"Red Shirt" Vent

[jodifla]

I have met many who are making the choice based on thier kid being smarter, faster, stronger, or just wanting another year of them as a "baby". It is quite common here. Sports are HUGE and parents want to give thier kids the edge. The research I am siting was presented to us this summer at a system wide K-12 conference. I only have my notes, but I will find the authors and their works if I can. The jist of what was presented thoughout the week was that American children are capable of far more than what they are achieving because we as a society have lowered our expectations. There was a segment examining the ages students first start schooling in other countries, and for many of the most successful that is 3-4 years old. The idea is that by the time they reach K at 5, they have been taught how to act in a classroom, and the real teaching can begin. Children are achieving more in nations where they are in school earlier. Many of these nations also teach on the "sit down and shut up" platform, and are still out achieving us. So no, I don't buy "he's not ready" or "he can't sit still".

And at what cost are these children achieving more?

I spent a while talking to someone who grew up in India....he thinks elementary school is too easy here, too social, because he was miserable going to school in India. He said all they did was work, work, work and all you could be that was acceptable was a doctor like his wife, or an engineer like him, or maybe a lawyer or doctor. It was very stifling, a pressure cooker, and he has mixed feelings about the elementary school situation.

But he notes that his kids love school, are happy to go, and they are learning. He also noted that he sees that school gets harder in middle and high school, and he says that U.S. colleges are just second to none, which is why he came here to go to college.

You keep taking the conversation in another direction -- largely to say derogatory things about the poor, it seems.

Think what you like. Parents will do what's best for their children.

 

[GinnyEmma]

we've spent the last 30 years trying to emulate those that are theroetically doing better. And whichever group is paying for the research amazingly wins out. Those that want to study specifics of education neglect the suicide rate. And the other costs. We had a japanese exhange student. I do not want my child to study for 12 hours a day, 11 months a year. Not thinking that is a positive.

There is a happy medium out there. I am wondering what part of the country you live in to have experienced the droves of red shirted interviewed and assessed by you students. You are so adamanent that one must wonder what the heck it all has to do with you. I'd think smarter kids getting to your classroom would be a positive, but you seem to still have issue. Oh well. Sometimes you miss something incredible while standing your ground.

 

[princessmom29]

And at what cost are these children achieving more?

I spent a while talking to someone who grew up in India....he thinks elementary school is too easy here, too social, because he was miserable going to school in India. He said all they did was work, work, work and all you could be that was acceptable was a doctor like his wife, or an engineer like him, or maybe a lawyer or doctor. It was very stifling, a pressure cooker, and he has mixed feelings about the elementary school situation.

But he notes that his kids love school, are happy to go, and they are learning. He also noted that he sees that school gets harder in middle and high school, and he says that U.S. colleges are just second to none, which is why he came here to go to college.

You keep taking the conversation in another direction -- largely to say derogatory things about the poor, it seems.

Think what you like. Parents will do what's best for their children.

totally untrue. People are throwing around statistics to support redshirting. I am simply pointing out that being too young is not the reason for children coming into K not ready. It is poverty, ignorance, and aculture that places NO value on education. Wether we want to believe it or not, that culture existis. Ideal with the results every day. Most parents considering redshirting don't fall into that category. They come from a completely different world. Are there ligitimate cases for redsahirting? yes. Especially for atypical children really close to the cutoff, but they are few and far between. There is no way 25%-30% of children "need" to be redshirted like we are seeing in private schools here. The parents actually have another agenda. They argue that their child is "not ready", but can't really tell anyone what that means. Their children do well no readiness evaluations and in many cases make thew cutoff by more than 6 months, yet they still hold them back. Why. when all evidence supports sending them on? Because it is the "in" thing right now. Hold your child back so they will be better, smarter, faster, ect. If we are totally honest THIS is the reason most children being redshirted are held back, not any real academic or social concerns that will not allw them to be successful in K. It is about getting a leg up on the competition. Of course, no one is going to admit in, and few are brave enough to put it out there, but from what I have observed over the last few years, it is the reality of what is going on, at least in our area. I realiae taht no one wants to own up to this as the reason for redshorting thier child. They NEED some sort of justification to make themselves feel better about it, so they say "he's just not ready".

 

[kohlby]

About the OP, I wouldn't worry about it. I can't imagine having a child repeat a grade unless there were reasons. Wanting her child to remain a baby doesn't make sense to me. But perhaps she felt he didn't have the maturity. Boys do mature later so a boy red-shirted is still going to be behind a lot of his female peers in maturity.

I homeschool, but seriously considered red-shirting my oldest had I done public school. Public school is not the same as when we went to school. First, kindy is all day. Second, there are a lot more rules and structured learning in kindy than before. My oldest was a very impulsive, active 5 year old. He really wanted to be good, but he slipped up a lot. Public school kindy would have been a disaster for him. (He's a May b-day, big for his age, and the cut off is Sept 1). With the mess of No Child Left Behind, testing starts early and is rigorous. Kids have a lot of homework now in elem school - and third grade is when a lot of schools increase the workload drastically. (Which makes me understand why a parent may have decided to repeat 2nd grade. They might think their child isn't ready for the increase in work yet).

Our local recreation league has a great sports program. They do it by age, instead of grade, which makes it wonderfully fair. I wouldn't worry about an elem student doing better at sports in gym class or a clinic due to being older. At that age, teachers and coaches should be teaching skills and letting everyone participate.

*As for students being ahead due to learning earlier, that's not true. I can't remember the country, but one doesn't start compulsory education until 7 and their kids are ahead of many other countries, including the US. (It was a place like Demark, Norway, or Sweden). I've also seen countless studies from our own country showing that kids who are ahead when they're younger often end up on the same tier by second grade when in the public school. From a child development point, earlier schooling or more schooling isn't going to change things unless a child has delays- but more appropriate learning experiences will. Our country keeps increasing teacher standards and accountability standards, yet a high percentage of kids are getting lost in the system. I used to teach public school and you'd be amazed at how many kids, even in the college-prep level classes can't do basic fractions by 10th grade. The system is flawed. Earlier and more of a flawed system isn't the solution. (My second child would do wonderfully in any educational environment, but it's the exception that the public school is set up for, with too many kids not getting a good education).

 

[Colleen27]

Well, I have seen a parent regret holding back. Often times you don't see that regret until later. I have seen it several times with children the parents thought were "not ready" at some point in elementary school, be it in K or later, and held them back. When they get to me in high school, they often resent the fact that they were held back, are not a good fit with their peer group, or are teased for being held back. Teenagers can do the math really quickly and figure out that someone should be a grade ahead, and kids can be cruel. Most importantly, I see these kids give up on school becuase they are "over it" in thier words. It is harder on some kids than others. There are those that cope with it well and it is a blip on thier radar, but there are those for whom it is a REALLY big deal, and it effects their entire outlook. To say no one ever regretted holding a child back is just not realistic. I believe that you never saw it in primary school, but it usually doesn't show up until middle and high school.

But since you're not coming into contact with those kids until they're older, you don't know what the circumstances around them being held back early on was. 15+ years ago, holding kids out "just because" or for a competitive edge of some sort wasn't a "trend" like it is now, and probably most of those kids did have real issues that warranted a little more time.

You're a teacher, what sort of outcomes do you see for kids who went to school on time but then were held back? That's what the parents I know who have "red-shirted" were trying to avoid, because the statistics are dismal - higher drop out rates, higher rates of teen substance use and pregnancy, lower rates of college attendance and graduation, etc. In a school system that holds many children back in K and 1st (which is a different rant unto itself - this policy came about as a direct result of high-stakes testing starting in 3rd grade), no one wants their child to become one of those numbers because a teacher who met the kid for an hour said he was ready when he really wasn't.

 

[Colleen27]

There was a segment examining the ages students first start schooling in other countries, and for many of the most successful that is 3-4 years old. The idea is that by the time they reach K at 5, they have been taught how to act in a classroom, and the real teaching can begin. Children are achieving more in nations where they are in school earlier. Many of these nations also teach on the "sit down and shut up" platform, and are still out achieving us. So no, I don't buy "he's not ready" or "he can't sit still".

That type of analysis consistently fails to control for other factors that differentiate our society and culture from those of nations we keep trying (unsuccessfully) to emulate.

Japan is one that is often brought up, without ever a mention of the fact that their entire culture is not only more academically oriented, but also much more communal in nature, or that their living arrangements and family structure and social norms all prepare children for sustained concentration and quiet play/study from birth. And none of the nations we hold up for their educational excellence take our "sink or swim" approach to the role of family in a child's life; they all have much more extensive social supports, both informal and governmental, which is strongly associated with greater family stability (which is in turn linked to better academic performance).

 

[jodifla]

A reading study from New Zealand.....

http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/research-finds-no-advantage-learning-read-age-five/5/33888

Monday, 21 December, 2009 - 09:21
Research Finds No Advantage In Learning To Read From Age Five

A University of Otago researcher has uncovered for the first time quantitative evidence that teaching children to read from age five is not likely to make that child any more successful at reading than a child who learns reading later, from age seven.

The ground-breaking Psychology PhD research, conducted by Dr Sebastian Suggate, has been placed on the University's "distinguished list" of doctoral theses for 2009. Dr Suggate has also been awarded a prestigious Postdoctoral Research Fellowship from the Humboldt Association in Germany to the University of Wuerzburg in Bavaria to further his studies into childhood education.

Starting in 2007, Dr Suggate conducted one international and two New Zealand studies, each one backing up the conclusions of the other; that there is no difference between the reading ability of early (from age five) and late (from age seven) readers by the time those children reach their last year at Primary School by age 11.

Comparing children from Rudolf Steiner schools, who usually start learning to read from age seven, and children in state-run schools, who start learning to read at five, he found that the later learners caught up and matched the reading abilities of their earlier-reading counterparts by the time they were 11, or by Year 7.

Therefore, the previously unscientifically tested and widely held view that children in New Zealand should learn to read from age five, now appears contestable; Dr Suggate, in three years of studies, involving regular surveys of around 400 New Zealand children, found no statistical evidence of an advantage in reading from the earlier age of five.

He decided to study childhood reading because he could not find any quantitative controlled study within the English-speaking world to ascertain whether later starting readers were at an advantage or disadvantage. He found only one methodologically weak study conducted in 1974, but nothing since that time. Yet people regularly insist that early reading is integral to a child's later achievement and success. He admits to being surprised, therefore, by his own findings that this is not the case.

"One theory for the finding that an earlier beginning does not lead to a later advantage is that the most important early factors for later reading achievement, for most children, are language and learning experiences that are gained without formal reading instruction," says Dr Suggate.

"Because later starters at reading are still learning through play, language, and interactions with adults, their long-term learning is not disadvantaged. Instead, these activities prepare the soil well for later development of reading."

 

[jodifla]

Just curious how all these schools are holding first and second graders back. The only way a child here can be held back prior to the 4th grade is at the parent's request and then the school must approve it. Just because a child is not reading out of Kindergarten does NOT mean they won't be reading in 1st grade and the schools know that. The majority of kids held back in the classes my kids have been in was due to special needs. When my son went to 1st grade he was in a class with only 4 kids reading above grade level. The rest were at or below with the majority below. The school had a reading specialist that visited all classes and if the kdis still needed more than they were pulled during reading.

I just do not understand a school deciding and the parent apparently having no say. In the OP's case, I have to say it makes more sense that the mom did pull him from public school to private so she could hold him back as the public school probably found no reason. I don't see that holding a child back now (especially with the bs NCLB act out there) is all that easy. At least here it isn't.

Our schools don't do much holding back either. There are plenty of studies to show that holding back students doesn't lead to success. It's better to move them forward with their class, and offer them special supports.

 

[pacrosby]

A reading study from New Zealand.....

http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/research-finds-no-advantage-learning-read-age-five/5/33888

Monday, 21 December, 2009 - 09:21
Research Finds No Advantage In Learning To Read From Age Five

A University of Otago researcher has uncovered for the first time quantitative evidence that teaching children to read from age five is not likely to make that child any more successful at reading than a child who learns reading later, from age seven.

The ground-breaking Psychology PhD research, conducted by Dr Sebastian Suggate, has been placed on the University's "distinguished list" of doctoral theses for 2009. Dr Suggate has also been awarded a prestigious Postdoctoral Research Fellowship from the Humboldt Association in Germany to the University of Wuerzburg in Bavaria to further his studies into childhood education.

Starting in 2007, Dr Suggate conducted one international and two New Zealand studies, each one backing up the conclusions of the other; that there is no difference between the reading ability of early (from age five) and late (from age seven) readers by the time those children reach their last year at Primary School by age 11.

Comparing children from Rudolf Steiner schools, who usually start learning to read from age seven, and children in state-run schools, who start learning to read at five, he found that the later learners caught up and matched the reading abilities of their earlier-reading counterparts by the time they were 11, or by Year 7.

Therefore, the previously unscientifically tested and widely held view that children in New Zealand should learn to read from age five, now appears contestable; Dr Suggate, in three years of studies, involving regular surveys of around 400 New Zealand children, found no statistical evidence of an advantage in reading from the earlier age of five.

He decided to study childhood reading because he could not find any quantitative controlled study within the English-speaking world to ascertain whether later starting readers were at an advantage or disadvantage. He found only one methodologically weak study conducted in 1974, but nothing since that time. Yet people regularly insist that early reading is integral to a child's later achievement and success. He admits to being surprised, therefore, by his own findings that this is not the case.

"One theory for the finding that an earlier beginning does not lead to a later advantage is that the most important early factors for later reading achievement, for most children, are language and learning experiences that are gained without formal reading instruction," says Dr Suggate.

"Because later starters at reading are still learning through play, language, and interactions with adults, their long-term learning is not disadvantaged. Instead, these activities prepare the soil well for later development of reading."

There is loads and loads of evidence out proving that there is no real long-term advantage to pushing kids academically early on.....except of course to give parents bragging rights LOL

 

[GinnyEmma]

Many of the studies comparing us to other countries do not take into account that not every child is educated. it is similar to studies involving infant mortality.

i would love to see consistent research that says that kids are doing better now than they were 30 years ago. Smarter? Better testing? Less medication for behavior issues? Lower drop out rates? Increased literacy? INcreased math scores? Taking into account the dumbing down of the SAT tests. Preferable consistent statistical evidence by people not receiving grant money due to the "evidence." Since stats can say anything when you work hard enough at it.

 

[princessmom29]

That type of analysis consistently fails to control for other factors that differentiate our society and culture from those of nations we keep trying (unsuccessfully) to emulate.

Japan is one that is often brought up, without ever a mention of the fact that their entire culture is not only more academically oriented, but also much more communal in nature, or that their living arrangements and family structure and social norms all prepare children for sustained concentration and quiet play/study from birth. And none of the nations we hold up for their educational excellence take our "sink or swim" approach to the role of family in a child's life; they all have much more extensive social supports, both informal and governmental, which is strongly associated with greater family stability (which is in turn linked to better academic performance).

See, that is exactly what I am getting at. It is not that our children are so much different than the children in Japan or anywhere else. A lot of how well a child does in school has to do with what they are taught at home, not that they are just not develomentally ready. Those kids have the same developmental milestones as ours, so why do they never even consider holding a child back? Thier culture places a huge emphasis on academics and children are taught respect and proper classroom conduct from an early age. Running wild in a clasrrom, not listening, not paying attention are not an option, so it doesn't happen. The children are not any different, but what they are being taught at home is. Mabye we need to start teaching "sustained concentration and quiet play/study" to our children. Many enter K with no clue how to act in a classroom. It is not becuase they are "not ready" but becuase they have never been taught. This is part of the redshirting problem. Parents hold thier children out of school as long as they can, and are not teaching classroom manners at home. Of couse a kid who has never been asked to sit still for more than 5 min is not going to want to, at any age. You know I guess this is the point i am really trying to make here. There is nothing in the natural development of kids that makes them "not ready" for school at 5, but many are not prepared adequately for the classroom environment.

 

[princessmom29]

A reading study from New Zealand.....

http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/research-finds-no-advantage-learning-read-age-five/5/33888

Monday, 21 December, 2009 - 09:21
Research Finds No Advantage In Learning To Read From Age Five

A University of Otago researcher has uncovered for the first time quantitative evidence that teaching children to read from age five is not likely to make that child any more successful at reading than a child who learns reading later, from age seven.

The ground-breaking Psychology PhD research, conducted by Dr Sebastian Suggate, has been placed on the University's "distinguished list" of doctoral theses for 2009. Dr Suggate has also been awarded a prestigious Postdoctoral Research Fellowship from the Humboldt Association in Germany to the University of Wuerzburg in Bavaria to further his studies into childhood education.

Starting in 2007, Dr Suggate conducted one international and two New Zealand studies, each one backing up the conclusions of the other; that there is no difference between the reading ability of early (from age five) and late (from age seven) readers by the time those children reach their last year at Primary School by age 11.

Comparing children from Rudolf Steiner schools, who usually start learning to read from age seven, and children in state-run schools, who start learning to read at five, he found that the later learners caught up and matched the reading abilities of their earlier-reading counterparts by the time they were 11, or by Year 7.

Therefore, the previously unscientifically tested and widely held view that children in New Zealand should learn to read from age five, now appears contestable; Dr Suggate, in three years of studies, involving regular surveys of around 400 New Zealand children, found no statistical evidence of an advantage in reading from the earlier age of five.

He decided to study childhood reading because he could not find any quantitative controlled study within the English-speaking world to ascertain whether later starting readers were at an advantage or disadvantage. He found only one methodologically weak study conducted in 1974, but nothing since that time. Yet people regularly insist that early reading is integral to a child's later achievement and success. He admits to being surprised, therefore, by his own findings that this is not the case.

"One theory for the finding that an earlier beginning does not lead to a later advantage is that the most important early factors for later reading achievement, for most children, are language and learning experiences that are gained without formal reading instruction," says Dr Suggate.

"Because later starters at reading are still learning through play, language, and interactions with adults, their long-term learning is not disadvantaged. Instead, these activities prepare the soil well for later development of reading."

they are comparing apples to oranges here. The children studied are in 2 different programs, one of which is designed to teach more material in less time. The programs are designed to equalize by year 7 so that they can be streamed in to the same secondary school programs. I would love to see the stats for public school children who were not reading at age 7, and the stats were they to allow the students to advance at will rather than within the rigid structure of thier programs.

 

[bwilcox]

they are comparing apples to oranges here. The children studied are in 2 different programs, one of which is designed to teach more material in less time. The programs are designed to equalize by year 7 so that they can be streamed in to the same secondary school programs. I would love to see the stats for public school children who were not reading at age 7, and the stats were they to allow the students to advance at will rather than within the rigid structure of thier programs.

At least there is a link there. You have been asked repeatedly what studies you are basing your opinion on, and have failed to post any. Where is the study showing children are ready to read at 5? Showing redshirting hurts other students? Showing most parents redshirt to give their kids an academic or sports-related advantage?

 

[princessmom29]

At least there is a link there. You have been asked repeatedly what studies you are basing your opinion on, and have failed to post any. Where is the study showing children are ready to read at 5? Showing redshirting hurts other students? Showing most parents redshirt to give their kids an academic or sports-related advantage?

I don't have a link, and to my knowledge the information presented to us in not on the internet anywhere as some of the studies were done within our own school system. BTW, just becuase something is on the internet does not make it true. I know for many parents, it is hard to hear that what they believe to be true may be in fact, not the case. I understand the need to attack the source, but the fact reamains, regardless of how many poeople wnat to argue to the contrary,that there are very few cases where arereal need to redshirt a child exists. I realize many who have cosen to redshirt thier children will never accept the idea that mabye it was not necessary, and will argue to the end that everyone needs to be redshirted. I, and many, many colluges believe that the evidence shows otherwise. Sorry. but it is true.
I don't think I ever claimed redshirting hurts other students in any way except the possibilty of an injury because of a size difference in sports, and do you really think anyone is going to admit to redshirting for spots in a published study? MY evidence for that is purely ancedotal based on waht other parents have told me over the years.

 

[bwilcox]

I don't have a link, and to my knowledge the information presented to us in not on the internet anywhere as some of the studies were done within our own school system. BTW, just becuase something is on the internet does not make it true. I know for many parents, it is hard to hear that what they believe to be true may be in fact, not the case. I understand the need to attack the source, but the fact reamains, regardless of how many poeople wnat to argue to the contrary,that there are very few cases where arereal need to redshirt a child exists. I realize many who have cosen to redshirt thier children will never accept the idea that mabye it was not necessary, and will argue to the end that everyone needs to be redshirted. I, and many, many colluges believe that the evidence shows otherwise. Sorry. but it is true.
I don't think I ever claimed redshirting hurts other students in any way except the possibilty of an injury because of a size difference in sports, and do you really think anyone is going to admit to redshirting for spots in a published study? MY evidence for that is purely ancedotal based on waht other parents have told me over the years.

I have seen no one here attack you, only disagree. You are making broad judgments based on apparently nothing but anecdotal evidence from one school district, in which you teach not kindergarten, but high school. You state, "the evidence shows otherwise," yet you are not presenting any of that evidence. You are stating what you believe as facts and statistics, but have nothing to back it up with. I am well aware that not everything on the internet is true. I am just looking for something, anything, to back up your arguments. I am not a parent who has redshirted, however, I would not hesitate to if I thought it was in the best interest of my child. I am a former elementary school teacher, who remains friends with several K teachers I taught with over the years, as well as having a mom and MIL who have taught K for many years. In my experience, and that of my friends and family, there are always some kids who are started in K before they are ready. Many have to be held back a year. That is my anecdotal evidence, and it contradicts yours. If you are going to condemn parents who know their child better than anyone else and are doing what they think is the best thing for their child, you'd better have something to back it up with.

 

[princessmom29]

I have seen no one here attack you, only disagree. You are making broad judgments based on apparently nothing but anecdotal evidence from one school district, in which you teach not kindergarten, but high school. You state, "the evidence shows otherwise," yet you are not presenting any of that evidence. You are stating what you believe as facts and statistics, but have nothing to back it up with. I am well aware that not everything on the internet is true. I am just looking for something, anything, to back up your arguments. I am not a parent who has redshirted, however, I would not hesitate to if I thought it was in the best interest of my child. I am a former elementary school teacher, who remains friends with several K teachers I taught with over the years, as well as having a mom and MIL who have taught K for many years. In my experience, and that of my friends and family, there are always some kids who are started in K before they are ready. Many have to be held back a year. That is my anecdotal evidence, and it contradicts yours. If you are going to condemn parents who know their child better than anyone else and are doing what they think is the best thing for their child, you'd better have something to back it up with.

Look, all I can tell you is that from my experience in High school, the students I have who have been volentarily redshirted generally do not enjoy high school. They KNOW they are different than their peers, and their peers know they should be a grade ahead. From what my sister has seen teaching K, and working as a head start director, most of the time redshirting is more about the parent not being ready than the child actually needing another year. Both she and I have put in many years in preschool as well. The children I taught in preschool whoes parents thought they were not ready by and large just need a solid dose of discipline at home. I am generalizing here, but the vast majority were children that when I reported poor behavior to mom I got "well, he's just a baby. You really cannot expect him to _______" When the parent believes a child is incapable of behaving, then there is no reason for the mto behave. It seems that no one is willing to accept anything but as scientific study as having any merit on my side of the argument, but anecdotes nasexperiences are fine to argue the other side. I realize mine is not the "popular" opinion, but the fact reamins that through both of our experiences over the years, combined with my observation of what goes on in my own daughter's school this is what the data has shown us. Children do better long term when they are sent to school on time, with very few exceptions. If you don't like that, that is fine. You are free to believe whatever you wish. I can only tell you what the evidence has shown me over and over agian. I seems no one here is ready to accept that there could be some possible merit to a differing opinion.

 

[GinnyEmma]

lol, what data???? If you are just giving a subjective opinion, then fine. So are most people. Do you intrerview your students to find out whether they were redshirted? If you are in the sciences, how do you distinguish between quirky science students and socially inept redshirted children, lol?

 

[mjkacmom]

With all of the subjective data given on this subject on the disboards (and IRL), I have to say that 99.9% of people seem to feel that their children who were redshirted benefited from the fact, and only those who sent their children to school, close to the cutoff, had any regrets.

 

[MSSANDRA]

Exactly what I have found in "real life " as well. Many of the children that I have encouraged parents to gift the extra year and they choose not to ended up with the school retaining the child in the lower grades. 100% of DS's friends are in the top 20 or so in his class of 300. At least 50% of those were "red-shirted" and I think every other kid has already had his or her birthday this year, making them all the oldest in the class. All from great homes, never any trouble and all going off to college 18 or turning 19 and not 17. Works for us.

 

[princessmom29]

lol, what data???? If you are just giving a subjective opinion, then fine. So are most people. Do you intrerview your students to find out whether they were redshirted? If you are in the sciences, how do you distinguish between quirky science students and socially inept redshirted children, lol?

believe it or not, kids actually talk to their teachers, and OMG, teachers LISTEN! Really, it's true. Is that really so hard to believe?? I mean I do have the age and grade level of my students. It isn't hard to figure out that soem of them shouldbe a grade ahead, andI they do actually occasionally volenteer that they were held back, repeated a grade ect. A good teacher gets to know her students.
Our system also collects and logs vast amounts of data. We are over 150 schools so it is a lot of data compiled over the years, not just a few kids. As it was presented at the system wide conference this summer, it shows little to no benefit to redshriting. Redshirted children did not perform significantly differently than children entering K on time, based on several thousand students followed through elementary school. With computerized record keeping it is really simple to pull a sample group and chart test scores, academic progress, and any behavior problems. Everything is logged into a certral computer system. We serve tens of thousands of students, and the data shows us NO correlation between redshirting and increased success, academic or behavioral. In fact, students who are reshirted actually showed a small increase in incidence of behavior issues severe enough to result in action by the administration.