or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Childhood and Beyond › Education › Learning at School › School deleaying - "redshirting".
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

School deleaying - "redshirting". - Page 4

post #61 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by JessBB
Ok, I'm just going to put this out there. I think redshirting is elitist. Most people don't have the money to either stay home with their children or keep them in day care or preschool an extra year. IMO the performance gap in American schools is already so egregious,why make it worse? Most kids I know who've started late would have probably done fine, but their parents wanted them to be the class stars, academically and / or athletically. IDK, it just rubs me the wrong way.
I disagree with your premise. You are speaking as if the default is to send a child to school at age 4/5. This is indicative of a herd mentality. "This is what is done because it's what everyone else does." As far as I'm concerned, the default is to keep the child home with you until they reach adulthood. Whether or not I choose to send my child to school is my decision and it's my own business, as is the age I choose to send her and whether I base that on my assessment of her readiness or on something else. Don't mistake nonconformity for elitism. I did not send my daughter to school when she was a year older than the other kindergarteners in order to make her a class star. Frankly, she would exceed the other students' academic levels no matter what age she started. I chose the age of six because I am not a proponent of sending children to school when they are younger than that. I would actually prefer that my child not be the only child who started at age 6. It would make me happy if other parents didn't send children age 5 and younger to school. Also: this has been addressed in other threads, but being a stay at home mother does not mean I am wealthy. We live below the poverty line. I'm a stay at home mother because it's a priority to me and I consider it important enough to make whatever sacrifices I have to make. We live in a little trailer and we don't have nice "stuff." We pay for housing, food, utilities, gas, car insurance, and then the money's gone. I don't get to buy things that I want to buy. If I had been in a situation in which I literally could not have avoided homelessness or starvation without two incomes, I wouldn't have had children. I *have* to be with my children when they are little. As far as American academic performance, I am not making it worse by waiting to send my children to school. When they are at home, I homeschool them. The homeschooling that I give them is actually better than the education that they get at public school.
post #62 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peony View Post
I had the exact same experience, Aug 13th B-day! I was always the "baby" tagging along, from elem to high school, it was always the same, it was very difficult in high school being the youngest. I ended up being exposed and doing things that I certainly should not of been doing at barely 14 years of age. This is always what I tell parents, just don't think about your child right now but in ten years.
It's problematic no matter what side you fall to, though. I missed the cutoff by 9 days, and thus was always about the oldest one in the class.

For example, my high school limited driver's ed class availability by class year, rather than age. Since I turned 16 my sophomore year, I basically couldn't take driver's ed at my school. I instead ended up taking driver's ed the summer between my freshman and sophomore year, privately. (And then there was the oddness that I could drive up to a full year before many of my same-year classmates.)

And there is an oddness that you're told you should be an adult at 18, but you're still stuck doing your senior year.
post #63 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by JessBB View Post
Ok, I'm just going to put this out there. I think redshirting is elitist. Most people don't have the money to either stay home with their children or keep them in day care or preschool an extra year. IMO the performance gap in American schools is already so egregious,why make it worse? Most kids I know who've started late would have probably done fine, but their parents wanted them to be the class stars, academically and / or athletically. IDK, it just rubs me the wrong way.

It also comes from kids being divided off so early in school. A few months difference (or even a year) may not mean much in later years, but when I went to school, kids were already being divided into regulars and advanced classes by 3 or 4th grade. kids who were ahead got put into special programs like PACE, which fed into humanities and advanced/IB/AP language arts in middle school and high school. IIRC, by 6th grade you were either in advanced math or not, which affected your track for ap calculus. Same thing for foriegn languages.

Not only were advanced students given different teachers, books, and curriculum, but (most importantly imo), you and your peers were expect to perform at a higher level. This is definitely as early as elementary school.

These things really affect how a child does in school, which colleges they get into, and other opportunities.

I'm not in that situation yet, but I don't blame parents who have the means wanting to give their kids a leg up from an early age. But I do see that the whole system is unfair to kids. How can you determine from an 8 year old how they will do in high school?
post #64 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by texmati View Post
It also comes from kids being divided off so early in school. A few months difference (or even a year) may not mean much in later years, but when I went to school, kids were already being divided into regulars and advanced classes by 3 or 4th grade. kids who were ahead got put into special programs like PACE, which fed into humanities and advanced/IB/AP language arts in middle school and high school. IIRC, by 6th grade you were either in advanced math or not, which affected your track for ap calculus. Same thing for foriegn languages.

Not only were advanced students given different teachers, books, and curriculum, but (most importantly imo), you and your peers were expect to perform at a higher level. This is definitely as early as elementary school.

These things really affect how a child does in school, which colleges they get into, and other opportunities.

I'm not in that situation yet, but I don't blame parents who have the means wanting to give their kids a leg up from an early age. But I do see that the whole system is unfair to kids. How can you determine from an 8 year old how they will do in high school?
Your talking about this devision happening in 3rd or 4th grade though. By 3rd grade those couple of moths that are so obvious in K, have become irrelevant.
post #65 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by JessBB View Post
Ok, I'm just going to put this out there. I think redshirting is elitist. Most people don't have the money to either stay home with their children or keep them in day care or preschool an extra year. IMO the performance gap in American schools is already so egregious,why make it worse? Most kids I know who've started late would have probably done fine, but their parents wanted them to be the class stars, academically and / or athletically. IDK, it just rubs me the wrong way.
So I should send my socially inept, academically struggling child because it isn't "fair" to someone else's kid? I held back my son (oct 1 cut off, sept b-day) because school was/is a struggle and I wanted him to find success. I want him to find something he likes and enjoys within the confines of school. He is not (nor do I need him to be) an all-star socially, academically or athletically. I do want him to be comfortable in his own skin at school.
post #66 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by eepster View Post
Your talking about this devision happening in 3rd or 4th grade though. By 3rd grade those couple of moths that are so obvious in K, have become irrelevant.
really? wouldn't a year still help you in third? Or at least the fact that you've been ahead of your peers for the last 3 years? I don't know.

I also don't know if divisions happen earlier. I 3rd and 4th were when I was in school. I still feel like the school gives parents a lot incentive to push kids into early preschool, make sure they are reading by k and to redshirt.
post #67 of 97
What's asked for in a school, private, public, charter, seems to be best met by a child who is really ready and able to be there-emotionally, physically, ready to leave home for a half or full day for Sept.-through June,--there's a lot to consider there. I don't get the beef people have with this. If I choose to send my child out of the home and into the educational system when I think it's appropriate, why should that be of concern to anyone else. My child has to sit in the same class with the four, barely five year olds, some of whom truly struggle every day to be in school, on the bus, in the lunch room, on the playground,-they're very young, and IMO, aren't ready to be in school. They wouldn't be any more ready for school no matter what the average age of the kids in the class was. But, that's not my decision to make-it's someone else's and I don't have any right to call them on it. Hopefully we all do what we think is best for our children, in whatever manner is available to us.
post #68 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by karne View Post
What's asked for in a school, private, public, charter, seems to be best met by a child who is really ready and able to be there-emotionally, physically, ready to leave home for a half or full day for Sept.-through June,--there's a lot to consider there. I don't get the beef people have with this. If I choose to send my child out of the home and into the educational system when I think it's appropriate, why should that be of concern to anyone else. My child has to sit in the same class with the four, barely five year olds, some of whom truly struggle every day to be in school, on the bus, in the lunch room, on the playground,-they're very young, and IMO, aren't ready to be in school. They wouldn't be any more ready for school no matter what the average age of the kids in the class was. But, that's not my decision to make-it's someone else's and I don't have any right to call them on it. Hopefully we all do what we think is best for our children, in whatever manner is available to us.
I just wanted to respond to the part I've highlighted. The reason other people care is because studies suggest that it has a negative effect on the other children in the class. The disadvantage of being the youngest isn't based on absolute age its on relative age. So by sending your child to Kindy a year late it gives him/her an advantage at the expense of the other children who's parents don't have the resources to keep them home an extra year. But also by keeping children back because the aren't "ready" (which I believe is a myth anyway, short of being unable to separate from mama) it then lays the responsibility on the student to be "ready" rather than the school to meet children wherever they are developmentally. To some extent though I suppose this is also a bit of a chicken/egg egg question. It is hard to say whether schools began pushing down curriculum so more people held back their children from Kindergarten, or if it became fashionable to start children in kindergarten later, so it became easier to push down the first grade curriculum on to first graders. I think its probably some of both. But I think holding back your own child is kind of taking the easy way out. We know it's inappropriate to expect 5 year-olds to perform at the academic and social level the schools demand but rather than fight for the right of all children to have developmentally appropriate curriculum, we quietly keep our own children home a leave that battle for someone else to fight. Which I suppose isn't a whole lot different than people who have the resources choosing to homeschool or to send there children to private school. I just think that you shouldn't act like its a totally private decision that has no effect on anyone else.
post #69 of 97
I also wanted to add that my birthday is in March and back in 1985 when I started Kindergarten, redshirting was just started to be recommended by experts in the education field. One such expert came to our preschool and evaluated each child. I was one of those children that was labeled academically ready for Kindergarten, but not ready developmentally (I couldn't sit still, I spoke out of turn etc.). My mother chose to send me anyway, probably because she felt like she couldn't afford another year of preschool. The truth was though, I don't think holding me back would have helped. In a year I still had trouble not speaking out of turn. In fact even in my twenties I had trouble in classes that didn't allow me to speak freely. As a matter of fact as an adult I was diagnosed with ADHD (though my mother had suspected it all through my childhood she figured it wasn't worth getting a diagnosis because I was doing well in school). What some people may have interpreted as not being developmentally ready for school, was in fact a neurological disorder or maybe just innate differences in basic personality. I think we'd be better off if schools learned how to accept children for who they are and meet children where they're at than to all buy in to the idea of "readiness"
post #70 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by karne View Post
What's asked for in a school, private, public, charter, seems to be best met by a child who is really ready and able to be there-emotionally, physically, ready to leave home for a half or full day for Sept.-through June,--there's a lot to consider there. I don't get the beef people have with this. If I choose to send my child out of the home and into the educational system when I think it's appropriate, why should that be of concern to anyone else. My child has to sit in the same class with the four, barely five year olds, some of whom truly struggle every day to be in school, on the bus, in the lunch room, on the playground,-they're very young, and IMO, aren't ready to be in school. They wouldn't be any more ready for school no matter what the average age of the kids in the class was. But, that's not my decision to make-it's someone else's and I don't have any right to call them on it. Hopefully we all do what we think is best for our children, in whatever manner is available to us.
Of course having redshirted students in a kindergarten class effects other students.

When my dad went to ha'penny school (old Irish version of kindergarten) the boys from the farms outside town usually started school a couple of years later than the boys who lived in town. The boy who was the oldest and biggest of them really enjoyed bullying the littler boys who were 1 to 2 years younger. Holding some out till they significantly older and bigger than those around them, is a recipe for bullying.

When the average age of the class shifts from 5 to 6, the tone and expectations of the class gets changed. I hear the complaint all the time "kindergarten is the new 1st grade." If most of the students in K are 6ish, then they are the age of what used to be a 1st grader. If half the kindergarten students are actually 1st graders, then why not turn kindergarten into 1st grade.

Society as a whole is effected when those students hit drop out age a school year earlier than they would if they had started school on time.
post #71 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by junipermuse View Post
I just wanted to respond to the part I've highlighted. The reason other people care is because studies suggest that it has a negative effect on the other children in the class. The disadvantage of being the youngest isn't based on absolute age its on relative age. So by sending your child to Kindy a year late it gives him/her an advantage at the expense of the other children who's parents don't have the resources to keep them home an extra year. But also by keeping children back because the aren't "ready" (which I believe is a myth anyway, short of being unable to separate from mama) it then lays the responsibility on the student to be "ready" rather than the school to meet children wherever they are developmentally. To some extent though I suppose this is also a bit of a chicken/egg egg question. It is hard to say whether schools began pushing down curriculum so more people held back their children from Kindergarten, or if it became fashionable to start children in kindergarten later, so it became easier to push down the first grade curriculum on to first graders. I think its probably some of both. But I think holding back your own child is kind of taking the easy way out. We know it's inappropriate to expect 5 year-olds to perform at the academic and social level the schools demand but rather than fight for the right of all children to have developmentally appropriate curriculum, we quietly keep our own children home a leave that battle for someone else to fight. Which I suppose isn't a whole lot different than people who have the resources choosing to homeschool or to send there children to private school. I just think that you shouldn't act like its a totally private decision that has no effect on anyone else.


This sums up my concerns precisely.
post #72 of 97
My child didn't start late. He started at the right time for him. It was a decsion made for an individual child. We aren't in the position of making serious decisons for the welfare of my children based on what's considered best or fair for everyone, as defined by a govenmental institution. I find it amazing that that position is adovocated here.

Either way, we have peace about our choices, and our kids are older, so we know that there are many choice points along the way. This is but one.

I don't stand and wave the flag for anyone else. I decided to speak up because I think that our experience making an exquisitely delicate decison probably wasn;t that far from others, despite the stereotypes I read about on MDC of parents trying to gain academic or sports advantages for their children. I think that when parents can, you make the best, loving, in formed choice you can, and most of the posts I see here from questioning parents tend to be of that mindset. If it's right to go early, fine. If it's not right, then do what you are able to about it-homeschool, private school, delay entry to school. I happen to think all of these are valid choices that we as parents make.
post #73 of 97
I went to enroll dd1 who turned 6 the end of July in our local ps. We hsed last year and I wanted her to start out in K rather than 1st grade at ps. the cut off here is 5 by sept 1 for K. So she is 5 weeks older than the cut off. The principle said is was district policy to stay strictly w/ the sept 1 cut off unless the child needs to be retained, and that can't be determined until after the student is in class for many weeks. Academically she is not ready for 1st.... I'm really worried for her. Its a huge enough shock to go from hsing to ps, I was not planning on it being FT 1st. I guess I'll have more info in a few weeks. I feel she should be "redshirted"....
post #74 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeteaa View Post
The principle said is was district policy to stay strictly w/ the sept 1 cut off unless the child needs to be retained, and that can't be determined until after the student is in class for many weeks.
I actually wouldn't trust the principal on that one. I'd be shocked if that was the case and would call the district to confirm before you agree to have her placed in a grade you don't feel is right for her. I would have to imagine that it would be harder on a child to start in 1st and then be moved down to K than to just be one of the oldest kindergarteners right off the bat.
post #75 of 97
If all or even most kids were ready to read at 5 no one would need to wait to put their child in kindergarten. If our educational system followed Finland's or Sweden's lead and started formal instruction at 7 instead of 5 no one would need to wait to put their child in kindergarten. If our educational system went back several decades and kindergarten once again became a low stress place of playing and learning to interact in a group many people who worry about readiness wouldn't need to. I don't think average core knowledge of high school graduates is better now and I know literacy rates aren't good.

If my almost 5 year old DD, with a November birthday, isn't ready for kindergarten next year I'm going to try to get her in one of our alternative schools and if that doesn't work we'll have to do another year of preschool. With an October cut off date she'll be one of the older kids if she is ready. The preschool we go to has a lot of kids who go to the 4-5 classes for two years and enter kindergarten older, but I don't know what the percentage is in the local schools. The parents I know who wait a year for their kids to start school aren't trying to get their child an advantage over other children, they just want their child to be able to be successful in school, to be ready to sit still and be able to do the required work. A child who starts out their school career feeling like a failure or worse like a "bad kid" because they aren't ready to sit still or ready to read yet has a problem reaching their full potential. A child who is ready for the work and can actually do it and is at a developmental point where sitting still isn't almost painful is more likely to continue finding learning fun and can reach their potential more easily.
post #76 of 97
I really don't like the term "redshirting" it makes parents who delay the K entry sound like have an evil plan to have their children rule the world..jmo

At any rate we held back our 1st and 2nd. Our DD we initialy did attempt to enroll in a charter school..we did the spring "round up" thing and got a call a month or so later that the staff did not feel that she was ready for school and we should put her in preschool for a year. While preschool woulda been great it was not an option..we were above the income line for headstart and cannot afford to pay for private (still the case) so we held her back..this turned out to be a disaster..she is now on an IEP for a "cognative disability" and while I dont blame the charter school for not wanting her there..if she had been in school it would have been diagnosed MUCH earlier. Our DS on the other hand was ready academicly..he was NOT ready otherwise. He needed the year to mature and learn how to deal with emotions. Now he is the top of his class with academics and reads 2 yrs above grade level. But I didnt hold him back because I wanted to give him an edge. I held him back because he wasn't ready for the environment. Now my 4 yr old son is slated to start next fall by his march birthday and he is ready so we will send him next fall. and with our youngest, we will play it by ear and see where shes at when the time comes. We dont regret any of the decisions we have made, we made them with their best interest at heart.
post #77 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by junipermuse
So by sending your child to Kindy a year late it gives him/her an advantage at the expense of the other children who's parents don't have the resources to keep them home an extra year.
Again, it's not a year "late." It's the year we feel is appropriate. Maybe you're sending your child to school a year EARLY. Just because a child is legally allowed to be sent to school does not mean that that is THE year to send children to school. I do not at all feel that, by sending my child to school at age 6, I have had her at home an "extra" year. And, again, I don't have more resources than other parents. I have fewer. Other parents choose to do what they feel works best for their family and that is their decision. No one can make everything "fair" for every child. Some parents can afford to send their kids to Ivy League colleges and some can't. So should a parent who can afford a superior college NOT send their child to it because it's unfair to the students whose parents can't afford to give their child that advantage? I mean, you want to hear something unfair? I graduated high school with an Honors diploma in the top 10 of my graduating class and I was accepted to Bryn Mawr. I visited the campus and I fell in love with it. But I couldn't go because neither my mother nor I had two dimes to rub together. I went to a public college that practically anyone could have gotten accepted to, where they tried to "train me for a job," as opposed to "educating me for a career." Meanwhile, my fellow high school classmates, some of whom only had a slight intellectual advantage over rocks, got to go to the best universities in the country. THAT'S unfair.

The whole argument is unreasonable. Should I not give my child the advantage of breastmilk because it's unfair to the kids whose mothers feel they have to go back to work full time when the baby is four months old at a job that doesn't allow them to pump? Come on.

Quote:
We know it's inappropriate to expect 5 year-olds to perform at the academic and social level the schools demand but rather than fight for the right of all children to have developmentally appropriate curriculum, we quietly keep our own children home a leave that battle for someone else to fight.
That is not what I am doing at all. I simply don't believe that five year olds should have to spend a significant portion of their day in a school geared toward any level of development. End of story.

Quote:
I just think that you shouldn't act like its a totally private decision that has no effect on anyone else.
It IS a totally private decision. And the age when other parents send their kids to school is THEIR decision and should not be my concern or my problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eepster
If half the kindergarten students are actually 1st graders, then why not turn kindergarten into 1st grade.
They aren't first graders. They're six year olds. I don't think kindergarten should be turned into first grade. I think kindergarten is a good way to let kids get used to school. Let them have a year of coloring and play time before they get into more serious school-based education. If I think my 6 year old kindergartener should start learning math or writing I will teach her at home.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eepster
Society as a whole is effected when those students hit drop out age a school year earlier than they would if they had started school on time.
This is something for the individual parent to consider and take into account when she makes the decision she feels is the right one. It isn't the place of other people to say "you should start Johnny in school earlier so he won't be a high school drop out and a burden on society."

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
If all or even most kids were ready to read at 5 no one would need to wait to put their child in kindergarten.
That isn't the only issue. My daughter was reading at 5.
post #78 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristaN View Post
I actually wouldn't trust the principal on that one. I'd be shocked if that was the case and would call the district to confirm before you agree to have her placed in a grade you don't feel is right for her. I would have to imagine that it would be harder on a child to start in 1st and then be moved down to K than to just be one of the oldest kindergarteners right off the bat.
I do agree w/ you because when we were looking at transferring to a "better" ps still in our dist. they were open to the idea of her being in K. On the plus side though, the principle did say that we could choose to hs part of the day/week depending on how subjects are scheduled in the class and what we want to hs vs what subjects to learn in class. I would rather do this that have her put in remedial reading etc.
post #79 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sustainer View Post
Again, it's not a year "late." It's the year we feel is appropriate. Maybe you're sending your child to school a year EARLY. Just because a child is legally allowed to be sent to school does not mean that that is THE year to send children to school. I do not at all feel that, by sending my child to school at age 6, I have had her at home an "extra" year. And, again, I don't have more resources than other parents. I have fewer. Other parents choose to do what they feel works best for their family and that is their decision. No one can make everything "fair" for every child. Some parents can afford to send their kids to Ivy League colleges and some can't. So should a parent who can afford a superior college NOT send their child to it because it's unfair to the students whose parents can't afford to give their child that advantage? I mean, you want to hear something unfair? I graduated high school with an Honors diploma in the top 10 of my graduating class and I was accepted to Bryn Mawr. I visited the campus and I fell in love with it. But I couldn't go because neither my mother nor I had two dimes to rub together. I went to a public college that practically anyone could have gotten accepted to, where they tried to "train me for a job," as opposed to "educating me for a career." Meanwhile, my fellow high school classmates, some of whom only had a slight intellectual advantage over rocks, got to go to the best universities in the country. THAT'S unfair.

The whole argument is unreasonable. Should I not give my child the advantage of breastmilk because it's unfair to the kids whose mothers feel they have to go back to work full time when the baby is four months old at a job that doesn't allow them to pump? Come on.


That is not what I am doing at all. I simply don't believe that five year olds should have to spend a significant portion of their day in a school geared toward any level of development. End of story.


It IS a totally private decision. And the age when other parents send their kids to school is THEIR decision and should not be my concern or my problem.


They aren't first graders. They're six year olds. I don't think kindergarten should be turned into first grade. I think kindergarten is a good way to let kids get used to school. Let them have a year of coloring and play time before they get into more serious school-based education. If I think my 6 year old kindergartener should start learning math or writing I will teach her at home.


This is something for the individual parent to consider and take into account when she makes the decision she feels is the right one. It isn't the place of other people to say "you should start Johnny in school earlier so he won't be a high school drop out and a burden on society."


That isn't the only issue. My daughter was reading at 5.
You're missing the point. My child is reading at 5, and he's in kindy. If I kept him at home for a year, he'd be reading chapter books by 6, so what'd be the point of putting him in kindy? But he's in a class w/ kids who *are* 6, and are reading and writing at a different level. Not a "naturally" different level--they've been TAUGHT these things already. So the teacher has to find a way to teach someone the ABC's, someone how to read the Level 2 of Bob Books, and engage someone who's capable of starting chapter books. How is that fair to anyone? "Fair" isn't even relevant IMO--how about logical, efficient, or practical?

I've heard "kindergarten is the new 1st grade" and thought it was due to different views of education and abilities, but now I'm beginning to think it's the new 1st grade b/c it IS due to the chronological age and abilities of the students.
post #80 of 97
If you feel your kid isn't ready for school when they reach school age, fine, keep them home a year. But then when they ARE ready for school, send them to the year of school they belong in! If he's six, send him to first grade.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Learning at School
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Childhood and Beyond › Education › Learning at School › School deleaying - "redshirting".