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.
Another thing you have to consider are the non-academic activities. My son(who is an incoming junior and will be 16 in September) plays the cello, and at his high school, there are 3 orchestras. It's really hard to get into the top orchestra as a freshman, but my son did it. He should have been the only freshman in the cello section that year. However, there was a cellist a year and a month older than my son who had been redshirted, so he was also a freshman. He's also always sat ahead of my son. Freshman year, of the 12 cellists, he was 3rd chair, and my son was 5th chair, and this past year, he was 1st chair and my son was 2nd chair. It'll stay that way these next 2 years. That means my son will never get a chance to sit principal cellist, even though he'll be the best high school aged cellist his senior year. At the end of the year, all of the section leaders get to solo with the orchestra. My son should have this opportunity his senior year, but thanks to redshirting, he won't. Thanks to redshirting, his glory has been stolen. Is my frustration more understandable now?
Would it make a difference to you if you found out that the parents hadn't "redshirted" the kid, but had held him back for a legitimate reason (cut-off date, emotional development, recommendation of kindergarten teachers or the child's physician, childhood illness, etc.)? The situation would be exactly the same. Your kid's "glory" would still be "stolen" by a kid older than him, but in the same grade.
How do you know he wasn't held back for a legitimate reason? Unless you're super good friends with his parents, it seems like it's unlikely you'd be privy to the precise reason for why he started late. And, unless the kid will be 20 his senior year, he will be "high school aged". I went to school with kids who were 19 their senior year for a bunch of different reasons. I also went to school with kids who were 17 their senior year, also for a bunch of different reasons.
If you're worried about the differences in learning capacities between 16 and 17 year olds, it feels a little like splitting hairs. Like you might be looking for a reason why the older kid is slightly better than your kid (sorry, not saying that to be nasty, just observing that it might be tough to be objective where your kids are concerned). Unless they both picked up the cello when they were 10, and so the older kid has had an entire year more with the instrument than your kid has, then there shouldn't be much difference in their capacity for improvement at these ages.
Most kids start playing instruments when schools introduce them at a certain grade level. If that's the case, then your kid and the older kid have likely been playing for the same amount of time. If the older kid is slightly better, maybe it's because he has some natural talent, or drill sergeant parents who make the kid practice 6 hours a day, or he had some musical experience that made it easier for him to pick up the basics of the cello quicker, or gets private lessons in addition to orchestra at school. There are any number of reasons that could explain the difference in their ability that have nothing to do with age.
Redshirting seems kind of lame to me. I would only hold a kid back if I felt there were a legitimate reason for it (competitive advantage not being one), but I think we should be cautious about blaming it for the challenges kids face, especially if you don't know for certain why the kid was held back.
Would it make a difference to you if you found out that the parents hadn't "redshirted" the kid, but had held him back for a legitimate reason (cut-off date, emotional development, recommendation of kindergarten teachers or the child's physician, childhood illness, etc.)? The situation would be exactly the same. Your kid's "glory" would still be "stolen" by a kid older than him, but in the same grade.
How do you know he wasn't held back for a legitimate reason? Unless you're super good friends with his parents, it seems like it's unlikely you'd be privy to the precise reason for why he started late. And, unless the kid will be 20 his senior year, he will be "high school aged". I went to school with kids who were 19 their senior year for a bunch of different reasons. I also went to school with kids who were 17 their senior year, also for a bunch of different reasons.
If you're worried about the differences in learning capacities between 16 and 17 year olds, it feels a little like splitting hairs. Like you might be looking for a reason why the older kid is slightly better than your kid (sorry, not saying that to be nasty, just observing that it might be tough to be objective where your kids are concerned). Unless they both picked up the cello when they were 10, and so the older kid has had an entire year more with the instrument than your kid has, then there shouldn't be much difference in their capacity for improvement at these ages.
Most kids start playing instruments when schools introduce them at a certain grade level. If that's the case, then your kid and the older kid have likely been playing for the same amount of time. If the older kid is slightly better, maybe it's because he has some natural talent, or drill sergeant parents who make the kid practice 6 hours a day, or he had some musical experience that made it easier for him to pick up the basics of the cello quicker, or gets private lessons in addition to orchestra at school. There are any number of reasons that could explain the difference in their ability that have nothing to do with age.
Redshirting seems kind of lame to me. I would only hold a kid back if I felt there were a legitimate reason for it (competitive advantage not being one), but I think we should be cautious about blaming it for the challenges kids face, especially if you don't know for certain why the kid was held back.
My son's known him since kindergarten, and he didn't repeat. The cut-off where we live is October 1st, so he was redshirted. They both started playing when they were in 4th grade. But like I said, when you're older, you learn faster. I know that my son's friend is talented, because he made it into the top orchestra when he was the age of a sophomore, and most kids don't make it in till their junior or senior years. What bothers me is that he has the stigma of someone who made it in when they were the age of a freshman. My son made it in at 14, but his friend made it an as 15, yet it is viewed as an equal accomplishment. Same thing with the girl in his Algebra II class. She was older than him, yet she was viewed as more gifted than him because she was a freshman and he was a sophomore.
My son's known him since kindergarten, and he didn't repeat. The cut-off where we live is October 1st, so he was redshirted. They both started playing when they were in 4th grade. But like I said, when you're older, you learn faster. I know that my son's friend is talented, because he made it into the top orchestra when he was the age of a sophomore, and most kids don't make it in till their junior or senior years. What bothers me is that he has the stigma of someone who made it in when they were the age of a freshman. My son made it in at 14, but his friend made it an as 15, yet it is viewed as an equal accomplishment. Same thing with the girl in his Algebra II class. She was older than him, yet she was viewed as more gifted than him because she was a freshman and he was a sophomore.
So, then, it's not really "redshirting", is it? If he was held back because of his birth date, that's the age cohort the school has established, which means the school thinks it's an appropriately matched age group. I agree that there are learning differences that can be striking between 4 and 5 year olds, or even 9 and 10 year olds, but the more exaggerated differences start to fade in junior high.
Sounds like both kids are pretty talented. If he didn't repeat or begin playing before your child, it sounds like the older boy simply earned the spot. The learning differences at this point are negligible, and some people would argue it's your son who has the advantage, having started learning an instrument at a younger age. Like languages, the earlier you start learning an instrument, the better able your brain is to pick up on the nuances.
So, then, it's not really "redshirting", is it? If he was held back because of his birth date, that's the age cohort the school has established, which means the school thinks it's an appropriately matched age group. I agree that there are learning differences that can be striking between 4 and 5 year olds, or even 9 and 10 year olds, but the more exaggerated differences start to fade in junior high.
Sounds like both kids are pretty talented. If he didn't repeat or begin playing before your child, it sounds like the older boy simply earned the spot. The learning differences at this point are negligible, and some people would argue it's your son who has the advantage, having started learning an instrument at a younger age. Like languages, the earlier you start learning an instrument, the better able your brain is to pick up on the nuances.
Does that make sense?
His birthday is an August, which is before October. He should have gone when he was 5, but he went when he was 6. And why do you keep neglecting the fact that older kids learn faster?
His birthday is an August, which is before October. He should have gone when he was 5, but he went when he was 6. And why do you keep neglecting the fact that older kids learn faster?
I didn't see that his birthday was in August. Sorry, it's a long thread, I must have missed that. So, then why did his parents hold him back?
I'm not neglecting it, I think you're exaggerating it. They're 16 and 17, not 3 and 4. I just don't think it's as big as a factor as you think it is. And, as I said before, I think one could argue your kid had the young brain advantage. I figure if your child had the early learning advantage and the older child had an advantage because a year can make a difference (up to a point during certain stages), then it's a wash.
I didn't see that his birthday was in August. Sorry, it's a long thread, I must have missed that. So, then why did his parents hold him back?
I'm not neglecting it, I think you're exaggerating it. They're 16 and 17, not 3 and 4. I just don't think it's as big as a factor as you think it is. And, as I said before, I think one could argue your kid had the young brain advantage. I figure if your child had the early learning advantage and the older child had an advantage because a year can make a difference (up to a point during certain stages), then it's a wash.
I don't know why his parents held him back. But I'm assuming it was so he could have an easy path to glory, like soloing with the orchestra 3 times. How does my son have an advantage when he's been on this earth a year less? I wouldn't consider it cheating if the cutoff were earlier. For instance, in the state I grew up in, the cut-off was August 1st. My birthday's August 5th, so I had to wait till I was 6. If that cellist went to the school I had gone to, then his parents would have been completely justified in waiting till he was 6. But for this district, they did not play by the rules.
I don't know why his parents held him back. But I'm assuming it was so he could have an easy path to glory, like soloing with the orchestra 3 times.
This is the root of your problem. You're assuming their intentions were devious, and everything follows from that. There are dozens of reasons why he may have legitimately needed an extra year in pre-K. The reason may in fact have made it more difficult for him to study the cello, regardless of his age. Unless, of course, his parents are in some sort of underground cello syndicate plotting a take-over of all first chairs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by punchchess
How does my son have an advantage when he's been on this earth a year less? I wouldn't consider it cheating if the cutoff were earlier. For instance, in the state I grew up in, the cut-off was August 1st. My birthday's August 5th, so I had to wait till I was 6. If that cellist went to the school I had gone to, then his parents would have been completely justified in waiting till he was 6. But for this district, they did not play by the rules.
If you do some Googling on this, you'll see why picking up the cello at 9 instead of 10 (my guess for how old they would have been in 4th grade) may have given your son about the equivalent advantage that the older child received by hypothetically being more capable of learning because he was a year older. It has to do with elasticity in brain development and is similar to how people who learn a language earlier in life tend to pick it up much more easily than those trying later in life. This, like your assertion that the older child would have had an easier time learning, is a generalization and not necessarily applicable to your situation (it seems like you're taking it as a given that the older boy has an easier time learning/picking up new cello skills and you can't really know that unless you're his orchestra teacher). From the first article I came to: "There is a growing (and convincing) body of research that indicates a “window of opportunity†from birth to age nine for developing a musical sensibility within children. During this time, the mental structures and mechanisms associated with processing and understanding music are in the prime stages of development, making it of utmost importance to expose children in this age range to music." The article is here if you're interested.
Honestly, it sounds like you're really invested in explaining why your kid isn't the best in his grade and receiving all of the accolades you feel he's entitled to. It's sweet that you're that invested in him. You may want to consider the simplest explanation: the older kid started school when he needed to and is just better. And that's okay.
We sent our son to an additional year of school between Kindergarten & First. His private school had a Transitional First Grade. He has a July B-day. That will put him turning 19 just after he graduates high school. I was against the decision at first, but listened to the professional guidance of multiple teachers and his speech therapist. Hands down, no argument, best decision I ever made.
This conversation is silly. Little Johnny may be a year younger than Joe, but little Johnny may be able to kick a soccer ball twice as far. Maybe Johnny spends less time on the Wii, he has athletic parents and good genetics. My son may spell better than your kid, but your kid may be better at music. Maybe it's practice, natural ability, motivation of the parents, gift from God, who knows...
Kids need to suck it up, learn that life isn't fair, and everyone shouldn't always get a ribbon. I seemed to survive child-hood, and I was hardly the best at most things. I don't ever remember my parents consoling me about how unfair life was because I didn't start in middle school soccer. I was (and am) a lousy runner :-)
Please take no offense to this, but just wanted to add my 2 cents
I totally understand being emotionally invested in our children's success and opportunities to shine in their extra-curricular activities. We are so proud of their skills and successes, and hurt for them in their disappointments.
Besides kids who this thread is referring to as being "redshirted"......there are going to be other kids who come into the competition as they get older. There are kids who are held back a year in school due to academic reasons; kids moving into your district, etc.
My son played a particular sport throughout his whole childhood - rec and travel. During middle school and high school there were kids that were older than him (held back when they were younger), kids that transferred into his school (didn't live in his district)....various reasons for the transfers such as being children of school employees, etc). He dealt sharing time in his position with other kids or being held down on JV and it was ok! He acknowledged the skills of these teammates and appreciated their contributions to the team. If nothing else, it made him work harder to improve himself.
He realized he was never going to be a pro player and appreciated the skills of his fellow players which made his team great. It is about the team - you know the old saying "It's about the name on the front of the jersey - not the name on the back."
I believe that kids being "humbled" in these situations make them realize that extra-curricular activities are just that - extra......and that they need to concentrate on their academics or trade skills for their adult life.
I think the point is that parents have to do what they think is best for their child - at age 4 or 5 it is hard to know.....we all just do our best and hope we make the right decisions. Going back to the point of this thread, I am not even sure it was about extra-curricular activities but seems to have gone there.
Again, I hope no one takes offense to anything I said, just wanted to share my experience!
We sent our son to an additional year of school between Kindergarten & First. His private school had a Transitional First Grade. He has a July B-day. That will put him turning 19 just after he graduates high school. I was against the decision at first, but listened to the professional guidance of multiple teachers and his speech therapist. Hands down, no argument, best decision I ever made.
This conversation is silly. Little Johnny may be a year younger than Joe, but little Johnny may be able to kick a soccer ball twice as far. Maybe Johnny spends less time on the Wii, he has athletic parents and good genetics. My son may spell better than your kid, but your kid may be better at music. Maybe it's practice, natural ability, motivation of the parents, gift from God, who knows...
Kids need to suck it up, learn that life isn't fair, and everyone shouldn't always get a ribbon. I seemed to survive child-hood, and I was hardly the best at most things. I don't ever remember my parents consoling me about how unfair life was because I didn't start in middle school soccer. I was (and am) a lousy runner :-)
Sounds like some parents need to remember that too!
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.
