"Red Shirt" Vent

[Marionnette]

that is true ,but is it fair to the child who is NOT hugely gifted, but whould have gotten to play if not for the 4 kids playing a year down?

But who's to say that said child would not have been benched in favor of some other hugely gifted player who was also playing at age-level? My son played while seniors sat on the bench. It's sports. That's how team sports are played. The more talented players get time on the field. The less talented players wait on the bench until a substantial lead is built. If you don't like that then there are lots of individual sports that your child can participate in.

 

[Colleen27]

And I am saying that mabye if we took just a little bit of that to heart and tired to teach our kids that they are NOT the center of the earth, it would benefit us. As to making it about the parent, why wqould the parent not have something to do with a child's readiness for K? Of course they do. I know many don't like to hear it, but the number one problem I had with teaching children in my K-4 class was not the fact that the children weren't ready for lessons or receptive to the information. They were. The largest single difficulty was with getting parents not to undermine the discipline and structure in place in the classroom. They believed their children were "too young" to be expected to pick up thier own toys, or remember to keep thier hands to themselves, ect. I am seeing this from parents in DD's school too. The biggest problem they have had in both her K and first grade class is parents who don't like the fact that their children are being asked to take on some personal responsibility. I coach cheer at the school, and I get the same thing. Parents were appaled that I expected the girls(1st and 2nd grade) to make it through and entire 45 min practice without games and a snack. Could this possibly be the reason these same children were "not ready" for K and are now 8 in first grade???

You know, the more you post the more I understand your attitude about parents - it seems like you encounter the worst of both extremes, the couldn't-care-less poor parents and the my-snowflake-can-do-no-wrong overinvolved set. I've known very, very few at either end of the spectrum; the parents I know teach their kids to pick up after themselves and read bedtime stories, and still sometimes have normal kids who just aren't quite ready for full days in a classroom at 4 or barely-5.

 

[Colleen27]

So, what do they do with children with disabilities?? Do they hold kids who should be in 3rd grade still back in Kindergarten?

My school district isn't that far from yours, and the attitude is completely different. ANd they still have sky-high success testing rates. Also, I know a good special education lawyer in the area if anyone needs one.

Most often retention is the catalyst for testing, and once a diagnosis is in place the kids go forward with modifications. I don't understand why they let it get that far before testing begins, but this is a blue collar/working class area and most parents (myself included, with my oldest) simply trust that the school and teachers know what they're doing and have the kids' best interests at heart. I ended up going outside of the school system for testing and diagnosis, and the system was very cooperative with accommodations once the dx was in place. They just weren't very helpful in getting it in the first place.

We're only one town over now from our old district and the mindset is completely different here too. K is a part time program that seems much more developmentally appropriate, retention is a last resort, and we've had much more positive interactions with teachers when problems have come up. On paper, this school system isn't as highly rated and the test scores are above average but not outstanding, but the experience has been much more positive overall.

 

[princessmom29]

You know, the more you post the more I understand your attitude about parents - it seems like you encounter the worst of both extremes, the couldn't-care-less poor parents and the my-snowflake-can-do-no-wrong overinvolved set. I've known very, very few at either end of the spectrum; the parents I know teach their kids to pick up after themselves and read bedtime stories, and still sometimes have normal kids who just aren't quite ready for full days in a classroom at 4 or barely-5.

I don't dispute the fact that children who aren't ready at 5 exist. They do, but they are NOT the norm. We are seeing 25-30% of 5 year olds we redshirted at private schools here. I have seen similar statisticts in other areas of the country as well. I have seen schools where as many as 50% of eligible children are being redshirted. I just don't see how anyone could resonably say that this many children are "not ready" for school?

 

[princessmom29]

But who's to say that said child would not have been benched in favor of some other hugely gifted player who was also playing at age-level? My son played while seniors sat on the bench. It's sports. That's how team sports are played. The more talented players get time on the field. The less talented players wait on the bench until a substantial lead is built. If you don't like that then there are lots of individual sports that your child can participate in.

In elementary school, teams are grade level specific for a reason. In high school, yes a freshman could play while a senior sat the bench, but in 2nd grade,for example, it is limited to just second graders.
This is how a 2nd grade parent is likely to see the situation: If 15 second graders play on the basketball team, and 4 of those should be third graders, then those 4 third graders are keeping 4 second graders from getting to play. That would not be happening if htey were playing on grade level. By playing down, they are basically gauranteed to start becuase they have an unfair advantage over other players. Elementary sports are set up to be age specific in an attempt to allow for a level playingh field as much aspossible. When they get to middle and high school, it is more survival of the fittest.

 

[Colleen27]

I don't dispute the fact that children who aren't ready at 5 exist. They do, but they are NOT the norm. We are seeing 25-30% of 5 year olds we redshirted at private schools here. I have seen similar statisticts in other areas of the country as well. I have seen schools where as many as 50% of eligible children are being redshirted. I just don't see how anyone could resonably say that this many children are "not ready" for school?

That is excessive, and 50% is flat out ridiculous. Around here we see 10%, give or take, most of them boys, many with barely-made-cutoff birthdays or other extenuating circumstances (like DS's friend who was a preemie, born in Nov and made the cutoff but by his Jan due date wouldn't have; his mom opted to hold him out to where he "should" be if the pregnancy had gone to term).

 

[carrollchristoph]

We red-shirted due to immaturity that was later identified as autism. With the rising prevalence of autism, this may not be an insignificant factor.

I love to rant as much as the next one, but next time you see a child "too old for the grade", consider that there might be other factors in play.

 

[Marionnette]

In elementary school, teams are grade level specific for a reason. In high school, yes a freshman could play while a senior sat the bench, but in 2nd grade,for example, it is limited to just second graders.
This is how a 2nd grade parent is likely to see the situation: If 15 second graders play on the basketball team, and 4 of those should be third graders, then those 4 third graders are keeping 4 second graders from getting to play. That would not be happening if htey were playing on grade level. By playing down, they are basically gauranteed to start becuase they have an unfair advantage over other players. Elementary sports are set up to be age specific in an attempt to allow for a level playingh field as much aspossible. When they get to middle and high school, it is more survival of the fittest.

Sorry. But it's not like I never had a second grader and I do not agree with this mindset. A child is not guaranteed a starting spot on any team just because he is eleven month older, regardless of age. Following that logic then any boy who is taller or heavier than average should be excluded from play at their specific age level due to their size advantage. And size alone does not make that child a better athlete. However, I will concede the point that at the grade school level all players should be allotted equal playing time. This is the level at which learning the fundamental skills and the meaning of true sportsmanship are important. And you cannot learn those things on the bench as well as you can learn them on the field of competition.

 

[princessmom29]

That is excessive, and 50% is flat out ridiculous. Around here we see 10%, give or take, most of them boys, many with barely-made-cutoff birthdays or other extenuating circumstances (like DS's friend who was a preemie, born in Nov and made the cutoff but by his Jan due date wouldn't have; his mom opted to hold him out to where he "should" be if the pregnancy had gone to term).

Again, I don't argue that afew children near the cutoff date might need to wait a year, but that is not what "redshirting" means here, and in many other areas. DD had 2 boys in her class turn 7 before the end of 1st quarter in K. There are about 80 kids in her grade at school. They post birthdays on the walls in the K classes by month, and tell what age they are turning. By looking at those I saw that at least a quarter of the children were 7 before christmas. Those are the "redshirted" kids. They should have started at 5 1/2, but were held out until 6 1/2.

 

[princessmom29]

Sorry. But it's not like I never had a second grader and I do not agree with this mindset. A child is not guaranteed a starting spot on any team just because he is eleven month older, regardless of age. Following that logic then any boy who is taller or heavier than average should be excluded from play at their specific age level due to their size advantage. And size alone does not make that child a better athlete. However, I will concede the point that at the grade school level all players should be allotted equal playing time. This is the level at which learning the fundamental skills and the meaning of true sportsmanship are important. And you cannot learn those things on the bench as well as you can learn them on the field of competition.

I feel they should get equal playing time in elementary school as well. That doesn't happen in a lot of places, however. The better players play more, and while being older and bigger doesn't gurantee that, it does improve your chances.

 

[GinnyEmma]

And all girls should be on the cheer team, and everyone should get a gold star on their paper... Ick.

Helen: Everyone's special, Dash.
Dash: [muttering] Which is another way of saying no one is.

 

[princessmom29]

And all girls should be on the cheer team, and everyone should get a gold star on their paper... Ick.

Helen: Everyone's special, Dash.
Dash: [muttering] Which is another way of saying no one is.

no one is saying that at all, just that everyone deserves a chance.

 

[bwilcox]

Again, I don't argue that afew children near the cutoff date might need to wait a year, but that is not what "redshirting" means here, and in many other areas.

Actually, that is EXACTLY what redshirting means. The great majority of parents who "redshirt" have kids whose birthdays are within a month of the cutoff, making them barely-turned 5 year olds. Regardless of your limited experience with young children, which you base your entire opinion of redshirting on, the fact is that there are some young 5's who are just not ready. All the research I found shows the percent of children redhirted is between 10-20 per cent, based on the area. That is not an unreasonable amount of children who are not at the same developmental level as their older peers and not ready for K yet. It is certainly not the large-scale epidemic you make it sound.

 

[princessmom29]

Actually, that is EXACTLY what redshirting means. The great majority of parents who "redshirt" have kids whose birthdays are within a month of the cutoff, making them barely-turned 5 year olds. Regardless of your limited experience with young children, which you base your entire opinion of redshirting on, the fact is that there are some young 5's who are just not ready. All the research I found shows the percent of children redhirted is between 10-20 per cent, based on the area. That is not an unreasonable amount of children who are not at the same developmental level as their older peers and not ready for K yet. It is certainly not the large-scale epidemic you make it sound.

It depends on how you define redshirting. It is 10-20 percent as a nationwide number, if you include every child that is eligible, regardless of disability, and even children within just days of the cutoff. When redshirting is referred to in this area, most people mean a child who is well past the age cutoff, and the parent still chooses to hold them back, not a child within a few days or weeks of the cutoff for whom a judgment call was made. In fact the school system does not include data for children within 60 days of the age cutoff when looking at data for "redshirted" children, so I would not consider a child who is within 60 days of the age cutoff to be redshirted.

 

[crisi]

no one is saying that at all, just that everyone deserves a chance.

My kids play "everyone has a chance" sports. Park and rec baseball - everyone bats, and coaches need to play everyone - its in the rules. Now, not everyone will get to play second base, but everyone will get to play. Park and rec soccer. Non competitive gymnastics. Again, everyone has a chance. Non-competitive tennis. Golf. Skateboarding. Skiing. If you want "everyone has a chance" sports, register your kids in "everyone has a chance" programs.

My daughter is one of the oldest kids in her class - and one of the smallest. Age can make a difference in sports, but it isn't a given. And if you are looking for "everyone has a chance" - you need to go beyond birthdays and into "well, kid, you pick daisies in the field instead of playing - but its your turn to be goalie."

 

[GinnyEmma]

Well said. Age doesn't make or break.

 

[princessmom29]

My kids play "everyone has a chance" sports. Park and rec baseball - everyone bats, and coaches need to play everyone - its in the rules. Now, not everyone will get to play second base, but everyone will get to play. Park and rec soccer. Non competitive gymnastics. Again, everyone has a chance. Non-competitive tennis. Golf. Skateboarding. Skiing. If you want "everyone has a chance" sports, register your kids in "everyone has a chance" programs.

My daughter is one of the oldest kids in her class - and one of the smallest. Age can make a difference in sports, but it isn't a given. And if you are looking for "everyone has a chance" - you need to go beyond birthdays and into "well, kid, you pick daisies in the field instead of playing - but its your turn to be goalie."

Rec league is NOT that way here. You have to try out for rec league, and there is no guantee you will ever play. It is extremely competitve. Those leagues are based on age. Our school sports are supposed to be where everyone gets some playing time and learning experience, and they are organized by grade level. We don't play sports, so it really doesn't matter to us. Our dance classes are organized by ability rather than age. I was just saying that I couls see how a parent in that situation would be upset.

 

[dogluva]

I don't have a problem with parents waiting on sending their children if their birthdays are very close to the cut off. Especially boys, that makes sense. However, I do have a problem with parents keeping home their kids when their birthdays fall at the beginning of the year. My son made the cut off-at the time it was Dec. 31 and has since been changed to Aug. 31. He made it by a month and I sent him. He was ready and did fine. What I didn't like was that he was in the same grade as kids over a year, sometimes a year and a half older than him. Parents held their kids back and some of them were born in May the year before. By the time he got to high school, he was 13 turning 14 as a freshman and in the same class as kids who were pushing 16. One boy was held back and then repeated. This is too old and if he was a girl, it would have been worse, in my opinion.

 

[Microcell]

I find this very interesting. I had no idea there where places where people could choose. In Missouri they have always (as far back as I know) had an exact date, and it is for public and private schools. When I was a kid the date was in Oct., I had an August birthday and went when I turned 5, I was always one of the youngest. The date is now July 31st, I would not have been allowed to go now days. My DD has a March birthday so she went at 5 1/2. DS has a Sept. birthday and had to wait until he was almost 6. In a way I suppose it is good since he takes after me and is very small. I can't believe some places let parents choose, and have 7 and 4 year olds in kindergarten together. Here it is a mix of 5 and 6 year olds only (unless a child has failed and is held back).

I am in Missouri as well and it is completely up to you if you want to hold your child back.. My DS's teacher was all over me to hold him back "so he can be the biggest one" in sports! He was born in April and would be almost 19 when he graduates high school! She had me all turned around saying she thought he should wait that I went to the Early Childhood Education center and was able to get him tested. They told me it could go either way and was up to me if I wanted to hold him back or not. I decided not to because I knew he was just fine, and in third grade he is doing just fine. There is a July 31 guideline so if you are born Aug 1 and you want to go to school you have to wait.. but if you want to hold a kid back it if perfectly fine in Missouri, just not fine to me!

 

[princessmom29]

I don't have a problem with parents waiting on sending their children if their birthdays are very close to the cut off. Especially boys, that makes sense. However, I do have a problem with parents keeping home their kids when their birthdays fall at the beginning of the year. My son made the cut off-at the time it was Dec. 31 and has since been changed to Aug. 31. He made it by a month and I sent him. He was ready and did fine. What I didn't like was that he was in the same grade as kids over a year, sometimes a year and a half older than him. Parents held their kids back and some of them were born in May the year before. By the time he got to high school, he was 13 turning 14 as a freshman and in the same class as kids who were pushing 16. One boy was held back and then repeated. This is too old and if he was a girl, it would have been worse, in my opinion.

those are the kids I would define as redshirted. They are tuning 7 before Christmas in K, and driving by christmas of their freshman year.