Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-redshirting parents project their own competiveness and obsession with gaining every advantage for their kids only redshirting parents. They view what is an individualized decision taken for the good of the child as some kind of threat to their own child. They see everything through the lens of competition.

Says the group that constantly says "I'd rather be the oldest than the youngest!" Oh, the irony.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-redshirting parents project their own competiveness and obsession with gaining every advantage for their kids only redshirting parents. They view what is an individualized decision taken for the good of the child as some kind of threat to their own child. They see everything through the lens of competition.

Dafuq? How are those saying all kids should go on time an "obsession with gaining every advantage for their kids?" Everyone following the rules is the essence of equal footing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-redshirting parents project their own competiveness and obsession with gaining every advantage for their kids only redshirting parents. They view what is an individualized decision taken for the good of the child as some kind of threat to their own child. They see everything through the lens of competition.

Says the group that constantly says "I'd rather be the oldest than the youngest!" Oh, the irony.

Anonymous wrote:Anti-redshirting parents project their own competiveness and obsession with gaining every advantage for their kids only redshirting parents. They view what is an individualized decision taken for the good of the child as some kind of threat to their own child. They see everything through the lens of competition.

Anonymous wrote:Anti-redshirting parents project their own competiveness and obsession with gaining every advantage for their kids only redshirting parents. They view what is an individualized decision taken for the good of the child as some kind of threat to their own child. They see everything through the lens of competition.

Anonymous wrote:When so many people redshirt, and so many complaining about how much harder K Is getting - isn’t that cause and effect? When you’re consistently having to endu are kids a year older, of course the curriculum will start to follow the needs of those children vs the “on time” kids. People are consistently pushing the age range up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When so many people redshirt, and so many complaining about how much harder K Is getting - isn’t that cause and effect? When you’re consistently having to endu are kids a year older, of course the curriculum will start to follow the needs of those children vs the “on time” kids. People are consistently pushing the age range up.

This, and this is why the redshirt maniacs are so aggressive.. Because they are screwing others over and don’t care.

What? I have never read of a redshirting aggressive parent. On the contrary, they are the ones having to explains themselves to the aggressive, rude and mean anti redshirted that have called my 5 year old dumb MANY times making sure I knew that she will be made fun of for the rest of her life! This is aggressive irrational and bullying behavior. Maybe I have to redshirt to guard my good hearted daughter from the bullying you people are instigating

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? Do what you think is best for your kid. You sound really immature.

+1

I honestly wonder how most of DCUMs anti-redshirt posters manage to get through their days. They remind me of anti-vaxxers.

How are people who send their kids to school according to the rules/recommendations similar to those who flout them?

Do you want me to seriously respond? In my experience, DCUMs anti-redshirt posters aren't very rational and I don't really feel like writing up something that asks for critical thought from an anti-redshirt poster.

Yes, you made the statement; I'm simply asking you to defend it. My take is that there seem to be more similarities between parents who redshirt, and anti-vaxxers. Both flout the rules/recommendations for the perceived benefit of their own kids, even if others are disadvantaged as a result (e.g., teachers having to work to differentiate to account for an 18-month spread, kids who started on time may get fewer opportunities to excel in school or sports vs. those that are older).

So again, how specifically do you think parents who don't like rampant redshirting are similar to anti-vaxxers?

Okay, I'll answer you. Here is my serious response as to why I think DCUM's anti-redshirt posters are like anti-vaxxers, based off of years of reading posts from them:

1. DCUM anti-redshirt posters believe in something fervently with little solid scientific evidence to support it. They are convinced of their rightness, but there isn't solid research that's been replicated and meets scientific standards to support that feeling of rightness. This is similar to how anti-vaxxers operate. Both groups have passionate feelings over something without an accompanying body of scientific evidence to support the depth of their feelings.

2. DCUM anti-redshirt posters will twist themselves in knots congratulating themselves on how they "followed the rules." Never mind that these are rules that they've largely decided in their own heads. (Schools set admissions policies, not parents; there are no rules being broken by parents who redshirt when allowed into schools that permit it, by definition.) This is particularly true of the people who rant about private schools and redshirting, which is astonishing to me in the lack of understanding that shows. I think there are posters on DCUM who do not understand how private school admissions work at a basic level. This is reminiscent of anti-vaxxers, who construct an imaginary worldview in their heads and are puzzled when the real world doesn't match the worldview in their heads.

3. Like anti-vaxxers, DCUM's anti-redshirt posters tend not to be very self-reflective. They'll engage with the educational system to advantage themselves and their children but if they think that somebody else has a perceived advantage that they didn't use, they throw a fit. DCUM's anti-redshirt posters are often wealthy parents who are engaging tutors and using private schools. This disadvantages kids who don't have access to those resources (and that is well-documented), but you don't see those posters too worried about that. I'm convinced the majority of DCUM's anti-redshirt posters spend more time ranting about redshirting on DCUM than they've ever spent thinking about educational inequities and how they contribute to those, let alone doing anything about it. There are likely some exceptions to that general rule, but given how many of DCUM's anti-redshirt posters are complaining about private school admissions policies, probably not many. This reminds me of anti-vaxxers in the lack of self-reflection.

4. They are logically inconsistent. They will simultaneously argue that redshirting offers no advantage while at the same time arguing that it's a huge advantage. If it's not an advantage, then it doesn't matter that other people redshirt. If it is an advantage, then the logical answer is to move towards flexible admissions policies, not rigid ones, so that the advantage is more widely available.

5. They talk about how they are nasty to other people's children and how they encourage their children to be nasty. I have seen posts in which they brag about how their kids gossip and laugh about other people's older children, or how they gossip with other parents about those older kids. This is similar to anti-vaxxer behavior: if you lurk in their forums (which I have, God help me), you'll see similarly worded posts saying horrid things about vaccinated children, and how they encourage their kids to mock vaccinated kids.

6. They can't do basic math and don't grasp statistics. I can't tell you how many times I've seen posts from anti-redshirt posters that have demonstrated that they can't add, or show a lack of understanding of statistical analysis.

I could go on, but this is long enough. You asked for an answer, and so I'm giving it to you. If you want to know what I think should happen as far as policies go, I think we should have flexible age ranges, and trust parental judgment and preschool/school recommendations with respect to the maturity and kindergarten readiness of children. I think there should be a transitional kindergarten available for "young fives" but at the same time, "young fives" who are ready to go to K should go. Kids develop at different rates, and I think the educational system should adapt to that. I think rigid cutoffs haven't been shown to show much educational benefit and I don't understand why some DCUM posters cling to them. That's a different post, though.

Oh don’t get on your high horse about science. It’s hard proven that pro redshirt is good.

X1,000,000. The design of school curricula is all based on kids going to school on time based on their age. Barring a LD or developmental delay, the research supports this. It's the redshirters who cherry-pick "research," exactly the same as anti-vaxxers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? Do what you think is best for your kid. You sound really immature.

+1

I honestly wonder how most of DCUMs anti-redshirt posters manage to get through their days. They remind me of anti-vaxxers.

How are people who send their kids to school according to the rules/recommendations similar to those who flout them?

Do you want me to seriously respond? In my experience, DCUMs anti-redshirt posters aren't very rational and I don't really feel like writing up something that asks for critical thought from an anti-redshirt poster.

Yes, you made the statement; I'm simply asking you to defend it. My take is that there seem to be more similarities between parents who redshirt, and anti-vaxxers. Both flout the rules/recommendations for the perceived benefit of their own kids, even if others are disadvantaged as a result (e.g., teachers having to work to differentiate to account for an 18-month spread, kids who started on time may get fewer opportunities to excel in school or sports vs. those that are older).

So again, how specifically do you think parents who don't like rampant redshirting are similar to anti-vaxxers?

Okay, I'll answer you. Here is my serious response as to why I think DCUM's anti-redshirt posters are like anti-vaxxers, based off of years of reading posts from them:

1. DCUM anti-redshirt posters believe in something fervently with little solid scientific evidence to support it. They are convinced of their rightness, but there isn't solid research that's been replicated and meets scientific standards to support that feeling of rightness. This is similar to how anti-vaxxers operate. Both groups have passionate feelings over something without an accompanying body of scientific evidence to support the depth of their feelings.

2. DCUM anti-redshirt posters will twist themselves in knots congratulating themselves on how they "followed the rules." Never mind that these are rules that they've largely decided in their own heads. (Schools set admissions policies, not parents; there are no rules being broken by parents who redshirt when allowed into schools that permit it, by definition.) This is particularly true of the people who rant about private schools and redshirting, which is astonishing to me in the lack of understanding that shows. I think there are posters on DCUM who do not understand how private school admissions work at a basic level. This is reminiscent of anti-vaxxers, who construct an imaginary worldview in their heads and are puzzled when the real world doesn't match the worldview in their heads.

3. Like anti-vaxxers, DCUM's anti-redshirt posters tend not to be very self-reflective. They'll engage with the educational system to advantage themselves and their children but if they think that somebody else has a perceived advantage that they didn't use, they throw a fit. DCUM's anti-redshirt posters are often wealthy parents who are engaging tutors and using private schools. This disadvantages kids who don't have access to those resources (and that is well-documented), but you don't see those posters too worried about that. I'm convinced the majority of DCUM's anti-redshirt posters spend more time ranting about redshirting on DCUM than they've ever spent thinking about educational inequities and how they contribute to those, let alone doing anything about it. There are likely some exceptions to that general rule, but given how many of DCUM's anti-redshirt posters are complaining about private school admissions policies, probably not many. This reminds me of anti-vaxxers in the lack of self-reflection.

4. They are logically inconsistent. They will simultaneously argue that redshirting offers no advantage while at the same time arguing that it's a huge advantage. If it's not an advantage, then it doesn't matter that other people redshirt. If it is an advantage, then the logical answer is to move towards flexible admissions policies, not rigid ones, so that the advantage is more widely available.

5. They talk about how they are nasty to other people's children and how they encourage their children to be nasty. I have seen posts in which they brag about how their kids gossip and laugh about other people's older children, or how they gossip with other parents about those older kids. This is similar to anti-vaxxer behavior: if you lurk in their forums (which I have, God help me), you'll see similarly worded posts saying horrid things about vaccinated children, and how they encourage their kids to mock vaccinated kids.

6. They can't do basic math and don't grasp statistics. I can't tell you how many times I've seen posts from anti-redshirt posters that have demonstrated that they can't add, or show a lack of understanding of statistical analysis.

I could go on, but this is long enough. You asked for an answer, and so I'm giving it to you. If you want to know what I think should happen as far as policies go, I think we should have flexible age ranges, and trust parental judgment and preschool/school recommendations with respect to the maturity and kindergarten readiness of children. I think there should be a transitional kindergarten available for "young fives" but at the same time, "young fives" who are ready to go to K should go. Kids develop at different rates, and I think the educational system should adapt to that. I think rigid cutoffs haven't been shown to show much educational benefit and I don't understand why some DCUM posters cling to them. That's a different post, though.

Oh don’t get on your high horse about science. It’s hard proven that pro redshirt is good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When so many people redshirt, and so many complaining about how much harder K Is getting - isn’t that cause and effect? When you’re consistently having to endu are kids a year older, of course the curriculum will start to follow the needs of those children vs the “on time” kids. People are consistently pushing the age range up.

This, and this is why the redshirt maniacs are so aggressive.. Because they are screwing others over and don’t care.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the preliminary research shows that sending kids "on time" is good for the immature ones because it raises the standard for behavior? I've also read the theory that it's really good for kids to struggle just a bit because it helps develop grit and perseverance, which are very necessary qualities for success in adulthood.

At least that is what I read in the NYT?

Were these research papers or Opeds?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the preliminary research shows that sending kids "on time" is good for the immature ones because it raises the standard for behavior? I've also read the theory that it's really good for kids to struggle just a bit because it helps develop grit and perseverance, which are very necessary qualities for success in adulthood.

At least that is what I read in the NYT?

Were these research papers or Opeds?

both

articles on the research just delivering the results (favorable to sending on time) and Opeds based on them

Anonymous wrote:When so many people redshirt, and so many complaining about how much harder K Is getting - isn’t that cause and effect? When you’re consistently having to endu are kids a year older, of course the curriculum will start to follow the needs of those children vs the “on time” kids. People are consistently pushing the age range up.