Anonymous wrote:How will increasing the age range narrow the ability level range? It will result in the opposite. High ability older children will be mixed with low ability younger ones so the overall ability range increases and the teacher has to stretch further.

Parents redshirt to give their kids an advantage so they won’t care if their kids are already above average, they will still rationalise that their kid “ needs to be redshirted” so will put them with the younger group..

Anonymous wrote:THE SCHOOL CUTOFF DATE IS SEPTEMBER, NOT JANUARY.

Please, please, PLEASE get this through your thick, crazy skull.

Anonymous wrote:Natural law anti redshirter also believes that if you send your child on time as a fall birthday in a (say) Sept 1 cutoff state, you are redshirting. She is delusional.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have two boys with June birthdays. I redshirted one and not the other based on their needs at the time. Personally, I think there should be a lot more fluidity in grade placement, and grouping kids based on age leads to a lot of unnecessary work for teachers, too much competition between streets, and strains resource programs.

This makes zero sense. Grouping with large age gaps creates more work as kids with a two year age span are in very different places developmentally. Holding back a June child makes zero sense. I hope you got your child evaluated and into therapy if they were having developmental issues.

+1

A kid with a June birthday is already on the older half. I bet that poster was simply bursting pride that their son outperformed kids 7-18 months younger than them all through school.

No, they are the youngest.

Last time I checked, June was in the first half of the year. But hey, let's do the math anyway to make sure. We'll start with a non-leap year. 365 divided by 2 is 182.5, which means that anyone born in the first 182 days of a non-leap year is on the old side, anyone born on the 183rd day of the year is smack in the middle, and anyone born after than is on the young side. Let's start adding up the days of each month until we pass 182.

31 plus 28 is 59. 59 plus 31 is 90. 90 plus 30 is 120. 120 plus 31 is 151. 151 plus 30 is 181. 181 plus 31 is 212. Oh look at that, we passed 182. We just calculated that there are a total of 181 days from January to June in a non-leap year, which is less than 182.5. This means that the older half includes, not only those born from January to June, but anyone born on July 1st.

Now, let's do leap years. 366 divided by 2 is 183, which means that anyone born in the first 183 days of a non-leap year is on the old side, and that anyone born after that is on the young side. Since we already calculated that there are 181 days in the first 6 months of a non-leap year, we know that there are 182 days in the first 6 months of a leap year. This means that the older half, once again, includes everyone born from January to June, as well as on July 1st.

On top of all this, September is the most common month to be born. https://www.rd.com/article/september-popular-birth-month/ Thus, there are kids born in the later half of the year. All in all, I think I've gathered up enough evidence to prove that your statement about June-born kids being on the young end is complete bogus.

Oh my God. You really are crazy.

It’s been fascinating exploring her brand of crazy. I knew she was fixated on a 365 day span as being “natural law” for classroom divisions, but I didn’t realize that for her it explicitly had to run from Jan 1 - Dec 31.

This doesn’t map onto reality (most schools have a fall cutoff, so summer birthdays would be the youngest) but.. reality left the thread a long time ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have two boys with June birthdays. I redshirted one and not the other based on their needs at the time. Personally, I think there should be a lot more fluidity in grade placement, and grouping kids based on age leads to a lot of unnecessary work for teachers, too much competition between streets, and strains resource programs.

This makes zero sense. Grouping with large age gaps creates more work as kids with a two year age span are in very different places developmentally. Holding back a June child makes zero sense. I hope you got your child evaluated and into therapy if they were having developmental issues.

+1

A kid with a June birthday is already on the older half. I bet that poster was simply bursting pride that their son outperformed kids 7-18 months younger than them all through school.

No, they are the youngest.

Last time I checked, June was in the first half of the year. But hey, let's do the math anyway to make sure. We'll start with a non-leap year. 365 divided by 2 is 182.5, which means that anyone born in the first 182 days of a non-leap year is on the old side, anyone born on the 183rd day of the year is smack in the middle, and anyone born after than is on the young side. Let's start adding up the days of each month until we pass 182.

31 plus 28 is 59. 59 plus 31 is 90. 90 plus 30 is 120. 120 plus 31 is 151. 151 plus 30 is 181. 181 plus 31 is 212. Oh look at that, we passed 182. We just calculated that there are a total of 181 days from January to June in a non-leap year, which is less than 182.5. This means that the older half includes, not only those born from January to June, but anyone born on July 1st.

Now, let's do leap years. 366 divided by 2 is 183, which means that anyone born in the first 183 days of a non-leap year is on the old side, and that anyone born after that is on the young side. Since we already calculated that there are 181 days in the first 6 months of a non-leap year, we know that there are 182 days in the first 6 months of a leap year. This means that the older half, once again, includes everyone born from January to June, as well as on July 1st.

On top of all this, September is the most common month to be born. https://www.rd.com/article/september-popular-birth-month/ Thus, there are kids born in the later half of the year. All in all, I think I've gathered up enough evidence to prove that your statement about June-born kids being on the young end is complete bogus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have two boys with June birthdays. I redshirted one and not the other based on their needs at the time. Personally, I think there should be a lot more fluidity in grade placement, and grouping kids based on age leads to a lot of unnecessary work for teachers, too much competition between streets, and strains resource programs.

This makes zero sense. Grouping with large age gaps creates more work as kids with a two year age span are in very different places developmentally. Holding back a June child makes zero sense. I hope you got your child evaluated and into therapy if they were having developmental issues.

+1

A kid with a June birthday is already on the older half. I bet that poster was simply bursting pride that their son outperformed kids 7-18 months younger than them all through school.

No, they are the youngest.

Last time I checked, June was in the first half of the year. But hey, let's do the math anyway to make sure. We'll start with a non-leap year. 365 divided by 2 is 182.5, which means that anyone born in the first 182 days of a non-leap year is on the old side, anyone born on the 183rd day of the year is smack in the middle, and anyone born after than is on the young side. Let's start adding up the days of each month until we pass 182.

31 plus 28 is 59. 59 plus 31 is 90. 90 plus 30 is 120. 120 plus 31 is 151. 151 plus 30 is 181. 181 plus 31 is 212. Oh look at that, we passed 182. We just calculated that there are a total of 181 days from January to June in a non-leap year, which is less than 182.5. This means that the older half includes, not only those born from January to June, but anyone born on July 1st.

Now, let's do leap years. 366 divided by 2 is 183, which means that anyone born in the first 183 days of a non-leap year is on the old side, and that anyone born after that is on the young side. Since we already calculated that there are 181 days in the first 6 months of a non-leap year, we know that there are 182 days in the first 6 months of a leap year. This means that the older half, once again, includes everyone born from January to June, as well as on July 1st.

On top of all this, September is the most common month to be born. https://www.rd.com/article/september-popular-birth-month/ Thus, there are kids born in the later half of the year. All in all, I think I've gathered up enough evidence to prove that your statement about June-born kids being on the young end is complete bogus.

Oh my God. You really are crazy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have two boys with June birthdays. I redshirted one and not the other based on their needs at the time. Personally, I think there should be a lot more fluidity in grade placement, and grouping kids based on age leads to a lot of unnecessary work for teachers, too much competition between streets, and strains resource programs.

This makes zero sense. Grouping with large age gaps creates more work as kids with a two year age span are in very different places developmentally. Holding back a June child makes zero sense. I hope you got your child evaluated and into therapy if they were having developmental issues.

+1

A kid with a June birthday is already on the older half. I bet that poster was simply bursting pride that their son outperformed kids 7-18 months younger than them all through school.

No, they are the youngest.

Last time I checked, June was in the first half of the year. But hey, let's do the math anyway to make sure. We'll start with a non-leap year. 365 divided by 2 is 182.5, which means that anyone born in the first 182 days of a non-leap year is on the old side, anyone born on the 183rd day of the year is smack in the middle, and anyone born after than is on the young side. Let's start adding up the days of each month until we pass 182.

31 plus 28 is 59. 59 plus 31 is 90. 90 plus 30 is 120. 120 plus 31 is 151. 151 plus 30 is 181. 181 plus 31 is 212. Oh look at that, we passed 182. We just calculated that there are a total of 181 days from January to June in a non-leap year, which is less than 182.5. This means that the older half includes, not only those born from January to June, but anyone born on July 1st.

Now, let's do leap years. 366 divided by 2 is 183, which means that anyone born in the first 183 days of a non-leap year is on the old side, and that anyone born after that is on the young side. Since we already calculated that there are 181 days in the first 6 months of a non-leap year, we know that there are 182 days in the first 6 months of a leap year. This means that the older half, once again, includes everyone born from January to June, as well as on July 1st.

On top of all this, September is the most common month to be born. https://www.rd.com/article/september-popular-birth-month/ Thus, there are kids born in the later half of the year. All in all, I think I've gathered up enough evidence to prove that your statement about June-born kids being on the young end is complete bogus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have two boys with June birthdays. I redshirted one and not the other based on their needs at the time. Personally, I think there should be a lot more fluidity in grade placement, and grouping kids based on age leads to a lot of unnecessary work for teachers, too much competition between streets, and strains resource programs.

This makes zero sense. Grouping with large age gaps creates more work as kids with a two year age span are in very different places developmentally. Holding back a June child makes zero sense. I hope you got your child evaluated and into therapy if they were having developmental issues.

+1

A kid with a June birthday is already on the older half. I bet that poster was simply bursting pride that their son outperformed kids 7-18 months younger than them all through school.

No, they are the youngest.

Last time I checked, June was in the first half of the year. But hey, let's do the math anyway to make sure. We'll start with a non-leap year. 365 divided by 2 is 182.5, which means that anyone born in the first 182 days of a non-leap year is on the old side, anyone born on the 183rd day of the year is smack in the middle, and anyone born after than is on the young side. Let's start adding up the days of each month until we pass 182.

31 plus 28 is 59. 59 plus 31 is 90. 90 plus 30 is 120. 120 plus 31 is 151. 151 plus 30 is 181. 181 plus 31 is 212. Oh look at that, we passed 182. We just calculated that there are a total of 181 days from January to June in a non-leap year, which is less than 182.5. This means that the older half includes, not only those born from January to June, but anyone born on July 1st.

Now, let's do leap years. 366 divided by 2 is 183, which means that anyone born in the first 183 days of a non-leap year is on the old side, and that anyone born after that is on the young side. Since we already calculated that there are 181 days in the first 6 months of a non-leap year, we know that there are 182 days in the first 6 months of a leap year. This means that the older half, once again, includes everyone born from January to June, as well as on July 1st.

On top of all this, September is the most common month to be born. https://www.rd.com/article/september-popular-birth-month/ Thus, there are kids born in the later half of the year. All in all, I think I've gathered up enough evidence to prove that your statement about June-born kids being on the young end is complete bogus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have two boys with June birthdays. I redshirted one and not the other based on their needs at the time. Personally, I think there should be a lot more fluidity in grade placement, and grouping kids based on age leads to a lot of unnecessary work for teachers, too much competition between streets, and strains resource programs.

This makes zero sense. Grouping with large age gaps creates more work as kids with a two year age span are in very different places developmentally. Holding back a June child makes zero sense. I hope you got your child evaluated and into therapy if they were having developmental issues.

+1

A kid with a June birthday is already on the older half. I bet that poster was simply bursting pride that their son outperformed kids 7-18 months younger than them all through school.

No, they are the youngest.

Anonymous wrote:Ah back to the gaslighting by the entitled privileged trying to maintain their unfair advantage.

Fact- Kids over 1 year younger than classmates are at a disadvantage!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have two boys with June birthdays. I redshirted one and not the other based on their needs at the time. Personally, I think there should be a lot more fluidity in grade placement, and grouping kids based on age leads to a lot of unnecessary work for teachers, too much competition between streets, and strains resource programs.

This makes zero sense. Grouping with large age gaps creates more work as kids with a two year age span are in very different places developmentally. Holding back a June child makes zero sense. I hope you got your child evaluated and into therapy if they were having developmental issues.

+1

A kid with a June birthday is already on the older half. I bet that poster was simply bursting pride that their son outperformed kids 7-18 months younger than them all through school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have two boys with June birthdays. I redshirted one and not the other based on their needs at the time. Personally, I think there should be a lot more fluidity in grade placement, and grouping kids based on age leads to a lot of unnecessary work for teachers, too much competition between streets, and strains resource programs.

This makes zero sense. Grouping with large age gaps creates more work as kids with a two year age span are in very different places developmentally. Holding back a June child makes zero sense. I hope you got your child evaluated and into therapy if they were having developmental issues.

+1

A kid with a June birthday is already on the older half. I bet that poster was simply bursting pride that their son outperformed kids 7-18 months younger than them all through school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have two boys with June birthdays. I redshirted one and not the other based on their needs at the time. Personally, I think there should be a lot more fluidity in grade placement, and grouping kids based on age leads to a lot of unnecessary work for teachers, too much competition between streets, and strains resource programs.

This makes zero sense. Grouping with large age gaps creates more work as kids with a two year age span are in very different places developmentally. Holding back a June child makes zero sense. I hope you got your child evaluated and into therapy if they were having developmental issues.