still looks like a little kid and people often assume he's younger. If I had to do it again, I might have redshirted him because in the whole scheme of things one more year in school is by no means going to put him behind in the very long life we expect his generation to have but, rather, help him be that much more prepared because he will have had more time to mature.
So why not a gap year? That's becoming more common anyway.
I did not view starting my summer birthday child "on time" as a rush to get them out of the house and employed by 18. It just made sense -- if a child is 5 by the time K starts, and they have no delays, they can usually not only handle K but are often excited about learning to read and getting more academic instruction. At least that was the case with mine. I think another year of singing songs and free-play in preschool would have been okay but felt a little bit repetitive at some point.
Anonymous wrote:OP: the majority of people who can afford to, do. The people who can’t spend a lot of time creating narratives to justify not doing it
Anonymous wrote:The modern school system was established in 1910 when life expectancy was 50 years. Pushing kids out of the school system by 18 and out of college by 21/22 was created during a time when life expectancy was 50 years. Life expectancy today is 80 years. When you're expected to only live until 50 it was important to join the workforce at 18/21. An 18 year old today is very different from an 18 year old a hundred years ago. I don't understand the rush to push kids out of the system. My DS who's in HS is a summer baby. He wasn't redshirted and he's doing fine academically and is social but he still looks like a little kid and people often assume he's younger. If I had to do it again, I might have redshirted him because in the whole scheme of things one more year in school is by no means going to put him behind in the very long life we expect his generation to have but, rather, help him be that much more prepared because he will have had more time to mature.
Anonymous wrote:It’s dumbing kids down, letting a kid repeat a year with younger kids and not be challenged, in the name of ensuring you have a boy who is the biggest and oldest in a class because he’s like a full year older in some cases. For what reason? Being able to push the kids who go on time off the slide? Or be the first picked for teams in gym class? Some of the kids in my son’s 1st grade and daughter’s 3rd grade classes were spring kids held back and there are more than a year older than my kids who I sent on time.
Anonymous wrote:Your math is wrong. You're ignoring that there are kids who are redshirted who are 12-15 months older than a non-redshirted kid. So the kid born in late August near the cutoff is 0-15 months younger or 1 week-12 months older than their class. They actually fit more closely in the redshirted class.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I find all the people claiming their kids would be “so bored” to be odd, but I generally think parents claiming their children are so smart that school bores them to be a little bit of a red flag. I didn’t redshirt, just my general life observations.
But what you are missing is that if you redshirt, your child could wind up 12+ months older than peers in their grade level, as opposed to 9-11 months younger. In K-2nd when there's already a pretty broad range of normal of things like learning to read, I'd rather my average kid be in the group closer to her actual age, even if she's the youngest, than be a whole year-plus older.
I have zero problems with redshirting but personally would not do it unless my kid was showing signs of an social or cognitive delay. In my experience with a kid with a birthday right before the cut off, even an average kid can essentially "play up" to the level of the older kids in class, as long as they have the same PK preparation and no LDs or special needs. My kid might be the youngest in class, but there are plenty of kids who are within only a couple months of her, so it honestly doesn't even register. There are only a few kids who are actually 11 months older, and yes, those kids seem more mature and catch on faster. But a redshirted would be a full year older and then some -- it would make the differences even more pronounced.
It's really not about thinking your kid is so advanced.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Most people make this decision based not on whether their 2.5 (or 4.5) year old “seems ready”, but thinking about 5/10/15 years down the line and preferring their kid to not be the youngest in the class at that point.
I don't get why people are so convinced that being younger will be a liability but being older would not be. For both boys and girls, being significantly older (a year plus) can create issues when they enter puberty before any of their classmates. Barring delays that could make it hard for them to keep up in PK/K, most kids will do better socially and academically if they stay with the age cohort closest in age to them, even if they are on the younger end of that range.
Anonymous wrote:Just remember that if you redshirt, you'll have an 18 year old adult to get through senior year of high school.
Your math is wrong. You're ignoring that there are kids who are redshirted who are 12-15 months older than a non-redshirted kid. So the kid born in late August near the cutoff is 0-15 months younger or 1 week-12 months older than their class. They actually fit more closely in the redshirted class.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I find all the people claiming their kids would be “so bored” to be odd, but I generally think parents claiming their children are so smart that school bores them to be a little bit of a red flag. I didn’t redshirt, just my general life observations.
But what you are missing is that if you redshirt, your child could wind up 12+ months older than peers in their grade level, as opposed to 9-11 months younger. In K-2nd when there's already a pretty broad range of normal of things like learning to read, I'd rather my average kid be in the group closer to her actual age, even if she's the youngest, than be a whole year-plus older.
I have zero problems with redshirting but personally would not do it unless my kid was showing signs of an social or cognitive delay. In my experience with a kid with a birthday right before the cut off, even an average kid can essentially "play up" to the level of the older kids in class, as long as they have the same PK preparation and no LDs or special needs. My kid might be the youngest in class, but there are plenty of kids who are within only a couple months of her, so it honestly doesn't even register. There are only a few kids who are actually 11 months older, and yes, those kids seem more mature and catch on faster. But a redshirted would be a full year older and then some -- it would make the differences even more pronounced.
It's really not about thinking your kid is so advanced.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is the best article on it from the Atlantic. It advocates all boys starting later. I don't disagree from my own experiences as a girl student and also from seeing my sons and daughters. Boys just aren't as good as students as girls and lag in sitting still, paying attention and emotional maturity. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/10/boys-delayed-entry-school-start-redshirting/671238/
+1 I used to teach middle school, and by that age is it very obvious which boys have summer birthdays (and were not redshirted)