Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That advantage dies away over time though, and is completely non-existent by college.
I disagree. The feeling that the youngest child has of trying to keep up academically, socially and physically--and its accompanying low self esteem--can stay with them for a long time. There are too many people from my own childhood who were the youngest in their classes and never let anyone forget about how hard it was for them. (And we're all now well out of high school and college. )
Isn't that amazing? When we were in school, the kids with Dec/January birthdays were the oldest. Even 20 years ago, my sister was worried about my nephew with a summer birthday being the youngest in his class. Kids with summer birthdays used to be in the middle aged group in the classroom.
Yes, and they complain that the "slow" (younger) kids are holding back their "geniuses".
The fact is, older kids have an advantage over younger ones in the classroom. Not only academically, but athletically and socially. The redshirting parents won't admit this.
They freely admit it where I am, and in fact, they say it's done precisely to get that advantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by selfapple
That advantage dies away over time though, and is completely non-existent by college.
Statistically I think this is true, certainly by measures like standardized testing. But....
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now
I disagree. The feeling that the youngest child has of trying to keep up academically, socially and physically--and its accompanying low self esteem--can stay with them for a long time. There are too many people from my own childhood who were the youngest in their classes and never let anyone forget about how hard it was for them. (And we're all now well out of high school and college. )
I don't disagree that some people have a tougher time emotionally. On the other hand, the plural of anecdote is not data. My son is one of the younger kids and he's at the top of his class. He got the highest score in the class on a standardized exam they took today. He's had no struggles academically at all. He is not too interested in athletics so while that might have been a struggle, it's not one that really applies (he's average sized and fit, but certainly not big or well muscled - depending on what sport, his size could be a factor)
Yes, and they complain that the "slow" (younger) kids are holding back their "geniuses".
That's how it all started...
Quote:
The fact is, older kids have an advantage over younger ones in the classroom. Not only academically, but athletically and socially. The redshirting parents won't admit this.
Then the other children get separated from the older ones to learn the work that they have not really been taught (basic skills) LONG enough to absorb.
6 months can make a big difference in a child's cognitive abilities as well as emotional and social maturity at a young age. Let alone a year.
If this is true, then why does anyone start their kids in K at age 5? If they wait until 6, they'll learn faster, do better in sports, and be more socially adept. This is what every parent wants. It's easier on the kids, and easier on the teachers too. What then is the advantage to anyone of starting at 5? I'm really curious about this. Maybe K should start at age 6, and then in every grade all the kids will be a little older, bigger, stronger, etc.
Because then those redshirting parents, for whatever reason they do it in the first place, will start their kid at age 7.
If this is true, then why does anyone start their kids in K at age 5? If they wait until 6, they'll learn faster, do better in sports, and be more socially adept. This is what every parent wants. It's easier on the kids, and easier on the teachers too. What then is the advantage to anyone of starting at 5? I'm really curious about this. Maybe K should start at age 6, and then in every grade all the kids will be a little older, bigger, stronger, etc.
for a lot of families, it's finances. If they have their kid in daycare, then they don't have to pay for an extra year. Even if you have to do before or afterschool care to cover a full work day, it's still a significant savings from full day daycare. Or even if the child isn't in daycare, the fact that they are in school may free up a parent to return to work, at least part time.
Academic redshirting is primarily a middle class/upper middle class phenomenon.
I think that book is a slap in the face TBH. My daughter is in 7th grade and just turned 13. We had to start her as the oldest because she missed the cutoff. She has excelled in everything except math, has won many awards, and is now attending a top private school. But according to Gladwell, her accomplishments are solely because she's the oldest, and not because she's smart and hardworking, and therefore, has nothing to be proud of. It's because of this that Gladwell is not my favorite author.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now
Isn't that amazing? When we were in school, the kids with Dec/January birthdays were the oldest. Even 20 years ago, my sister was worried about my nephew with a summer birthday being the youngest in his class. Kids with summer birthdays used to be in the middle aged group in the classroom.
Both of these posts show some of the fallacies of redshirting. To selfapple-My kids were in the middle for our district (March) and young (July), but I totally agree with you. I too would be offended if I had an older child who did well and people attributed it to her being older. (Mine were young[er] and hardworking and smart.)
CA4Now-yes, the cutoff determines whether a child is "young" or "old" for his/her grade. That's been my point all along. It's something that some parents and even teachers don't get. I have a post about this upthread.
I disagree. The feeling that the youngest child has of trying to keep up academically, socially and physically--and its accompanying low self esteem--can stay with them for a long time. There are too many people from my own childhood who were the youngest in their classes and never let anyone forget about how hard it was for them. (And we're all now well out of high school and college. )
I was one of the oldest through high school(September birthday), but then I went a commuter college, where a lot of students take longer than 4 years to graduate because of bad advisement and also where a lot of older people returned. I, however, knew what I wanted to do right away and what classes I wanted to take, so I got through in 4 years. That meant I had classmates who were as much as 3 years older than me. I never felt like they really had an advantage over me, nor did I feel like I had much of advantage over my younger classmates.
I'm not sure about that math. I hold back my son a year (September birthday - 3 days before the cut off) and he will be 18 when he graduates high school.
And he will be close to 19 at HS graduation. I know kids with May birthdays who were redshirted, turned 19 prior to grad. I even know a kid with a January birthday who was redshirted, was almost 19 1/2 by graduation. And there are some few parents who double red-shirt their kids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Informed Info
Because then those redshirting parents, for whatever reason they do it in the first place, will start their kid at age 7.
Exactly!
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74
for a lot of families, it's finances. If they have their kid in daycare, then they don't have to pay for an extra year. Even if you have to do before or afterschool care to cover a full work day, it's still a significant savings from full day daycare. Or even if the child isn't in daycare, the fact that they are in school may free up a parent to return to work, at least part time.
Academic redshirting is primarily a middle class/upper middle class phenomenon.
Both of these posts show some of the fallacies of redshirting.
CA4Now-yes, the cutoff determines whether a child is "young" or "old" for his/her grade. That's been my point all along. It's something that some parents and even teachers don't get. I have a post about this upthread.
The cutoff in California was moved from Dec. 1 to Sept 1 several years ago. I would imagine that the reason for the change was that there were too many barely 5 year olds attending kindergarten who had trouble keeping up with the more difficult curriculum.
As has been mentioned before, if all you were doing was playing in the sandbox, learning to be away from your mother for 3 hours, and managing to get along with your fellow students, it probably didn't matter whether you were 4 and a half or 6.
I don't think there's any "fallacy" of redshirting. It's completely understandable that parents would not want their child to be competing academically, physically and socially with children up to 18 months older than their child. You want there to be a fairly level playing field, and a 5 year old has a much harder time competing with a 6 and a half year old.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
