Atlantic Article Re- Redshirting Boys (@@)

[eddy]

Also when I grew up we had pre k, which meant all the summer bdays were the oldest in our class. Which meant spring bdays were the youngest. I guess regardless, someone is going to be the youngest despite the accommodations. And that means someone will be academically immature.

I just don’t think universal redshirt for boys is the option. A more fluid educational environment would work so much better. But that would take funding……

[ny96]

My oldest has an April birthday and my youngest has a July birthday. They both started kindergarten at 5. They’re preschool teachers questioned our decision both times. My youngest is thriving in kindergarten, my oldest has ADHD and I think he would have done better if we had held him back. He’s very smart, but often times acts like a kid who’s a few years younger.

[pinkdutchtulips]

CA basically eliminated red-shirting when they moved the cutoff from
12/1 to 9/1 BUT as the cutoff moved up they had TK for the kids born between 9/2 and 12/1 who would have gone to K had the date not changed. This ‘temporary’ program is now a decade old and was supposed to be eliminated once the cutoff was moved to September (they moved it up a month a year). Until this year TK was exclusively for those Sept, Oct, Nov birthdays. They started K at nearly 6 w kids who just turned 5 in late August who could NOT be held back. It’s been a disaster. My mid July kiddo is one of the youngest in her class and has struggled academically and socially this entire time. She just wasn’t mature enough at just 5 and it was either I put her into K or hold her out and have them place her in 1st as a 6yo w/o K.

[joy]

Sept 17, 2022 17:28:44 GMT -5 rupertpenny said:

This whole article is annoying and I hate redshirting so much. I am so happy to live in a district where it is not tolerated.

I will never understand concerns about being “not ready” but then denying a child a year of experience in a school system where they can potentially receive diagnoses and treatments if they do actually have learning difference.

And maybe I missed it, but this author didn’t seem to consider the difference in socialization between boys and girls. Little girls are conditioned to be quiet, orderly, deferential to authority figures from BIRTH. Boys are praised and laughed at for being rough and physical and resistant to authority. It isn’t exactly shocking that girls develop executive functioning earlier than their male counterparts? They’ve already been practicing for years before boys are told to be quiet and sit still.

Yes, yes, yes!!! My kid has an expressive language delay that was caught in K! I would have never considered it an issue that needed speech therapy but here we are. I’m grateful she was in school.

[DarcyLongfellow]

This whole topic gets me fired up. DH and I both have October birthdays and we're both always the oldest in our classes. Our 2 girls are both summer birthdays, and we sent both of them on time. That meant that DD1 started kindergarten less than 2 weeks after she turned 5. There were kids in her class who turned 7 in the spring -- they were 15 months older!

But, honestly, I think the solution to all of this nonsense is to stop trying to make kindergarteners do the curriculum that 1st graders did not that long ago. Half DD1's kindergarten class *started* the year already knowing how to read. Not because they were brilliant but because the popular nearby preschool prided itself on requiring all its 4 year olds to "graduate" already reading.

We need to make all academic programs play-based until age 6 or 7, then start formal schooling.

[secretagent]

This always surprises me. The idea of a kid graduating at 19.5 or some thing for a leg up (?) is bizarre. Red shirting is really rare here. We have a 10/1 cut off and there’s lots of September babies. My older kids are July and are not close to the youngest. But, given they’re ten months younger than some peers I can’t imagine what redshirting does to social dynamics. As it is my ADHD kid is “behind” socially (this bugs me. Why can’t kids be kids? But I get it; she has trouble with social cues).

[tacokick]

Sept 17, 2022 17:28:44 GMT -5 rupertpenny said:

I will never understand concerns about being “not ready” but then denying a child a year of experience in a school system where they can potentially receive diagnoses and treatments if they do actually have learning difference.

Exactly! Virtually none of the reasons make sense. If your kid is immature or has some learning differences then staying home/going to daycare for another year is not going to help. Get them socializing with their peers and being taught/evaluated by accredited professionals so they can start receiving services as needed. If you can’t trust that the school can provide that, that’s a bigger issue and one that keeping them back a year won’t solve either.

[cherryvalance]

Sept 17, 2022 17:28:44 GMT -5 rupertpenny said:

I will never understand concerns about being “not ready” but then denying a child a year of experience in a school system where they can potentially receive diagnoses and treatments if they do actually have learning difference.

Because there's literally a ton of options between doing nothing in daycare and pushing them into the school system?

This is obviously only anecdotal, but you're speaking to my actual experience, so I'll add it. My child is receiving therapies privately because what the school system offered was inadequate for his needs, but he was borderline and they didn't legally need to provide more. For instance, the ST he'd receive in school was 30 minute sessions with 5-6 other children--when he's demonstrably distracted and overwhelmed in groups. In private therapy, he gets 45 minutes uninterrupted.

Besides that, this is ignoring the actual HUGE lag in diagnosing and evaluating. We had my son evaluated by the district in October, based on our observations and conference with his preK teacher. The write-up/post eval meeting was in November. Our IEP qualification meeting wasn't until mid-January, all within the legal limits. [ETA: I might be misremembering. I think his initial request for eval meeting was in October and eval was in November, but whatever it was, there are huge swaths of time in between].He wouldn't have been able to switch into their *two hour a day* program until the end of January, and that's IF we could find a daycare placement for the other hours of the day we're at work.

Evaluating with a developmental pediatrician? We have appointments at all three within 70 miles of us and the earliest is spring of 2023. He would literally be nearly done with K before being seen.

Meanwhile, his Montessori school is a full academic program and is easily implementing his occupational and speech therapists' accommodations.

Of course, this is unique to me, but I'm genuinely laughing at the outrage and language like "denying a child a year of experience" when there are plenty of equal, if not better, situations available.

[karinothing]

I am 100% opposed to red shirting typically. It is not common at our school. However, I have a July boy who did kinder in 20-21, which means he basically didn't have kinder. If I had known it would be virtual for essentially the entire yr I would have red shirted him.

[cherryvalance]

I didn't finish the article yet because it's The Atlantic, and I haven't had time, so maybe this is addressed. Another thing these conversations ignore is the very real anxiety middle class parents feel over their kids' chances of "success" in the future. The future looks bleak to parents who are worse off than previous generations, and so giving your kid every perceived advantage, real or imaginary, is understandable (albeit not great for others).

Again, the real solution is to retool the standards and expectations, but people would rather be outraged at parents than actually push for systemic change.

[tacokick]

Sept 17, 2022 20:09:23 GMT -5 cherryvalance said:

Sept 17, 2022 17:28:44 GMT -5 rupertpenny said:

I will never understand concerns about being “not ready” but then denying a child a year of experience in a school system where they can potentially receive diagnoses and treatments if they do actually have learning difference.

Because there's literally a ton of options between doing nothing in daycare and pushing them into the school system?

This is obviously only anecdotal, but you're speaking to my actual experience, so I'll add it. My child is receiving therapies privately because what the school system offered was inadequate for his needs, but he was borderline and they didn't legally need to provide more. For instance, the ST he'd receive in school was 30 minute sessions with 5-6 other children--when he's demonstrably distracted and overwhelmed in groups. In private therapy, he gets 45 minutes uninterrupted.

Besides that, this is ignoring the actual HUGE lag in diagnosing and evaluating. We had my son evaluated by the district in October, based on our observations and conference with his preK teacher. The write-up/post eval meeting was in November. Our IEP qualification meeting wasn't until mid-January, all within the legal limits. [ETA: I might be misremembering. I think his initial request for eval meeting was in October and eval was in November, but whatever it was, there are huge swaths of time in between].He wouldn't have been able to switch into their *two hour a day* program until the end of January, and that's IF we could find a daycare placement for the other hours of the day we're at work.

Evaluating with a developmental pediatrician? We have appointments at all three within 70 miles of us and the earliest is spring of 2023. He would literally be nearly done with K before being seen.

Meanwhile, his Montessori school is a full academic program and is easily implementing his occupational and speech therapists' accommodations.

Of course, this is unique to me, but I'm genuinely laughing at the outrage and language like "denying a child a year of experience" when there are plenty of equal, if not better, situations available.

The redshirting being discussed here is largely the practice of keeping your kid home for a year because of some amorphous feeling that they aren’t there socially or academically or are immature or you want them to do better in sports. We largely aren’t talking about children diagnosed with a specific issue.

It’s great you noticed an issue, have access to all these resources and the time and energy to seek it out but not everyone does or can afford it. Schools are legally required to provide these services. It might not be perfect and you might need to advocate for your child but the public school system is the only way millions of children receive assistance.

There is also a community aspect to to redshirting. Getting more kids in school on time helps not only the kids who’s parents don’t have the knowledge or resources to assess and help with their own child’s potential issue but their child’s classmates’ ability to have a classroom full of actual peers and a curriculum that is developmentally appropriate for children who are at the correct age for the grade level.

If the school is not providing appropriate services to a child then there needs to be a push for reform in the school system, not a push for parents to take their children to outside services that many cannot access. That only increases the already huge inequalities in our communities. Part of the reason why services can be poor in schools is because many people with means don’t use them or advocate for improvement and instead pull their kids out. Which is understandable on an individual level but doesn’t really address the problem in the schools.

[lilac05]

Sept 17, 2022 15:29:23 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

Also I feel like redshirting in many areas is no longer a true choice. It’s probably done now mostly because it’s been normalized and it’s not about wanting boys to be the oldest and biggest but about not wanting them to fall behind because everyone else will be older.

I always felt like school districts should have nipped this in the bud far sooner but the suburban districts where this is most pervasive would likely prefer families to remain in their schools for more years to keep voting to approve school budgets. That plus lower-income families needing to send kids to school sooner are probably why it’s barely a thing in many large city school districts.

Unfortunately, this is what has happened in our district. We were anti-redshirting until we talked to our son’s preschool teacher and 2 of the kindergarten teachers (incl the one who was going to be his teacher) at his school. All three recommended keeping him back a year. Between the crazy high number of kids who redshirt and the developmentally inappropriate expectations for our Kindergarteners, they recommend almost all summer babies wait a year. Our district also offers free 4 year old preschool and free Alternative Kindergarten (full-time) programs, so that at least eliminates the financial aspect of things. He has 25 kids in his class. He missed the cutoff by 3 weeks, but I think there are 8 kids in his class older than him. There is only 1 summer birthday in his class who went on time. In the grade ahead of him (so the class he was scheduled to be in), there is a girl who is super smart, but her parents made it no secret that she was being held back for athletic purposes. The cut-off is Sept 1 & she was born in March. She is 17 months older than a couple of her classmates! That is just beyond difficult for teachers. It has gotten out of control, but I don’t think they’re going to do anything about it any time soon.

Due to the crazy red-shirting and the pandemic, we’ve got one year that the class is notably smaller because the red-shirting went even more extreme Fall 2020.

As far as the curriculum, I sent my son when those who know our district best recommended that he goes, but I’ve also communicated several times with the school board and other district leaders about my concerns about the curriculum. I feel like it’s fighting a losing battle, but our K teachers want a change.

[kadams767]

Sept 17, 2022 19:30:14 GMT -5 secretagent said:

This always surprises me. The idea of a kid graduating at 19.5 or some thing for a leg up (?) is bizarre. Red shirting is really rare here. We have a 10/1 cut off and there’s lots of September babies. My older kids are July and are not close to the youngest. But, given they’re ten months younger than some peers I can’t imagine what redshirting does to social dynamics. As it is my ADHD kid is “behind” socially (this bugs me. Why can’t kids be kids? But I get it; she has trouble with social cues).

Your first thought it always where I go with these discussions.  I don’t have kids, so no real horse in this race, but I am so, so curious about the back-end results of the redshirting trend.  Have the first classes where this was more prominent gotten to high school grad. years yet in significant numbers?  I just am having a lot of trouble envisioning a lot of good coming from being 19+ and still in high school.  Especially if most of those older students are boys (ie. men at that age).  

[kadams767]

Sept 17, 2022 12:57:16 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

Sept 17, 2022 11:35:04 GMT -5 tacokick said:

I think they largely are/were at the k-12 level, they just weren’t continuing on to college so scholarships and programs sprung up to encourage women/girls to do more academically.

Now women are the majority at the college level and this guy thinks we’ve gone too far and men need help. Apparently ignoring huge gap between men and women in many industries and levels of leadership in the post-college world. It’s not enough men are still overrepresented there, he wants a return to their being overrepresented and catered to from kindergarten.

I think that’s why I struggle with feeling sympathy. Girls are still graduating into a world that’s heavily stacked against them — but now that they’re over-performing in an educational system that was largely designed by men, suddenly there’s a problem and we need to re-level the playing field.

Also, I’m not denying research that the brains of boys and girls might develop at different rates. But a lot of that research is based on brain scans, and that’s still a relatively nascent field of study. There’s a limit to how much we can extrapolate in terms of how much those differences impact learning. And most of the practical differences tend to be seen in lower-income and non-white boys — which begs the question of how much of the difference in outcomes can be attributed to “science” and how much is social-cultural factors like racism? For instance, Black boys are less likely to be diagnosed with and treated for ADHD — and more likely to be disciplined (and disciplined more harshly) for behavioral problems.

And then there’s the question of how much gender is a social construct anyway: how much is nature and how much is nurture. Interestingly, The Atlantic also had an article this week about doing away with gender-based sports: www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2022/09/sports-gender-sex-segregation-coed/671460/

Again, no kids and no research or experience on this topic of my own, but what you’re saying also seems to lend to the question of gender-norm based play and expectations.  Given the still very prevalent “boys will be boys” attitude surrounding boys play and behavior, while girls are groomed from a young age to sit still/listen and engage in quieter activities, is it really a big surprise that they tend to handle a structured academic environment better than boys at least in the primary school levels?  

[cherryvalance]

Sept 17, 2022 21:11:49 GMT -5 tacokick said:

Sept 17, 2022 20:09:23 GMT -5 cherryvalance said:

Because there's literally a ton of options between doing nothing in daycare and pushing them into the school system?

This is obviously only anecdotal, but you're speaking to my actual experience, so I'll add it. My child is receiving therapies privately because what the school system offered was inadequate for his needs, but he was borderline and they didn't legally need to provide more. For instance, the ST he'd receive in school was 30 minute sessions with 5-6 other children--when he's demonstrably distracted and overwhelmed in groups. In private therapy, he gets 45 minutes uninterrupted.

Besides that, this is ignoring the actual HUGE lag in diagnosing and evaluating. We had my son evaluated by the district in October, based on our observations and conference with his preK teacher. The write-up/post eval meeting was in November. Our IEP qualification meeting wasn't until mid-January, all within the legal limits. [ETA: I might be misremembering. I think his initial request for eval meeting was in October and eval was in November, but whatever it was, there are huge swaths of time in between].He wouldn't have been able to switch into their *two hour a day* program until the end of January, and that's IF we could find a daycare placement for the other hours of the day we're at work.

Evaluating with a developmental pediatrician? We have appointments at all three within 70 miles of us and the earliest is spring of 2023. He would literally be nearly done with K before being seen.

Meanwhile, his Montessori school is a full academic program and is easily implementing his occupational and speech therapists' accommodations.

Of course, this is unique to me, but I'm genuinely laughing at the outrage and language like "denying a child a year of experience" when there are plenty of equal, if not better, situations available.

The redshirting being discussed here is largely the practice of keeping your kid home for a year because of some amorphous feeling that they aren’t there socially or academically or are immature or you want them to do better in sports. We largely aren’t talking about children diagnosed with a specific issue.

It’s great you noticed an issue, have access to all these resources and the time and energy to seek it out but not everyone does or can afford it. Schools are legally required to provide these services. It might not be perfect and you might need to advocate for your child but the public school system is the only way millions of children receive assistance.

There is also a community aspect to to redshirting. Getting more kids in school on time helps not only the kids who’s parents don’t have the knowledge or resources to assess and help with their own child’s potential issue but their child’s classmates’ ability to have a classroom full of actual peers and a curriculum that is developmentally appropriate for children who are at the correct age for the grade level.

If the school is not providing appropriate services to a child then there needs to be a push for reform in the school system, not a push for parents to take their children to outside services that many cannot access. That only increases the already huge inequalities in our communities. Part of the reason why services can be poor in schools is because many people with means don’t use them or advocate for improvement and instead pull their kids out. Which is understandable on an individual level but doesn’t really address the problem in the schools.

I hear you, but here's why I am sharing what I'm sharing. This isn't personal, or about me, but our experience just directly addresses what I saw in your and other comments.

First, the original statements I'm responding to both said that it's completely incomprehensible to ever hold a kid back. You said holding kids in daycare or home won't help, they need to be socialized, etc. I was directly addressing what I think is a ridiculous assumption that people redshirt with no other academic or social outlet for their kids. This is why this topic is somewhat fraught--there's no term for people who hold back for a variety of concerns and it all gets lumped into "seeking an advantage."

Second, I maintain that the assumption that the school district is the only access to services harms kids and parents. Schools are facing insane budget shortfalls (and have been), existing personnel are stretched far too thin, and there's a staff shortage (and mostly in the very areas that are most vulnerable--staff who provides special services). So a blanket approach doesn't work, as many have already said. How does sending a kid who isn't ready (by district personnel recommendation) and has access to services outside school help kids who rely on in-school services? It further stretches those services and takes away from those who actually have no other option.

Now, we can certainly admit it's not fair that some families have access to services outside of school and others don't. But taking a piece of the very narrow pie available when you don't actually have to isn't great either.

Third, the extreme focus on "rigor" we see in kindergarten classrooms isn't just a byproduct of redshirting. It seems like people assume that if all kids were the same age in the class, they'd *have* to see that the curriculum is inappropriate and adjust accordingly. I've been a public school teacher for nearly twenty years and, spoiler alert, that's not happening. For one, parents are demanding academic content, because they think it will give their kid a leg up. Second, and most importantly, politicians have pushed a series of harmful measures and the focus on testing is what has pushed inappropriate expectations down the line. If a kid needs to be doing X by 2nd grade, and his teachers are being evaluated by that, they need 1st grade teachers to be doing Y and then they needs k teachers to be doing Z.

I agree that the system needs deep change at all levels, but parents are going to drive this at a state and national level, because the curriculum standards aren't district level.

[fancynewbeesly]

DD1 started kindergarten on time. Our cut off is October 1st. Her birthday is May. She was one of the youngest kids in the class. A few girls had July/August birthdays. Most of the boys if they were born after April and through the summer were redshirted so there were some that were a year older than her. Or ten months older than her.

Our town is huge for redshirting which is so frustrating.

[omgzombies]

Sept 17, 2022 20:09:23 GMT -5 cherryvalance said:

Sept 17, 2022 17:28:44 GMT -5 rupertpenny said:

I will never understand concerns about being “not ready” but then denying a child a year of experience in a school system where they can potentially receive diagnoses and treatments if they do actually have learning difference.

Because there's literally a ton of options between doing nothing in daycare and pushing them into the school system?

This is obviously only anecdotal, but you're speaking to my actual experience, so I'll add it. My child is receiving therapies privately because what the school system offered was inadequate for his needs, but he was borderline and they didn't legally need to provide more. For instance, the ST he'd receive in school was 30 minute sessions with 5-6 other children--when he's demonstrably distracted and overwhelmed in groups. In private therapy, he gets 45 minutes uninterrupted.

Besides that, this is ignoring the actual HUGE lag in diagnosing and evaluating. We had my son evaluated by the district in October, based on our observations and conference with his preK teacher. The write-up/post eval meeting was in November. Our IEP qualification meeting wasn't until mid-January, all within the legal limits. [ETA: I might be misremembering. I think his initial request for eval meeting was in October and eval was in November, but whatever it was, there are huge swaths of time in between].He wouldn't have been able to switch into their *two hour a day* program until the end of January, and that's IF we could find a daycare placement for the other hours of the day we're at work.

Evaluating with a developmental pediatrician? We have appointments at all three within 70 miles of us and the earliest is spring of 2023. He would literally be nearly done with K before being seen.

Meanwhile, his Montessori school is a full academic program and is easily implementing his occupational and speech therapists' accommodations.

Of course, this is unique to me, but I'm genuinely laughing at the outrage and language like "denying a child a year of experience" when there are plenty of equal, if not better, situations available.

Yes to this. The amount of time that we spent working towards getting a diagnosis, treatment, and  IEPs and 504s, was mind-blowing.  Anyone who thinks that a kiddo is just going to enter kindergarten and suddenly be diagnosed and receive services right away either had very rare experience, or has never dealt with receiving those services. In fact, it is often times not until kiddos start getting older that the developmental delays are apparent enough to get a diagnosis.  And getting the services, 504/IEP in place to ensure a positive educational experience, and not one where the child is feeling like they are constantly failing is so very key to a solid educational foundation.

 We sent one kid in early and red-shirted the other (each one has a diagnosis that requires an IEP/504).  The first was more than ready, she was reading, she was following directions, she was bored out of her mind in preschool.  The other was unable to follow directions, couldn't sit in circle consistently, and wanted to spend the day playing on his own terms.  He wasn't being purposely disrespectful, he was simply immature.  But I think something that's really being discounted here is how rough school is for kiddos displaying behavioral problems. The constant struggle, the constant reprimands, it leaves kids beaten down and feeling like they can't measure up.

So we had a choice, putting him in a classroom where he would be constantly reprimanded for things he wasn't able to control, potentially starting off his schooling with the label of a problem student, which would likely affect his self-esteem, or give him another year of preschool were he could play and have time to mature.  He's now in third grade and is considered a model student.  He's happy, and though he's still a bit immature compared to the kids his own age he fits in perfectly with his current classmates.  And while he wasn't in elementary school, he still had plenty of access to pediatricians, teachers and evaluators.  

I agree with the other poster who mentioned that an overhaul of kindergarten so that it's not at first grade level would help.  Play based learning through age 6-7 would have made a far more equitable classroom setting.

[lilac05]

Sept 18, 2022 6:56:46 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

Sept 17, 2022 19:30:14 GMT -5 secretagent said:

This always surprises me. The idea of a kid graduating at 19.5 or some thing for a leg up (?) is bizarre. Red shirting is really rare here. We have a 10/1 cut off and there’s lots of September babies. My older kids are July and are not close to the youngest. But, given they’re ten months younger than some peers I can’t imagine what redshirting does to social dynamics. As it is my ADHD kid is “behind” socially (this bugs me. Why can’t kids be kids? But I get it; she has trouble with social cues).

Your first thought it always where I go with these discussions.  I don’t have kids, so no real horse in this race, but I am so, so curious about the back-end results of the redshirting trend.  Have the first classes where this was more prominent gotten to high school grad. years yet in significant numbers?  I just am having a lot of trouble envisioning a lot of good coming from being 19+ and still in high school.  Especially if most of those older students are boys (ie. men at that age).  

My red-shirted son will start his senior year of high school 2 weeks after he turns 18. There might be a small handful of kids who have just turned 19 by the time the graduate. The thought of sending my just barely 18 year old off to college was always in the back of my head, too. We had a disastrous situation with a family member, and that’s always on my mind, too. Giving them a chance to be 18/an adult while still living at home before moving across the country independently is definitely a consideration for many families of kids born close to cut-offs.

I stressed about this situation literally from the moment I found out my due date. My other son is a December baby and I love that it never even had to cross my mind. I really wish everyone just had hard lines with no exceptions, but when you live in an area that doesn’t, the decision just isn’t always as simple as people would like to think. For the vast majority of people in this situation, it’s not so kids can be ahead, it’s so they can keep up.

[AJL]

Sept 18, 2022 6:56:46 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

Sept 17, 2022 19:30:14 GMT -5 secretagent said:

This always surprises me. The idea of a kid graduating at 19.5 or some thing for a leg up (?) is bizarre. Red shirting is really rare here. We have a 10/1 cut off and there’s lots of September babies. My older kids are July and are not close to the youngest. But, given they’re ten months younger than some peers I can’t imagine what redshirting does to social dynamics. As it is my ADHD kid is “behind” socially (this bugs me. Why can’t kids be kids? But I get it; she has trouble with social cues).

Your first thought it always where I go with these discussions.  I don’t have kids, so no real horse in this race, but I am so, so curious about the back-end results of the redshirting trend.  Have the first classes where this was more prominent gotten to high school grad. years yet in significant numbers?  I just am having a lot of trouble envisioning a lot of good coming from being 19+ and still in high school.  Especially if most of those older students are boys (ie. men at that age).  

No. Nineteen year olds are not men. They are still youth with underdeveloped prefrontal cortexes. There is little difference between a 19 year old and an 18 year old in terms of emotional maturity and brain development. They are teenagers. 

[omgzombies]

Part of me also wonders how many parents assume a child was held back "because sports" when in fact the child is not neuro-typical or suffers from an invisible disability, and the parents were in fact trying to make the best call for the kiddo. There is SO much guilt and shame that comes with parenting a child who does not mean the normal benchmarks already. Like most things, focusing on system, and less on the parent judgement calls would be greatly beneficial.

[kadams767]

Sept 18, 2022 9:29:56 GMT -5 AJL said:

Sept 18, 2022 6:56:46 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

Your first thought it always where I go with these discussions.  I don’t have kids, so no real horse in this race, but I am so, so curious about the back-end results of the redshirting trend.  Have the first classes where this was more prominent gotten to high school grad. years yet in significant numbers?  I just am having a lot of trouble envisioning a lot of good coming from being 19+ and still in high school.  Especially if most of those older students are boys (ie. men at that age).  

No. Nineteen year olds are not men. They are still youth with underdeveloped prefrontal cortexes. There is little difference between a 19 year old and an 18 year old in terms of emotional maturity and brain development. They are teenagers. 

Sure, but in the eyes of the law, they are not youth.  And that’s just the literal definition.  The treatment of teenage black boys as men starts way before 18.  So the idea of considering a red-shirted 19 year old as a boy, while in the same school with 13-14 year olds, doesn’t sit right with me, regardless of biological development (or lack thereof).  

I agree they are all teenagers, but they are worlds apart.  

[waverly]

DS attended a private daycare center. Centers are usually more expensive than an in home daycare or babysitting but provide more curriculum. He did private K at the center and then did public K the year after. I would have preferred pre-k but he was bored.

I debated sending him early (October), based on test scores. The school doesn’t accept early so I sent him on time. Cut off is 9/1, so he is one of the oldest. I feel that now he is in the right place. His test scores have fallen off- it could be the gap that studies say show up later or a result of e-learning.

Sometimes with gifted students sending early is helpful, but that’s really the only time.

Students that are younger than their peers are more often diagnosed with ADHD. I think this points to problems with diagnosing and that for teachers and maybe parents comparing them to peers isn’t helpful if they are younger. I know most include exact years on the scales so not sure why they can’t factor in the age more to keep from misdiagnosing.

We had the means and access to non school services but from a special Ed point of view he would have been better served starting earlier if perhaps a pre-k through the school district. Hospital based services were very very expensive and for similar services through the school district I pay 0. We should have gone early intervention but we were trying through the childrens hospital then when it worsened again the school district was like oh just wait until he starts k because he fell through the cracks between the end of EI and the start of school services.

My conclusion reading all these articles is that hopefully the teachers of preschool can work with the parents on if they should stay another year at preschool or go to K. Most public schools don’t have this. I did a kindergarten readiness test when I entered K, but it’s a lot and schools don’t always have the staff to do this. Our district offers a readiness list.

[tacokick]

Sept 18, 2022 7:22:24 GMT -5 cherryvalance said:

Sept 17, 2022 21:11:49 GMT -5 tacokick said:

The redshirting being discussed here is largely the practice of keeping your kid home for a year because of some amorphous feeling that they aren’t there socially or academically or are immature or you want them to do better in sports. We largely aren’t talking about children diagnosed with a specific issue.

It’s great you noticed an issue, have access to all these resources and the time and energy to seek it out but not everyone does or can afford it. Schools are legally required to provide these services. It might not be perfect and you might need to advocate for your child but the public school system is the only way millions of children receive assistance.

There is also a community aspect to to redshirting. Getting more kids in school on time helps not only the kids who’s parents don’t have the knowledge or resources to assess and help with their own child’s potential issue but their child’s classmates’ ability to have a classroom full of actual peers and a curriculum that is developmentally appropriate for children who are at the correct age for the grade level.

If the school is not providing appropriate services to a child then there needs to be a push for reform in the school system, not a push for parents to take their children to outside services that many cannot access. That only increases the already huge inequalities in our communities. Part of the reason why services can be poor in schools is because many people with means don’t use them or advocate for improvement and instead pull their kids out. Which is understandable on an individual level but doesn’t really address the problem in the schools.

I hear you, but here's why I am sharing what I'm sharing. This isn't personal, or about me, but our experience just directly addresses what I saw in your and other comments.

First, the original statements I'm responding to both said that it's completely incomprehensible to ever hold a kid back. You said holding kids in daycare or home won't help, they need to be socialized, etc. I was directly addressing what I think is a ridiculous assumption that people redshirt with no other academic or social outlet for their kids. This is why this topic is somewhat fraught--there's no term for people who hold back for a variety of concerns and it all gets lumped into "seeking an advantage."

Second, I maintain that the assumption that the school district is the only access to services harms kids and parents. Schools are facing insane budget shortfalls (and have been), existing personnel are stretched far too thin, and there's a staff shortage (and mostly in the very areas that are most vulnerable--staff who provides special services). So a blanket approach doesn't work, as many have already said. How does sending a kid who isn't ready (by district personnel recommendation) and has access to services outside school help kids who rely on in-school services? It further stretches those services and takes away from those who actually have no other option.

Now, we can certainly admit it's not fair that some families have access to services outside of school and others don't. But taking a piece of the very narrow pie available when you don't actually have to isn't great either.

Third, the extreme focus on "rigor" we see in kindergarten classrooms isn't just a byproduct of redshirting. It seems like people assume that if all kids were the same age in the class, they'd *have* to see that the curriculum is inappropriate and adjust accordingly. I've been a public school teacher for nearly twenty years and, spoiler alert, that's not happening. For one, parents are demanding academic content, because they think it will give their kid a leg up. Second, and most importantly, politicians have pushed a series of harmful measures and the focus on testing is what has pushed inappropriate expectations down the line. If a kid needs to be doing X by 2nd grade, and his teachers are being evaluated by that, they need 1st grade teachers to be doing Y and then they needs k teachers to be doing Z.

I agree that the system needs deep change at all levels, but parents are going to drive this at a state and national level, because the curriculum standards aren't district level.

I’m not sure how else to say that we, and the article, aren’t talking about children with diagnosed issues who are receiving outside services from a young age and who are told by their health care providers they should not attend school on time. That is not what the issue is at all or what people are referring to by the term redshirting.

The article is odd for many reasons one of which is that it states that boys are being left behind and should be redshirted, ignoring the fact that boys are the ones who are being redshirted most often and have been for many years yet are still apparently “behind”. He is also not talking about boys receiving extra services outside of school, he is talking about boys staying home an extra year because girls are performing better at school, are the majority at colleges and boys need to “catch up”.

And yes, parents do push for more rigorous academics and it’s often the same ones that are redshirting. Of course your 6-7 year old is bored, he’s in kindergarten with 4-5 year olds. I do not see this push in areas where redshirting is not allowed or where the vast majority of children are sent to school on time out of economic necessity and need of services. I also find it disturbing that so many school systems and as you point out, politicians, bend to the whims of parents rather than structuring the school around what is equitable and developmentally appropriate.

People of means will always be able to access outside services on their own. That is not the reality for everyone. The school system literally is the only way many, many families have access to services or even learn about their child’s potential issues and need for help. That is truly not up for debate. These are the children, families and communities who are being left behind. There is not a wealth of easily accessible, affordable community health and support services outside of the public school system. That’s why public schools have had to step up and start providing things like breakfast and before and aftercare. Why schools will send home bags of food and supplies at winter break or provide meals over the summer.

It’s not taking away from other children to get services for your child through the school. As I am sure you must know, it’s a numbers game. If XX number of kids need services then they will hire XY staff. If the only kids who need help and asking the school to provide these services are ones with parents who can’t take their kids to outside services (and often for the same reasons can’t constantly advocate at the school) then the numbers are lower and they don’t hire as many people. If parents took their vigor in tracking down experts and specialists outside of the school to demanding the school provide adequate services we could see changes that benefits not only their own child but others.

[TR]

Sept 18, 2022 9:35:37 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

Sept 18, 2022 9:29:56 GMT -5 AJL said:

No. Nineteen year olds are not men. They are still youth with underdeveloped prefrontal cortexes. There is little difference between a 19 year old and an 18 year old in terms of emotional maturity and brain development. They are teenagers. 

Sure, but in the eyes of the law, they are not youth.  And that’s just the literal definition.  The treatment of teenage black boys as men starts way before 18.  So the idea of considering a red-shirted 19 year old as a boy, while in the same school with 13-14 year olds, doesn’t sit right with me, regardless of biological development (or lack thereof).  

I agree they are all teenagers, but they are worlds apart.  

I’m really trying to find your point here. First you’re talking about the law, but I’m not sure what that has to do with anything. And I didn’t read the article so maybe it’s in there, but I also don’t know where the fact that Black boys are treated as if they’re men comes into play. Are you saying the school will treat them differently? They already do, no? And are you saying 19 year olds shouldn’t be in the same school building with 13-14 year olds, but 18 year olds are ok? I’m honestly just really confused.

[AJL]

Sept 18, 2022 9:35:37 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

Sept 18, 2022 9:29:56 GMT -5 AJL said:

No. Nineteen year olds are not men. They are still youth with underdeveloped prefrontal cortexes. There is little difference between a 19 year old and an 18 year old in terms of emotional maturity and brain development. They are teenagers. 

Sure, but in the eyes of the law, they are not youth.  And that’s just the literal definition.  The treatment of teenage black boys as men starts way before 18.  So the idea of considering a red-shirted 19 year old as a boy, while in the same school with 13-14 year olds, doesn’t sit right with me, regardless of biological development (or lack thereof).  

I agree they are all teenagers, but they are worlds apart.  

But in the eyes of the law, often 15, 16, 17 year old boys (especially Black boys) are seen as adults. That doesn't change the fact that they are not men. That just proves that the system is racist and biased against Black and brown boys. Regardless, this is irrelevant to the current discussion. We're not talking about the law. We're talking about kids' readiness for school. Being 19 at the time of graduation isn't usually a problem for kids who are red-shirted due to age. Many of them will likely be 18 for most of their senior year. 

You statement is wrong, period. Nineteen year old teenage boys are NOT men. 

[tacokick]

Sept 18, 2022 9:24:04 GMT -5 lilac05 said:

Sept 18, 2022 6:56:46 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

 

Giving them a chance to be 18/an adult while still living at home before moving across the country independently is definitely a consideration for many families of kids born close to cut-offs.

Before redshirting/in areas where it is not allowed kids who aren’t ready to move across the country to go to school often start out at a community college and transfer, attend a local university or take a gap year. No one has to leave home directly after high school if they aren’t ready. Who knows if the kid would even want to go to college 12 years down the road? I’m sure people do think like this but there are a lot of other options than keeping your otherwise fine kid out of school for a year at 4-5 years old.

[kadams767]

Sept 18, 2022 9:46:42 GMT -5 TR said:

Sept 18, 2022 9:35:37 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

Sure, but in the eyes of the law, they are not youth.  And that’s just the literal definition.  The treatment of teenage black boys as men starts way before 18.  So the idea of considering a red-shirted 19 year old as a boy, while in the same school with 13-14 year olds, doesn’t sit right with me, regardless of biological development (or lack thereof).  

I agree they are all teenagers, but they are worlds apart.  

I’m really trying to find your point here. First you’re talking about the law, but I’m not sure what that has to do with anything. And I didn’t read the article so maybe it’s in there, but I also don’t know where the fact that Black boys are treated as if they’re men comes into play. Are you saying the school will treat them differently? They already do, no? And are you saying 19 year olds shouldn’t be in the same school building with 13-14 year olds, but 18 year olds are ok? I’m honestly just really confused.

I’m saying that I don’t feel good about considering a red-shirted 18-19 year old as a boy, given the statistics seem to indicate that these will be majority suburban, white boys (which is the group I believe the article is now most concerned with needing this extra time to “even the playing field”), even thought they are still in HS.  It feels particularly worse when you think about the disparate treatment of black teenagers at those ages and younger - they never get the “youth” treatment.  So extrapolating this out to the legal point, petty (and not so petty) crimes and such committed by these two groups, we’re potentially looking at continuing to widen a huge gap that already exists which lets off white offenders at disproportionate rates, because they’re still “kids”.  It seems pretty obvious that society at large is going to look at someone still in high school as a youthful offender vs. someone not still in high school.  And maybe I just have a pretty negative opinion of the behavior of boys/men that age, but I’m just guessing the instances of harassment, bullying and sexual misconduct are going to be an even bigger issue with even larger age gaps between young freshmen and older seniors.  

[kadams767]

Sept 18, 2022 9:55:21 GMT -5 AJL said:

Sept 18, 2022 9:35:37 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

Sure, but in the eyes of the law, they are not youth.  And that’s just the literal definition.  The treatment of teenage black boys as men starts way before 18.  So the idea of considering a red-shirted 19 year old as a boy, while in the same school with 13-14 year olds, doesn’t sit right with me, regardless of biological development (or lack thereof).  

I agree they are all teenagers, but they are worlds apart.  

But in the eyes of the law, often 15, 16, 17 year old boys (especially Black boys) are seen as adults. That doesn't change the fact that they are not men. That just proves that the system is racist and biased against Black and brown boys. Regardless, this is irrelevant to the current discussion. We're not talking about the law. We're talking about kids' readiness for school. Being 19 at the time of graduation isn't usually a problem for kids who are red-shirted due to age. Many of them will likely be 18 for most of their senior year. 

You statement is wrong, period. Nineteen year old teenage boys are NOT men. 

Right, and redshirting is exacerbating the racist system, is my point with that statement.  Sorry, I don’t think it’s irrelevant to be concerned about what is notoriously poor behavior by male teenagers of that age, regardless if you want to call them men or boys, and the impact that being even older at the time that occurs, is going to have on the other students.  

[AJL]

I think you're wrong and I stand by that, kadams767.

[kadams767]

That’s fine. Like I said, I am curious if we have hit the point where there is data and information on the back-end years of the red-shirting phenomenon yet. I’d love for it to not be true and high school to not be a cesspool of bad behavior like it was when I went.

ETA:  To be clear, I am not trying to be argumentative, I am genuinely curious how this will work.  I’ve not been that age in a long time, and none of my friends or family have HS-aged children yet.