Redshirting getting out of hand?

[Donna]

I agree that this is probably not fully serving the children. But with private US college tuition and board at nearly 50k a year, I can see why parents with children who excel in sports might want to give their child an edge for sport scholarships. Sports scholarships are far, far more lucrative than academic ones.

 

This is a symptom of something bigger.

 

That is exactly the reason for the two time 8th graders. They do tend to be the better athletes with the parents who can afford to pay for an extra year of private school (public schools would not allow them to do the same year twice if academically able to move on). If you then imagine these same kids starting college at 19 or 20 and also redshirting a year there (5 years of eligibility), they are much older and more mature than those kids who went through school "normally."

[mamato3 all-boy boys]

And in addition, if so many districts are advocating 4 year old Kindergarten, that must mean some would be in K for what - 3 years? (Okay, I have to assume this is just me not thinking this through...)

 

You are abosultely right....it would mean multiple levels of "Kindergarten." I think you are seeing the writing on the wall.

 

Now, I don't know if this is part of The Plan (capitals intentional), but the "great" educational theorists, social engineers have wanted universal/mandatory kindergarten/ preschool for decades. Most Americans have balked at this because some of us (present company included) want to raise our kids for as long as possible and some of us just like the whole idea of freedom and choice in how we raise our kids.

 

Follow my thinking: if the standards are raised for Kindergarten and over time most kids cannot meet them, it will be just a natural outcry from parents (the ones who traditionally didn't want pre-K mandatory) to say to the government, "Our kids need more preparation for Kindergarten. Please help us. Give us free, universal preK -- here, take my kid." Over time, our educational system will start at birth and we'll be right where They wanted us. -- the masses will just have babies and hand them over to the state where "teachers" will fill their brains with propaganda and teach them that God is dead and their parents hold on to faddish ideas of freedom and liberty.

 

Oh, my.... did I wake up on the wrong side of the bed? :lol:

 

[i think a book I read about this was called "None Dare Call It Education" which talked about many of the education programs which will eventually create a huge cradle to grave sort of system -- it is an old book, but amazing to read as we see many of the educational programs coming to fruition now, just under different names.)

 

Slinking back under my rock, where the coffee is warm.

 

ETA: Please, I am not at all meaning to speak badly about any parent making a choice about when their child should start formal or informal education ( I have a couple boys who have late birthdays and will be starting their educations when they are ready). What I am meaning to speak about is a broader educational movement towards state run education beginning before children are 5 years old. My intention was not to offend anyone here or anywhere about their choices for their children. I celebrate that individuality!

Edited January 5, 2010 by mamato3 all-boy boys

[8circles]

Bingo. That's exactly my issue with it. For those who DO stick with the guidelines/recommendations...suddenly because so many people are 'redshirting' for any old reason, it just changes the entire 'playing field.'

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[8circles]

Now, I don't know if this is part of The Plan (capitals intentional), but the "great" educational theorists, social engineers have wanted universal/mandatory kindergarten/ preschool for decades. Most Americans have balked at this because some of us (present company included) want to raise our kids for as long as possible and some of us just like the whole idea of freedom and choice in how we raise our kids.

 

Follow my thinking: if the standards are raised for Kindergarten and over time most kids cannot meet them, it will be just a natural outcry from parents (the ones who traditionally didn't want pre-K mandatory) to say to the government, "Our kids need more preparation for Kindergarten. Please help us. Give us free, universal preK -- here, take my kid." Over time, our educational system will start at birth and we'll be right where They wanted us. -- the masses will just have babies and hand them over to the state where "teachers" will fill their brains with propaganda and teach them that God is dead and their parents hold on to faddish ideas of freedom and liberty.

 

Oh, my.... did I wake up on the wrong side of the bed? :lol:

 

[i think a book I read about this was called "None Dare Call It Education" which talked about many of the education programs which will eventually create a huge cradle to grave sort of system -- it is an old book, but amazing to read as we see many of the educational programs coming to fruition now, just under different names.)

 

Slinking back under my rock, where the coffee is warm.

 

 

:iagree:& will be looking for a copy of that book. Thanks.

Edited January 5, 2010 by momoflaw

[Chris in VA]

I haven't read every reply (most, tho) but just wanted to say I think it's more a problem as children get older. Athletics just aren't fair when one kid on the team is 16 and the other is 18--except for wrestling, where it's by weight.

Something else to consider--

Given the s#xual climate in public high school, many of those older boys and girls could be at risk for accusations of statutory r@pe. All it takes is one parent who doesn't like the 18 year old his dd is dating. That's not to say it's wrong to send your 19 yo to ps, just that they need to be aware.

[Haiku]

Most Americans have balked at this because some of us (present company included) want to raise our kids for as long as possible

 

 

I have never understood this type of thinking. I am no fan of schools and I have had several bad experiences with my oldest child being in school for four years (currently in 9th grade), but even though my kid is in school, I am still raising her. Yes, she is subjected to influences I wouldn't choose by being in school, but I am still raising her every bit as much as I am raising my homeschooled kids.

 

Tara

[Eleni]

Before we decided to homeschool I was going to wait a year to put my end of July birthday son into K. He was simply not ready. We decided to hs and he never went to school...but he was a late reader (age 7.5) and a whole part learner. I wonder sometimes if he will ever have to go to school where I would have him placed. If he goes next year I would want him in 4th (he is 9 right now) because in our district writing assignments go through the roof in 5th grade. He is a smart kid and doing really well with what we do though.

 

however...now Im all paranoid people would think I would do that for sports reasons. We are a tall family...my brother is 6'10" tall and my son seems to be on the same growth track. At 9 my son is 5' 105 lbs and wears a men's size 8 shoe. My husband and i also dont really care about sports...just about him doing best academically where HE will do best academically.

 

Even if we did put him the lower grade he would still be 18 at graduation.

[Mrs.MacGyver]

I haven't read every reply (most, tho) but just wanted to say I think it's more a problem as children get older. Athletics just aren't fair when one kid on the team is 16 and the other is 18--except for wrestling, where it's by weight.

Something else to consider--

Given the s#xual climate in public high school, many of those older boys and girls could be at risk for accusations of statutory r@pe. All it takes is one parent who doesn't like the 18 year old his dd is dating. That's not to say it's wrong to send your 19 yo to ps, just that they need to be aware.

 

 

:iagree:The sports side of this debate is what gets be upset. We have some very athletic kids who are moving fast academically. The only hope for a sports scholarship is to "hold them back" in some way even as homeschoolers because if your kids loves a sport that is heavily recruited through the schools and not through the club team system, you have to make the decision of whether or not to put them into a public or private high school mainly for athletic reasons. So, when you put them in, you have to plan for the appropriate grade level. With all of this redshirting going on for sports, it totally affects that decision (Even with wrestling - because even though you are only wrestling your own weight, maturity and experience always come in to play. You know an 18-19 year old senior will usually outmatch a young 17 yo senior even at the same weight class. The older ones have started to fill out and develop their "man" bodies by that time.) Anyway, I hate to say "It just isn't fair!!", but it really isn't - it is crappy for the kids who are on target.

 

And yes, people do think this far ahead for sports. I know many many families that have had their children "recruited" into different school districts while their children were still in elementary school (for many sports, not just football: baseball, wrestling, basketball, and even, yes, girls soccer).

[Heather in AL]

Before we decided to homeschool I was going to wait a year to put my end of July birthday son into K. He was simply not ready. We decided to hs and he never went to school...but he was a late reader (age 7.5) and a whole part learner. I wonder sometimes if he will ever have to go to school where I would have him placed. If he goes next year I would want him in 4th (he is 9 right now) because in our district writing assignments go through the roof in 5th grade. He is a smart kid and doing really well with what we do though.

 

however...now Im all paranoid people would think I would do that for sports reasons. We are a tall family...my brother is 6'10" tall and my son seems to be on the same growth track. At 9 my son is 5' 105 lbs and wears a men's size 8 shoe. My husband and i also dont really care about sports...just about him doing best academically where HE will do best academically.

 

Even if we did put him the lower grade he would still be 18 at graduation.

 

Situations like yours don't bother me in the LEAST. He would be where he needed to be, and his birthday is definitely in the 'should we/shouldn't we' range. It's the ones that do it for non-academic reasons that get me. In my limited exposure to the "red shirt athletes", they seem to know why they are (way) older than their classmates (to play sports) and take it out on the others, either verbally or physically. I couldn't help but wonder if they were frustrated at not being with their age mates, you know?

 

So, no, I wouldn't worry about your son. Besides, if someone mentions his size/age/whatever your honest reply would be "his birthday was just so close to the cut off that we felt he would benefit from another year at home". End of story. The ones that made my jaw drop were the ones that went "we want him to get a football/soccer/wrestling/fill-in-your-sport scholarship so we held him back so he would be bigger and beat the snot out of the competition". :glare:

[SheilaZ]

Before we decided to homeschool I was going to wait a year to put my end of July birthday son into K. He was simply not ready. We decided to hs and he never went to school...but he was a late reader (age 7.5) and a whole part learner. I wonder sometimes if he will ever have to go to school where I would have him placed. If he goes next year I would want him in 4th (he is 9 right now) because in our district writing assignments go through the roof in 5th grade. He is a smart kid and doing really well with what we do though.

 

however...now Im all paranoid people would think I would do that for sports reasons. We are a tall family...my brother is 6'10" tall and my son seems to be on the same growth track. At 9 my son is 5' 105 lbs and wears a men's size 8 shoe. My husband and i also dont really care about sports...just about him doing best academically where HE will do best academically.

 

Even if we did put him the lower grade he would still be 18 at graduation.

I have a similar issue with my 8 year old. His birthday is at the end of June and he is supposed to be a 3rd grader. He's average size for his age and quite bright in math. However, he has Apserger's and developmental delays. Even after 6 years of intensive speech therapy and occupational therapy, he has serious lanuguage delays and very poor handwriting. He started out in 3rd grade this year but he was making no progress in his reading and language abilities. So, I've come to the heartwrenching decision to redo 2nd grade with him.

 

However, we've always placed him a grade behind for sports. I'm way more interested in preserving what little self confidence that he has than any parent thinking that he's getting a benefit from redshirting.

Believe me, any benefit he has....he worked his butt off to get.

[Sara R]

There is not a shred of evidence or documentation that shows age ranges in classrooms to be a hindrance. (I would agree that lack of training and education given to most teachers is a hindrance when an age range is involved).

 

We know that children do not children learn better or faster or are happier or more 'productive' when all 6 yr olds are together or all 10 yr olds are together.

 

That most teachers would find is easier to teach a group of exact-same learners of the exact same age is not a benefit to real children.

 

The issue isn't so much age differences as ability differences. The reason why the system works (or should work) as a system is because children at the same academic level are grouped together. Where a student is currently determines what they should learn next. If you have a 9th grade algebra classroom with some students who can't multiply, some who can multiply but can't manipulate fractions, and so on--how can that teacher teach algebra effectively to each of those students? The only way it has a chance is if the students are at the same ability level.

 

Unfortunately because of social promotion, a wide range in ability is common in even same-age classrooms. I've read that it's common to have a 5-year gap in grade level abilities in a high school math classroom. That's crazy, and it means that some of the students' academic needs are not being met.

 

Age differences make a difference socially. I wouldn't be happy if my innocent 1st grader had to spend a lot of time with some of the nastiness that can be found among 5th and 6th graders.

[Sara R]

But even those gifted teachers would do better with kids at the same ability level (not necessarily the same age).

 

Learning happens in the zone of proximal development. In a learning institution, you have to group the children with similar zones of proximal development together, so they can use one teacher. Teaching at too high of a level leads to frustration and no learning; teaching at too low of a level leads to boredom.

 

If you want one teacher to individualize curricula for students of many academic levels, then you are looking at using individualized independent study workbooks or something. That doesn't seem like an optimal group learning experience to me.

[Jan in SC]

We did this for our oldest. He did two years of K- one in public and then one in private school. We knew something was off and couldn't figure it out. It was a great decision for us. It gave us an extra year to process some learning issues. He is academically on track or ahead now. I think he would have been lost and frustrated if we kept pushing him.

 

The sports issue--- I don't get it. Until middle school sports at rec centers (US) will be by age. A parent can choose to have a child play up, but not with a yonger group. By middle school, it really shouldn't be an issue.

 

By high school, a very athletic, scholarship hopeful athlete will have been "playing up" for so long that the age of an opponent is irrelevant. In college it's a free for all of many ages!

 

My middle child is very athletic. His birthday is 3 days after the ps cut-off date. He doesn't get to play many sports with the kids he knows from his ps time. He is tiny! (50 pounds) It has never been an issue.

[Mrs.MacGyver]

The sports issue--- I don't get it. Until middle school sports at rec centers (US) will be by age. A parent can choose to have a child play up, but not with a yonger group. By middle school, it really shouldn't be an issue.

 

By high school, a very athletic, scholarship hopeful athlete will have been "playing up" for so long that the age of an opponent is irrelevant. In college it's a free for all of many ages!

 

My middle child is very athletic. His birthday is 3 days after the ps cut-off date. He doesn't get to play many sports with the kids he knows from his ps time. He is tiny! (50 pounds) It has never been an issue.

 

I am going to respectfully disagree with you here. :) It does make a difference. Kids start school sports in 6th grade here. An 11 year old athletic kid who is still on the smaller side competing against a huge monster of a kid who is verging on 12-13 makes for a big problem. You are right, in the sports outside of school, these kids would not be together, but in school they are. Even if we are simply talking about gym class, this makes for an intimidating situation. But while we are talking sports, as these same two kids reach high school, not only are we talking about physical advantages for the older kids, but we are also talking about 1 to 2 years more experience playing rec or club sports on the outside. Big difference. You said that "By high school, a very athletic, scholarship hopeful athlete will have been "playing up" for so long that the age of an opponent is irrelevant." The problem is that for some sports, the kid's ability goes along with their physical development, and as stupid as it is, your winning record (in individual sports) matters to a lot of recruiters starting at least at your freshman year, sometimes earlier. Before people started holding back their hopeful football linemen, all the kids had the opportunity to let their bodies mature normally. Now, they are faced with this ridiculous task of trying to "overcome" their normal development so that they can keep up with the older boys.

 

It is very frustrating to DH and me. We both played sports well into our adult years, and because of this insane competitiveness regarding school sports and scholarships, we have been holding our kids out of sports. I loved playing, but people are getting so serious about it at so young an age, we are going to make them wait until they are older. It is sad to me - I am glad to hear that it is not like that everywhere. Maybe we have just been living in the wrong places!!! :001_smile:

[teachermom2834]

We did this for our oldest. He did two years of K- one in public and then one in private school. We knew something was off and couldn't figure it out. It was a great decision for us. It gave us an extra year to process some learning issues. He is academically on track or ahead now. I think he would have been lost and frustrated if we kept pushing him.

 

The sports issue--- I don't get it. Until middle school sports at rec centers (US) will be by age. A parent can choose to have a child play up, but not with a yonger group. By middle school, it really shouldn't be an issue.

 

By high school, a very athletic, scholarship hopeful athlete will have been "playing up" for so long that the age of an opponent is irrelevant. In college it's a free for all of many ages!

 

My middle child is very athletic. His birthday is 3 days after the ps cut-off date. He doesn't get to play many sports with the kids he knows from his ps time. He is tiny! (50 pounds) It has never been an issue.

 

Well, it is an issue for sports. Here, they play with age mates until middle school. Then they are lumped grades 6-8. My 11 yo ds is playing middle school baseball. There are boys turning 15 this spring on the team. He is an exceptional athlete and can compensate but what about the more average kids? It is still out of my comfort level. He just doesn't need to be hanging around with kids that much older socially. The three year span of 6-8 is more than enough. Add in all the redshirting and it is just too much IMO. He really is okay but he is an over achiever type. My second ds is just plain average and I don't think he can handle it. If he enters school I will probably have to redshirt him at that time. I really don't want to. I will have to decide which hit will be worse- redshirting or floundering because he loses confidence having to compete out of his depth all the time? I'll have to see where he is at that time.

 

I haven't seen the 8th grade red shirting some have mentioned but I can see it down the road. If you red shirt for athletic advantage and everyone else does it too you lose that advantage. If that was your reasoning in the first place I can see doing it in 8th grade.

 

I've been round and round on this. It made me very sad when I realized how little proper public school placement has to do with academics. I'm sure I'll get slammed for saying that but it is the conclusion I've come to from what I've seen. I don't like it but I'm getting to where I accept it.

[Macrina]

My friend redshirted her son for K, he's 6 instead of five. She purposely did NOT teach him too much while he was still home with her so he wouldn't be too far ahead when he got to K. But his K class is filled with 23 other immature 5 yo's who don't even know their colors or shapes. Meanwhile this other kid knows sight words. The Mom volunteers in the classroom weekly and is horrified. But no, she's not pulling him out. She's just watching him get bored.

[Haiku]

I should probably clarify or disclose or whatever that I have a ninth-grade daughter who is a year "behind" in public school. Her birthday is in August, but that has nothing to do with her grade placement. She was adopted at an older age fro an orphanage and was when adopted, and remains now, developmentally and academically behind. She is not working on the level of a 9th grader; in fact, she's probably working on the level of a 3rd or 4th grader, but when we enrolled her in school the school would only let us drop her back one grade behind.

 

My original post was not about situations like mine or those others have described where their kids clearly were not ready for K. It was about parents who think that a kid who was born in February or March has a "late birthday" and for no other discernable reason keep their kids back a year and then have kids who are bored as 8-year-old first graders.

 

Tara

[Night Elf]

I don't like such rigid arbitrary rules. I think children deserve to be in school when they are ready. My youngest daughter is a great example. She was reading at age 5 and doing 1st and 2nd grade math when she was in Kindergarten. Her teacher couldn't allow her to work ahead of the other students and let my daughter spend hours in the library by herself. Sometimes missing lunch. :confused:

 

She finished 2nd grade with Calvert school using ATS, the teacher service. The local public school phoned Calvert to confirm accreditation but still refused to place my daughter in 3rd grade. Again, she was stuck behind in a class that didn't challenge her at all. She spent a lot of time reading in the back of the classroom. And that was with her being in the 'gifted' program which was a once a week 2-hr. program. My DH and I can't fathom Allie spending the rest of her school years being held back because of her age and not her abilities. It's such a waste and I feel sad for all the kids at our public schools who will never be challenged because they must stay in age groups. Thank goodness for homeschooling!!

[LauraGB]

I feel compelled to point out pertinent info that I left out of my original post - My dc have late Dec birthdays and would have missed the local Sep 15th cut off, which would have put them as older 1s graders.

 

I'm so confused by all of it, frankly. I'm not sure what age has to do with anything. Wouldn't it be best to base these things readiness, ability, maturity? I had children who were more advanced than the grade they were placed in - and went through some serious bs before I finally pulled them out. Bored children don't fare well in school. On the flip side, there are several children who are simply not ready. I really don't understand the birthday/age thing at all.

 

[LibraryLover]

I am getting tired. This is a long thread. :) Why are schools so unable to accommodate a range of learners in the classroom? What difference does it truly make whether a child is 4.5 or 6 in K?

 

Are most schooling people really so afraid of an 18 yr old and 14 year old both taking the same Honors Biology class in high school?

 

In our high school you see a range of ages in a good amount of classrooms. It's not uncommon *at all* to see or a science- minded 15 yr old sophomore take AP Chemistry with an 18 yr old Senior who didn't have room in his schedule to take it earlier. Language classes are similar. If a child has taken French in junior high, he will be in French 2 as a Freshman. This means a student who took French 1 as a Junior with be in that sames French 2 class as a Sr.

 

That's high school.

[Haiku]

Why are schools so unable to accommodate a range of learners in the classroom?

 

Because schools are not about accomodation. They are about getting everyone marching in the same direction, at the same time, at the same speed, to the same beat. No different drummers allowed!

 

Tara

[Tidbits of Learning]

Sounds like this school system is ignoring the needs of it's children. It might be that families in your district are frustrated that the needs of their children are not being met with the system as it exisits.

 

It might be time for the system to examine why so many parents are rejecting what the school thinks is best. Perhaps all of these these families are delusional, but perhaps these families have legitimate issues that need to be heard.

 

The teachers are pushing for this as well. My ds6 was seeming immature compared to his peers in ps K and they pushed me to have him do K again b/c of it. The teacher even told me that the majority of her class turned 7 before the end of the year. So can you imagine how immature and behind the 5 year old children seemed.

Well that summer my just finished 2nd grade dd was playing pitching machine baseball with some of ds's K classmates. Recreational sports are done by age here so that means that the K classmates were the same age as my dd7 2nd grader at the time.

It isn't about the school. It is the parents. They are choosing to hold their kid's back for various reasons that have nothing to do with readiness. Then the kid's whose parents went by the rules are being punished for seeming immature compared to someone that is the same age as their 2nd grade sibling.

The law here is that school is mandatory at 7. So if they want to private preschool and bridge k until 7 that is fine and legal and the school system can't say a word. These kids that are 7 in Kindergarten have had expensive preschool educations and most are reading very well and doing 1st grade work at least and some are doing 2nd grade work.

So their children do start kindergarten with a definite emotional, mature, and academic edge. The Title I schools that have mandated have to be 4 by Sept. 1 for pre-k and 5 by Sept. 1 for K do not seem to have the problem of redshirting that the schools with privately educated kids coming in at kindergarten.

I wish they would test children that would have met the state cutoff but chose to attend private school for bridge K classes and place them accordingly. It has definitely changed the dynamic of the schools and upped the ante going into kindergarten of what they expect from the kids in the schools with high occurences of redshirting.

[Tidbits of Learning]

I am going to respectfully disagree with you here. :) It does make a difference. Kids start school sports in 6th grade here. An 11 year old athletic kid who is still on the smaller side competing against a huge monster of a kid who is verging on 12-13 makes for a big problem. You are right, in the sports outside of school, these kids would not be together, but in school they are. Even if we are simply talking about gym class, this makes for an intimidating situation. But while we are talking sports, as these same two kids reach high school, not only are we talking about physical advantages for the older kids, but we are also talking about 1 to 2 years more experience playing rec or club sports on the outside. Big difference. You said that "By high school, a very athletic, scholarship hopeful athlete will have been "playing up" for so long that the age of an opponent is irrelevant." The problem is that for some sports, the kid's ability goes along with their physical development, and as stupid as it is, your winning record (in individual sports) matters to a lot of recruiters starting at least at your freshman year, sometimes earlier. Before people started holding back their hopeful football linemen, all the kids had the opportunity to let their bodies mature normally. Now, they are faced with this ridiculous task of trying to "overcome" their normal development so that they can keep up with the older boys.

 

It is very frustrating to DH and me. We both played sports well into our adult years, and because of this insane competitiveness regarding school sports and scholarships, we have been holding our kids out of sports. I loved playing, but people are getting so serious about it at so young an age, we are going to make them wait until they are older. It is sad to me - I am glad to hear that it is not like that everywhere. Maybe we have just been living in the wrong places!!! :001_smile:

 

I totally agree. My ds7's kindergarten year when he was 5 turned 6 in Dec. he played first year t-ball. The redshirted child that was my 2nd graders age was already playing pitching machine with my 2nd grader b/c he was her age.

By the time 4th grade rolls around and ps sports are going strong, my ds would be 9 turning 10 and this other little boy will be 11 turning 12. My ds will have done probably 2 yrs pitching machine and maybe 1 year peer pitching. This little boy will have been long past pitching machine and into probably his 3rd year on peer pitching and probably playing on elite teams.

It is hard to watch your child at gym and sports against a child that is the same age as their sibling that is 2 grades higher. It isn't fair.

[Sara R]

I am getting tired. This is a long thread. :) Why are schools so unable to accommodate a range of learners in the classroom? What difference does it truly make whether a child is 4.5 or 6 in K?

 

Are most schooling people really so afraid of an 18 yr old and 14 year old both taking the same Honors Biology class in high school?

 

In our high school you see a range of ages in a good amount of classrooms. It's not uncommon *at all* to see or a science- minded 15 yr old sophomore take AP Chemistry with an 18 yr old Senior who didn't have room in his schedule to take it earlier. Language classes are similar. If a child has taken French in junior high, he will be in French 2 as a Freshman. This means a student who took French 1 as a Junior with be in that sames French 2 class as a Sr.

 

That's high school.

 

Are you talking about differences in ages or abilities? Different ages don't matter too much if the abilities are similar, and if the older students' mature interests are not harmful to the younger students, and if no one is humiliated by the arrangement.

 

Different abilities is another animal altogether, as I have stated elsewhere in this thread. If classes aren't grouped at least roughly by ability level, then the class can't learn together. A teacher could teach math to 5 different levels in the same classroom, but it would be much less effective than teaching just one level.

[Tidbits of Learning]

I am getting tired. This is a long thread. :) Why are schools so unable to accommodate a range of learners in the classroom? What difference does it truly make whether a child is 4.5 or 6 in K?

 

Are most schooling people really so afraid of an 18 yr old and 14 year old both taking the same Honors Biology class in high school?

 

In our high school you see a range of ages in a good amount of classrooms. It's not uncommon *at all* to see or a science- minded 15 yr old sophomore take AP Chemistry with an 18 yr old Senior who didn't have room in his schedule to take it earlier. Language classes are similar. If a child has taken French in junior high, he will be in French 2 as a Freshman. This means a student who took French 1 as a Junior with be in that sames French 2 class as a Sr.

 

That's high school.

 

Because it isn't just about academics. School is social. By the time my dd9 would be in high school. some of the redshirted kids would be 16 as freshmen and driving. That is a 16 yr old boy in your 14 yr old's peer group. Whether you have a boy or girl those 2 years will make a difference. A 17 year old in a 15 year olds peer group and then you have 18 and 19 year olds that are probably way more experienced with your 15, 16, and 17 year olds.

But let's not look at high school b/c it is pretty much a range of ages by then anyway. Let's look at 5th and 6th and 7th grade. You have a 10 yr old 5th grader who started school by the cutoff date. There are 12 and 13 yr olds in his/her class that were redshirted. She/he is 5-6 inches shorter, skinnier, weaker than these children. By 6th you have an 11 yr old maybe hitting puberty with 13 and 14 yr olds that are developing in ways your child won't hit for years. This is very hard on self esteem especially when boys and girls start to notice one another. Then 7th when most kids would be 12 or 13 by any cutoff, there are 14 and 15 yr olds that are interested in dating and more mature things.

So to me, it has nothing to do with academics. School is set for one academic goal and that is to pass the tests so the school gets money. The social aspects are hard on the younger kids if their peers are older than they are by close to 2 years in physical characteristics and maturity. The ramifications of a 13 yr old child trying to run with 15 year olds is more than I want to imagine. I think all kids coming into kindergarten should have to be tested for ability and placed on ability. Most of the redshirted kids here are that way for one reason only-the parents wanted them older to look better whether academically or sports.

[Renee in NC]

Because it isn't just about academics. School is social. By the time my dd9 would be in high school. some of the redshirted kids would be 16 as freshmen and driving. That is a 16 yr old boy in your 14 yr old's peer group. Whether you have a boy or girl those 2 years will make a difference. A 17 year old in a 15 year olds peer group and then you have 18 and 19 year olds that are probably way more experienced with your 15, 16, and 17 year olds.

But let's not look at high school b/c it is pretty much a range of ages by then anyway. Let's look at 5th and 6th and 7th grade. You have a 10 yr old 5th grader who started school by the cutoff date. There are 12 and 13 yr olds in his/her class that were redshirted. She/he is 5-6 inches shorter, skinnier, weaker than these children. By 6th you have an 11 yr old maybe hitting puberty with 13 and 14 yr olds that are developing in ways your child won't hit for years. This is very hard on self esteem especially when boys and girls start to notice one another. Then 7th when most kids would be 12 or 13 by any cutoff, there are 14 and 15 yr olds that are interested in dating and more mature things.

So to me, it has nothing to do with academics. School is set for one academic goal and that is to pass the tests so the school gets money. The social aspects are hard on the younger kids if their peers are older than they are by close to 2 years in physical characteristics and maturity. The ramifications of a 13 yr old child trying to run with 15 year olds is more than I want to imagine. I think all kids coming into kindergarten should have to be tested for ability and placed on ability. Most of the redshirted kids here are that way for one reason only-the parents wanted them older to look better whether academically or sports.

 

I don't see why it makes a huge difference. My oldest is young for his grade - he has a birthday in May. He went through puberty (at an accelerated rate) at age 11. He entered the 7th grade (just after he turned 11) bigger, heavier, broader, and hairier than any of the other boys - extremely so. There was one other girl who had done the same thing other the summer, but everyone else was still "young." One girl in the class had skipped a grade *and* was a late bloomer, so she was still "young" until almost 10th grade!

 

I agree with your second to last sentence - group kids according to ability. However, then you end up with 4 year olds starting K with 6 year olds - the very thing you are saying you are against. Physical maturity has nothing to do with academic ability. My 8yo was very tall and mature looking at 5, as well as mature acting, but on an ability level he was at an early preschool level. Now, at 8, he is the size of an average 10yo (4th grade?) but has the ability level of a first grader.

 

Based on ability and the higher expectations of K currently, a 2-3 year age range in K makes sense.

[LND1218]

Interesting - another thread that reaffirms homeschooling cause really none of this matters when you can adjust all the way up as needed.

 

Homeschooling Rocks!

[Tidbits of Learning]

(I accidentally posted this in the Afterschooling forum.)

 

My mother-in-law teaches first grade in another state. She said that it is now common practice to consider any birthday after January a "late" birthday and redshirt the child for Kindergarten. She said that almost half of her first-graders will be turning eight by the end of the year!!

 

What's up with that? I understand if your kid has an August or September birthday, but if a February birthday is now considered "late," what people are essentially saying is that they want their kids to be more than a year older than some of their peers! How can a teacher effectively teach kids who come to first grade with 12-16 months' difference in maturity and skills?

 

Are people really that concerned about their kids' ability to succeed?

 

Tara

 

I think the thread has went away from the original intent which was why has redshirting perfectly able children become such a prevalent occurance. It is hard on teachers b/c there isn't leveled instruction in public school. It is a one-size fits all curriculum. Sure there are gifted programs, but most don't start until 3rd grade. What happens when the majority of the class is 7 in kindergarten is that the teacher expects the 5 and 6 year olds to act like they are 7.

I do think this has led to our schools progressing into expecting more and more in kindergarten. Most of these classrooms are 20-30 children. If 85% of them are older and capable of doing the grade work which they met the cutoff but are in a kindergarten classroom, then the teacher will need to focus on them more than the 15% who are the actual "level" for that grade in ability and maturity.

Say you are schooling 3 children all a year apart. I do have 3 kids 3 years apart in age so this is an easy scenario for me. My oldest is 9 (summer b-day), my middle is 8 (summer bday) , and my youngest school age is 7 (turned in Dec.). Now imagine trying to do 2nd grade with them all. The 9 yr old is advanced and reads great and definitely ready for higher level work. The 8 year old is also ready for 3rd grade work, but not quite so high as the 9 year old. The 7 year old is still learning to read fluently and building motor skills to write better. The 7 year old is no where near where the 9 year old is and the 8 year old is just stuck in between the 2, but all I can use is the material the school board approves which happens to be on the level of the 7 year old who is still in the instructional stage of several mastery subjects such as reading and writing. The 8 and 9 year olds have an obvious advantage to him. The 7 year old is going to seem more whiny, tattle-telly, and immature than the 8 and 9 year old that have moved on to the bratty self-assured put down phase. Now multiply these kids by 6 kids in each age group and you have a public school 2nd grade classroom for a lot of kids and teachers.

It isn't homeschool. You can't accomodate different levels without IEP's and testing and then the gifted program is often just a few hours here and there a week. Also, the remediated program would have more children that really are just in the instructional phase b/c they will be being compared to children that are past the instructional phase.

It is a very big and real problem in public schools and it is getting to be more and more commonplace. With the admittance of more and more redshirted kids that are fully able and capable of entering kindergarten when they are eligible, the expectations both academically, emotionally, and maturity increase for those on the youngest end of the age scale.

There is one simple reason to redshirt a child that is perfectly able academically, emotionally, and maturity wise for kindergarten at the cutoff and that is parents. Until schools have mandatory testing for kindergarten, then there will continue to be children who are unnecessarily redshirted by well-meaning parents that believe they have the child's best interest at heart. Whether it is for sports or so their child is advanced academically, it is wrong and it makes for an uneven playing field for the children of parents that don't try to give their children an unfair advantage by deliberately holding back a child that does not require it. It also makes for a very stressed classroom for teachers and students alike.

[Donna]

(Even with wrestling - because even though you are only wrestling your own weight, maturity and experience always come in to play. You know an 18-19 year old senior will usually outmatch a young 17 yo senior even at the same weight class. The older ones have started to fill out and develop their "man" bodies by that time.) Anyway, I hate to say "It just isn't fair!!", but it really isn't - it is crappy for the kids who are on target..

 

Wrestling is the sport my son is involved in and the one where I personally know of a number of families with kids spending a second year in 8th grade. Maturity, both body and mind, play a huge difference in high school as some boys develop and mature more quickly than others. It matters even in college which is why so many of the best wrestlers redshirt their first year of college. You are wrestling against someone in your own weightclass but maturity makes a difference, especially for kids who otherwise have similar ability levels.

 

It is crappy for those kids who do follow the guidelines or don't "work" the system. True, my own son is a really good wrestler and he should be able to win most of his matches even though he is in the grade he should be by age but when you get into the higher levels...national rankings and such everything is an advantage for those few full-rides to the best schools (that is the level the kids we know who have redshirted for high school will be in).

[Tidbits of Learning]

I don't see why it makes a huge difference. My oldest is young for his grade - he has a birthday in May. He went through puberty (at an accelerated rate) at age 11. He entered the 7th grade (just after he turned 11) bigger, heavier, broader, and hairier than any of the other boys - extremely so. There was one other girl who had done the same thing other the summer, but everyone else was still "young." One girl in the class had skipped a grade *and* was a late bloomer, so she was still "young" until almost 10th grade!

 

I agree with your second to last sentence - group kids according to ability. However, then you end up with 4 year olds starting K with 6 year olds - the very thing you are saying you are against. Physical maturity has nothing to do with academic ability. My 8yo was very tall and mature looking at 5, as well as mature acting, but on an ability level he was at an early preschool level. Now, at 8, he is the size of an average 10yo (4th grade?) but has the ability level of a first grader.

 

Based on ability and the higher expectations of K currently, a 2-3 year age range in K makes sense.

 

There are always children that are tall or large for their age as well as small for their age. There have always been the student that hits puberty first. Yet, they are not the majority of the class. Now with so many people intentionally holding back children it has changed the dynamic. There will be majority kids hitting puberty in younger and younger grades while the student that started with the cutoff won't be their age until 2 years later.

It does cause self-esteem issues in schools that have overwhelming amounts of redshirting. I do have personal experience with this as my child started school on time and was tormented by her peers for her size for 3 years. I had no clue and kept asking why she was so small compared to her classmates. In 3rd grade, I got my answer. We started going to slumber parties and such and discovered that the majority of her class was 10 or turning 10. She was 8. The boys were far meaner to her than the girls and it got bad. She was assaulted by a 5' tall 90-100 lb. 3rd grade boy who had never failed (he was redshirted to get big) and was 10 years old b/c he got upset with the teacher making him do a "baby" game and threw a chair on my child out of anger at the teacher. He is probably a great football player at the upper elementary school this year in 4th grade at 11 or 12 years old. He also wasn't punished the day it happened. The substitute teacher (her teacher was on maternity leave) was young maybe 22 and he was as big as her. She just sent my child to the nurse. I had to throw a fit for him to be punished and then my child's classmates blamed her for getting the boy in trouble. It does change the dynamic when everyone is older than you are and you are the youngest and smallest. I'm not talking one or two kids get a growth spurt. I am talking 85-90% of your class towers over you.

In a Montessori classroom the children are various ages and are taught from a young age to help the younger children. In public school, it is a free for all and middle school is a battleground. Teachers hide in their classroom from the students in the hallway. So I have my eyes wide open and believe that if they would have tested these kids that were fully capable of going to kindergarten the year or 2 years before my kid was in kindergarten that they would have said sorry you have to put them in kindergarten or if they would have tested them at 7 and wanting to enter at kindergarten (after 3 years of private preschool and bridge k classes)and they were reading on a 2nd grade level...that they would have said sorry, they have to at least start out in 1st.

These children are not uneducated here that start public school at 6 almost 7 or at 7. They have mainly been in private pre-school/bridge kindergarten classes.

I am against 7 year olds that are fully capable of going to kindergarten at 5 or 6 being held back in order to get bigger or appear smarter. I probably have a far different perspective than someone who hasn't had a child in a bad situation with several redshirted children who were acting out.

[Haiku]

These children are not uneducated here that start public school at 6 almost 7 or at 7. hey have mainly been in private pre-school/bridge kindergarten classes.

 

My sister did this with her son. He went to a private kindergarten the year he turned five and started public school kindergarten this year, when he was six. There was absolutely no reason to do this. He is wicked smart and perfectly mature for his age. My sister made this decision when she was pregnant and knew her child would have a "late" birthday. The decision was not made with his personal well-being under consideration. It was a blanket "my child will be held back" decision.

 

Tara

[Jan in SC]

I am going to respectfully disagree with you here. :) It does make a difference. Kids start school sports in 6th grade here. An 11 year old athletic kid who is still on the smaller side competing against a huge monster of a kid who is verging on 12-13 makes for a big problem. You are right, in the sports outside of school, these kids would not be together, but in school they are. Even if we are simply talking about gym class, this makes for an intimidating situation. But while we are talking sports, as these same two kids reach high school, not only are we talking about physical advantages for the older kids, but we are also talking about 1 to 2 years more experience playing rec or club sports on the outside. Big difference. You said that "By high school, a very athletic, scholarship hopeful athlete will have been "playing up" for so long that the age of an opponent is irrelevant." The problem is that for some sports, the kid's ability goes along with their physical development, and as stupid as it is, your winning record (in individual sports) matters to a lot of recruiters starting at least at your freshman year, sometimes earlier. Before people started holding back their hopeful football linemen, all the kids had the opportunity to let their bodies mature normally. Now, they are faced with this ridiculous task of trying to "overcome" their normal development so that they can keep up with the older boys.

 

It is very frustrating to DH and me. We both played sports well into our adult years, and because of this insane competitiveness regarding school sports and scholarships, we have been holding our kids out of sports. I loved playing, but people are getting so serious about it at so young an age, we are going to make them wait until they are older. It is sad to me - I am glad to hear that it is not like that everywhere. Maybe we have just been living in the wrong places!!! :001_smile:

 

You know, it could be that my child isn't old enough for it to be a problem, yet! Ack! If he remains as small as he is now, it might become one, though.

[Mrs.MacGyver]

You know, it could be that my child isn't old enough for it to be a problem, yet! Ack! If he remains as small as he is now, it might become one, though.

 

I guess this subject just strikes a chord with me because Dh is a phenomenal athlete, but he really didn't start developing until he turned 18/19. He wrestled 152 his senior year, got 2nd at State in Ohio, and was still overlooked by the colleges. So, he was in bootcamp 2 days after he graduated high school. Had he been held back like the others, who knows? What I see is that it was a lost opportunity on both sides - he was wrestling on his own at a national level just 4 years later - and couldn't/still can't suck weight lower that 180 because of muscle bulk. So, it just bugs me...I have 3 scrawny, very athletic boys coming up who would be bored to tears if I held them back....what to do...what to do.... :D

[LibraryLover]

Yes, people are talking about both is this thread. A couple of folks mentioned the danger of having older male teens attending high school with younger teens. That statutory rape could be an issue.

 

 

 

Are you talking about differences in ages or abilities? Different ages don't matter too much if the abilities are similar, and if the older students' mature interests are not harmful to the younger students, and if no one is humiliated by the arrangement.

 

Different abilities is another animal altogether, as I have stated elsewhere in this thread. If classes aren't grouped at least roughly by ability level, then the class can't learn together. A teacher could teach math to 5 different levels in the same classroom, but it would be much less effective than teaching just one level.

[mycalling]

 

So, it just bugs me...I have 3 scrawny, very athletic boys coming up who would be bored to tears if I held them back....what to do...what to do.... :D

I'd never heard of this, but had been wondering about future sports in ps HS and how that would fit with my sons' academics because by 14yo they'll be most of the way to graduated. Then you all add in this redshirting and I'm even more confused. My boys live and breathe sports, currently in wrestling, too.