Red shirting

13»

Comments

  • CTgolfCTgolf Posts: 407 ✭✭
    Sixcat wrote:

    raynorfan1 wrote:



    I agree with Agatha



    I have two boys....oldest is an August birthday and the younger is an October birthday. The cutoff for sports around here is Sept. 1st. The two of them are very different so I get to see if from different perspectives.



    Oldest son (12 y/o) - usually is the youngest and he is thin to begin with. In football and soccer, he was a middle of the pack kid. he did ok but certainly didn't stand out. We made the decision to have him repeat 4K. This had nothing to do with sports. He is a quiet kid and we thought it was best for his maturity. Now he is in 6th grade. At his school, he plays basketball for 6th grade and starts. If we had not held him back, there is no way he could play meaningful minutes for the 7th grade team. He is not big/fast/strong enough to hang. He would play some be definitely not start.



    Younger son (10 y/o) - totally different. He is usually one of the older kids on the field. Most of the time, he is the best player. He is just bigger/faster/stronger than the other kids. He has a ton of confidence. He is always the quarterback/point guard/shortstop when he plays. He is athletically gifted but it certainly doesn't hurt to be one of the older kids.



    Like I said, we didn't hold back our oldest for sport reasons. He need it from a confidence/maturity stand point but it has helped him in sports. I am in favor of it if you think your child needs it. It certainly doesn't hurt.




    This is actually my problem with it. It certainly doesn't hurt your child, but it certainly does crowd out another child from having the leadership experience, starting spot on the team, etc. that your redshirt giant is taking.



    IMHO it's an incredibly selfish move and the fact that it's so pervasive is indicative of where we are as a society right now.



    It's the "jacked lofts" debate of kids; no harm no foul to call a 3i a 5i...until you realize that there's no place left at the top of the bag for a 2i anymore.




    Or you're forced to carry 7 wedges because the 9i has 7i loft. I agree with you completely. I understand why parents want their kids to have every advantage. But most refuse to acknowledge how "red-shirting" places other kids at a distinct disadvantage.



    My former neighbor was the star football player for the local high school a few years ago. He is now the starting RB at Virginia Tech. He graduated high school at 17 and became a starter at VT as a 17 year old freshman. In talking to him, he credits having to "step-up" his game to keep up with the older kids he grew up competing against. By the time he got to high school, that work ethic he was forced to adopt as a middle schooler propelled him beyond his classmates. Regardless of the fact that many were nearly 2 years older then him. His senior season in high school, while still only 16 for the majority of the football season, he rushed for 3,078 yards and scored 44 touchdowns.



    Gladwell's book gets taken at face value far too frequently. He suggests, to be great at something, one simply needs to devote 10,000 hours of practice to whatever they want to be great at. In golf terms, standing on a range for 10,000 hours, blindly beating balls isn't going to make anyone a great golfer. The practice needs to be detailed, precise and targeted. Simply holding a kid back so they are older than their classmates isn't going to produce a college football player or PGA golfer.




    How big was your neighbor as a 17yo?
  • SixcatSixcat SWVAPosts: 1,416 ✭✭
    CTgolf wrote:

    Sixcat wrote:

    raynorfan1 wrote:



    I agree with Agatha



    I have two boys....oldest is an August birthday and the younger is an October birthday. The cutoff for sports around here is Sept. 1st. The two of them are very different so I get to see if from different perspectives.



    Oldest son (12 y/o) - usually is the youngest and he is thin to begin with. In football and soccer, he was a middle of the pack kid. he did ok but certainly didn't stand out. We made the decision to have him repeat 4K. This had nothing to do with sports. He is a quiet kid and we thought it was best for his maturity. Now he is in 6th grade. At his school, he plays basketball for 6th grade and starts. If we had not held him back, there is no way he could play meaningful minutes for the 7th grade team. He is not big/fast/strong enough to hang. He would play some be definitely not start.



    Younger son (10 y/o) - totally different. He is usually one of the older kids on the field. Most of the time, he is the best player. He is just bigger/faster/stronger than the other kids. He has a ton of confidence. He is always the quarterback/point guard/shortstop when he plays. He is athletically gifted but it certainly doesn't hurt to be one of the older kids.



    Like I said, we didn't hold back our oldest for sport reasons. He need it from a confidence/maturity stand point but it has helped him in sports. I am in favor of it if you think your child needs it. It certainly doesn't hurt.




    This is actually my problem with it. It certainly doesn't hurt your child, but it certainly does crowd out another child from having the leadership experience, starting spot on the team, etc. that your redshirt giant is taking.



    IMHO it's an incredibly selfish move and the fact that it's so pervasive is indicative of where we are as a society right now.



    It's the "jacked lofts" debate of kids; no harm no foul to call a 3i a 5i...until you realize that there's no place left at the top of the bag for a 2i anymore.




    Or you're forced to carry 7 wedges because the 9i has 7i loft. I agree with you completely. I understand why parents want their kids to have every advantage. But most refuse to acknowledge how "red-shirting" places other kids at a distinct disadvantage.



    My former neighbor was the star football player for the local high school a few years ago. He is now the starting RB at Virginia Tech. He graduated high school at 17 and became a starter at VT as a 17 year old freshman. In talking to him, he credits having to "step-up" his game to keep up with the older kids he grew up competing against. By the time he got to high school, that work ethic he was forced to adopt as a middle schooler propelled him beyond his classmates. Regardless of the fact that many were nearly 2 years older then him. His senior season in high school, while still only 16 for the majority of the football season, he rushed for 3,078 yards and scored 44 touchdowns.



    Gladwell's book gets taken at face value far too frequently. He suggests, to be great at something, one simply needs to devote 10,000 hours of practice to whatever they want to be great at. In golf terms, standing on a range for 10,000 hours, blindly beating balls isn't going to make anyone a great golfer. The practice needs to be detailed, precise and targeted. Simply holding a kid back so they are older than their classmates isn't going to produce a college football player or PGA golfer.




    How big was your neighbor as a 17yo?




    5'9" tall and maybe 180 pounds.



    https://hokiesports.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=8864
  • agathaagatha Members Posts: 971 ✭✭
    raynorfan1 wrote:



    I agree with Agatha



    I have two boys....oldest is an August birthday and the younger is an October birthday. The cutoff for sports around here is Sept. 1st. The two of them are very different so I get to see if from different perspectives.



    Oldest son (12 y/o) - usually is the youngest and he is thin to begin with. In football and soccer, he was a middle of the pack kid. he did ok but certainly didn't stand out. We made the decision to have him repeat 4K. This had nothing to do with sports. He is a quiet kid and we thought it was best for his maturity. Now he is in 6th grade. At his school, he plays basketball for 6th grade and starts. If we had not held him back, there is no way he could play meaningful minutes for the 7th grade team. He is not big/fast/strong enough to hang. He would play some be definitely not start.



    Younger son (10 y/o) - totally different. He is usually one of the older kids on the field. Most of the time, he is the best player. He is just bigger/faster/stronger than the other kids. He has a ton of confidence. He is always the quarterback/point guard/shortstop when he plays. He is athletically gifted but it certainly doesn't hurt to be one of the older kids.



    Like I said, we didn't hold back our oldest for sport reasons. He need it from a confidence/maturity stand point but it has helped him in sports. I am in favor of it if you think your child needs it. It certainly doesn't hurt.




    This is actually my problem with it. It certainly doesn't hurt your child, but it certainly does crowd out another child from having the leadership experience, starting spot on the team, etc. that your redshirt giant is taking.



    IMHO it's an incredibly selfish move and the fact that it's so pervasive is indicative of where we are as a society right now.



    It's the "jacked lofts" debate of kids; no harm no foul to call a 3i a 5i...until you realize that there's no place left at the top of the bag for a 2i anymore.






    Like Palmetto golfer, my son was September so that bday is actually in the normal area of trying to decide to start them or wait a year, they will either be oldest or youngest. It is hardy a "redshirt" scenario.
  • CTgolfCTgolf Posts: 407 ✭✭
    Sixcat wrote:

    CTgolf wrote:

    Sixcat wrote:

    raynorfan1 wrote:



    I agree with Agatha



    I have two boys....oldest is an August birthday and the younger is an October birthday. The cutoff for sports around here is Sept. 1st. The two of them are very different so I get to see if from different perspectives.



    Oldest son (12 y/o) - usually is the youngest and he is thin to begin with. In football and soccer, he was a middle of the pack kid. he did ok but certainly didn't stand out. We made the decision to have him repeat 4K. This had nothing to do with sports. He is a quiet kid and we thought it was best for his maturity. Now he is in 6th grade. At his school, he plays basketball for 6th grade and starts. If we had not held him back, there is no way he could play meaningful minutes for the 7th grade team. He is not big/fast/strong enough to hang. He would play some be definitely not start.



    Younger son (10 y/o) - totally different. He is usually one of the older kids on the field. Most of the time, he is the best player. He is just bigger/faster/stronger than the other kids. He has a ton of confidence. He is always the quarterback/point guard/shortstop when he plays. He is athletically gifted but it certainly doesn't hurt to be one of the older kids.



    Like I said, we didn't hold back our oldest for sport reasons. He need it from a confidence/maturity stand point but it has helped him in sports. I am in favor of it if you think your child needs it. It certainly doesn't hurt.




    This is actually my problem with it. It certainly doesn't hurt your child, but it certainly does crowd out another child from having the leadership experience, starting spot on the team, etc. that your redshirt giant is taking.



    IMHO it's an incredibly selfish move and the fact that it's so pervasive is indicative of where we are as a society right now.



    It's the "jacked lofts" debate of kids; no harm no foul to call a 3i a 5i...until you realize that there's no place left at the top of the bag for a 2i anymore.




    Or you're forced to carry 7 wedges because the 9i has 7i loft. I agree with you completely. I understand why parents want their kids to have every advantage. But most refuse to acknowledge how "red-shirting" places other kids at a distinct disadvantage.



    My former neighbor was the star football player for the local high school a few years ago. He is now the starting RB at Virginia Tech. He graduated high school at 17 and became a starter at VT as a 17 year old freshman. In talking to him, he credits having to "step-up" his game to keep up with the older kids he grew up competing against. By the time he got to high school, that work ethic he was forced to adopt as a middle schooler propelled him beyond his classmates. Regardless of the fact that many were nearly 2 years older then him. His senior season in high school, while still only 16 for the majority of the football season, he rushed for 3,078 yards and scored 44 touchdowns.



    Gladwell's book gets taken at face value far too frequently. He suggests, to be great at something, one simply needs to devote 10,000 hours of practice to whatever they want to be great at. In golf terms, standing on a range for 10,000 hours, blindly beating balls isn't going to make anyone a great golfer. The practice needs to be detailed, precise and targeted. Simply holding a kid back so they are older than their classmates isn't going to produce a college football player or PGA golfer.




    How big was your neighbor as a 17yo?




    5'9" tall and maybe 180 pounds.



    https://hokiesports....aspx?rp_id=8864




    "Posted a 375-pound bench press and a 32-inch vertical jump in spring max testing"



    I guess if you're an elite star then it doesn't matter. Those guys are getting the opportunities whether they graduate on time, late, or early. But for someone who is only merely "very very good" then it seems like having the extra year would help a lot.



    I'm not advocating the ethics or morality behind it (my child is among the youngest in the grade). It just seems obvious that it is an advantage and, if allowed by a state (i.e. legal) then more people should consider it. Per this forum's estimates parents are already spending tens of thousands of dollars on junior golf per year to help their kids succeed - why not do the logical thing and hold them back to give them additional edge?
  • SixcatSixcat SWVAPosts: 1,416 ✭✭
    edited Nov 8, 2018 #66
    CTgolf wrote:


    "Posted a 375-pound bench press and a 32-inch vertical jump in spring max testing"



    I guess if you're an elite star then it doesn't matter. Those guys are getting the opportunities whether they graduate on time, late, or early. But for someone who is only merely "very very good" then it seems like having the extra year would help a lot.



    I'm not advocating the ethics or morality behind it (my child is among the youngest in the grade). It just seems obvious that it is an advantage and, if allowed by a state (i.e. legal) then more people should consider it. Per this forum's estimates parents are already spending tens of thousands of dollars on junior golf per year to help their kids succeed - why not do the logical thing and hold them back to give them additional edge?




    As I said earlier, I understand why some parents "red-shirt." It's not something I would consider. My oldest daughter has a July birthday and is the second youngest student in her grade level for the entire school system. She has the highest GPA within her grade level as well. "Red-shirting" her wouldn't have made much sense. But given her July birthday and being the 2nd youngest kid in her grade level, the practice of "red-shirting" seems to be overused. I would have expected several students in an entire grade level to have birthdays between July and September.



    Mr. Peoples weight lifting prowess is a direct result of being the youngest and often one of the smallest football players as a rising middle schooler. He needed to get stronger as a middle school kid and did with the help of former NFL OL Mark Dixon. Steven's high school football coach. Edit to add; Steven set the 375 pound bench press mark in the spring of 2014. Just after turning 18 in late September 2013.
  • Palmetto GolferPalmetto Golfer Posts: 151 ✭✭
    agatha wrote:

    raynorfan1 wrote:



    I agree with Agatha



    I have two boys....oldest is an August birthday and the younger is an October birthday. The cutoff for sports around here is Sept. 1st. The two of them are very different so I get to see if from different perspectives.



    Oldest son (12 y/o) - usually is the youngest and he is thin to begin with. In football and soccer, he was a middle of the pack kid. he did ok but certainly didn't stand out. We made the decision to have him repeat 4K. This had nothing to do with sports. He is a quiet kid and we thought it was best for his maturity. Now he is in 6th grade. At his school, he plays basketball for 6th grade and starts. If we had not held him back, there is no way he could play meaningful minutes for the 7th grade team. He is not big/fast/strong enough to hang. He would play some be definitely not start.



    Younger son (10 y/o) - totally different. He is usually one of the older kids on the field. Most of the time, he is the best player. He is just bigger/faster/stronger than the other kids. He has a ton of confidence. He is always the quarterback/point guard/shortstop when he plays. He is athletically gifted but it certainly doesn't hurt to be one of the older kids.



    Like I said, we didn't hold back our oldest for sport reasons. He need it from a confidence/maturity stand point but it has helped him in sports. I am in favor of it if you think your child needs it. It certainly doesn't hurt.




    This is actually my problem with it. It certainly doesn't hurt your child, but it certainly does crowd out another child from having the leadership experience, starting spot on the team, etc. that your redshirt giant is taking.



    IMHO it's an incredibly selfish move and the fact that it's so pervasive is indicative of where we are as a society right now.



    It's the "jacked lofts" debate of kids; no harm no foul to call a 3i a 5i...until you realize that there's no place left at the top of the bag for a 2i anymore.






    Like Palmetto golfer, my son was September so that bday is actually in the normal area of trying to decide to start them or wait a year, they will either be oldest or youngest. It is hardy a "redshirt" scenario.




    Raynor...My son was born on the 28th of August...3 days before the cutoff...if you think this has somehow given my son some massive advantage you are out of your mind.



    I have done a lot of coaching in the past 5 years in football and basketball. Here is the truth that some parents just don't want to hear. Some kids are just more athletic and get sports better than others. Just like some kids get math better than others. I coach some that are awesome kids but couldn't start for the team 2 grades below them!!! Hear what I am saying. This kid's parents could "redshirt" this child for 2 years and it still wouldn't get them a starting spot. On the flip side, I know some kids that could play and start for the team 2 years above them. Some kids have it and some kids don't. God gives us all different gifts.



    The biggest advantage that some kids have over others???? A parent willing to work with them. I see it all of the time. The kids that have parents that are willing to throw a ball and play outside with them are the ones way ahead of the others. That is 10x more important than this so called "redshirt"
  • deadsolid...shankdeadsolid...shank ClubWRX Posts: 14,614 ClubWRX
    Sixcat wrote:

    raynorfan1 wrote:



    I agree with Agatha



    I have two boys....oldest is an August birthday and the younger is an October birthday. The cutoff for sports around here is Sept. 1st. The two of them are very different so I get to see if from different perspectives.



    Oldest son (12 y/o) - usually is the youngest and he is thin to begin with. In football and soccer, he was a middle of the pack kid. he did ok but certainly didn't stand out. We made the decision to have him repeat 4K. This had nothing to do with sports. He is a quiet kid and we thought it was best for his maturity. Now he is in 6th grade. At his school, he plays basketball for 6th grade and starts. If we had not held him back, there is no way he could play meaningful minutes for the 7th grade team. He is not big/fast/strong enough to hang. He would play some be definitely not start.



    Younger son (10 y/o) - totally different. He is usually one of the older kids on the field. Most of the time, he is the best player. He is just bigger/faster/stronger than the other kids. He has a ton of confidence. He is always the quarterback/point guard/shortstop when he plays. He is athletically gifted but it certainly doesn't hurt to be one of the older kids.



    Like I said, we didn't hold back our oldest for sport reasons. He need it from a confidence/maturity stand point but it has helped him in sports. I am in favor of it if you think your child needs it. It certainly doesn't hurt.




    This is actually my problem with it. It certainly doesn't hurt your child, but it certainly does crowd out another child from having the leadership experience, starting spot on the team, etc. that your redshirt giant is taking.



    IMHO it's an incredibly selfish move and the fact that it's so pervasive is indicative of where we are as a society right now.



    It's the "jacked lofts" debate of kids; no harm no foul to call a 3i a 5i...until you realize that there's no place left at the top of the bag for a 2i anymore.




    Or you're forced to carry 7 wedges because the 9i has 7i loft. I agree with you completely. I understand why parents want their kids to have every advantage. But most refuse to acknowledge how "red-shirting" places other kids at a distinct disadvantage.



    My former neighbor was the star football player for the local high school a few years ago. He is now the starting RB at Virginia Tech. He graduated high school at 17 and became a starter at VT as a 17 year old freshman. In talking to him, he credits having to "step-up" his game to keep up with the older kids he grew up competing against. By the time he got to high school, that work ethic he was forced to adopt as a middle schooler propelled him beyond his classmates. Regardless of the fact that many were nearly 2 years older then him. His senior season in high school, while still only 16 for the majority of the football season, he rushed for 3,078 yards and scored 44 touchdowns.



    Gladwell's book gets taken at face value far too frequently. He suggests, to be great at something, one simply needs to devote 10,000 hours of practice to whatever they want to be great at. In golf terms, standing on a range for 10,000 hours, blindly beating balls isn't going to make anyone a great golfer. The practice needs to be detailed, precise and targeted. Simply holding a kid back so they are older than their classmates isn't going to produce a college football player or PGA golfer.




    Your neighbor is very much the exception as opposed to the rule. Very much.
    Titleist 910 8.5
    Titleist 910 15*
    Titleist 910H 17*
    2-6 Mizuno MP-60, 7-PW MP-67
    SC GoLo
    Vokey SM5 52,58,62
  • deadsolid...shankdeadsolid...shank ClubWRX Posts: 14,614 ClubWRX
    edited Nov 8, 2018 #69
    Sixcat wrote:

    CTgolf wrote:


    "Posted a 375-pound bench press and a 32-inch vertical jump in spring max testing"



    I guess if you're an elite star then it doesn't matter. Those guys are getting the opportunities whether they graduate on time, late, or early. But for someone who is only merely "very very good" then it seems like having the extra year would help a lot.



    I'm not advocating the ethics or morality behind it (my child is among the youngest in the grade). It just seems obvious that it is an advantage and, if allowed by a state (i.e. legal) then more people should consider it. Per this forum's estimates parents are already spending tens of thousands of dollars on junior golf per year to help their kids succeed - why not do the logical thing and hold them back to give them additional edge?




    As I said earlier, I understand why some parents "red-shirt." It's not something I would consider. My oldest daughter has a July birthday and is the second youngest student in her grade level for the entire school system. She has the highest GPA within her grade level as well. "Red-shirting" her wouldn't have made much sense. But given her July birthday and being the 2nd youngest kid in her grade level, the practice of "red-shirting" seems to be overused. I would have expected several students in an entire grade level to have birthdays between July and September.



    Mr. Peoples weight lifting prowess is a direct result of being the youngest and often one of the smallest football players as a rising middle schooler. He needed to get stronger as a middle school kid and did with the help of former NFL OL Mark Dixon. Steven's high school football coach. Edit to add; Steven set the 375 pound bench press mark in the spring of 2014. Just after turning 18 in late September 2013.




    Do you really believe that he wouldn’t have attained that level of success if he had been a year later in school.



    There is obviously an abundance of natural talent there. He may have worked a bit harder being younger, possibly a bit more motivation, but odds are with that innate talent level he was going to be successful regardless of class.
    Titleist 910 8.5
    Titleist 910 15*
    Titleist 910H 17*
    2-6 Mizuno MP-60, 7-PW MP-67
    SC GoLo
    Vokey SM5 52,58,62
  • raynorfan1raynorfan1 Members Posts: 3,519 ✭✭

    agatha wrote:

    raynorfan1 wrote:



    I agree with Agatha



    I have two boys....oldest is an August birthday and the younger is an October birthday. The cutoff for sports around here is Sept. 1st. The two of them are very different so I get to see if from different perspectives.



    Oldest son (12 y/o) - usually is the youngest and he is thin to begin with. In football and soccer, he was a middle of the pack kid. he did ok but certainly didn't stand out. We made the decision to have him repeat 4K. This had nothing to do with sports. He is a quiet kid and we thought it was best for his maturity. Now he is in 6th grade. At his school, he plays basketball for 6th grade and starts. If we had not held him back, there is no way he could play meaningful minutes for the 7th grade team. He is not big/fast/strong enough to hang. He would play some be definitely not start.



    Younger son (10 y/o) - totally different. He is usually one of the older kids on the field. Most of the time, he is the best player. He is just bigger/faster/stronger than the other kids. He has a ton of confidence. He is always the quarterback/point guard/shortstop when he plays. He is athletically gifted but it certainly doesn't hurt to be one of the older kids.



    Like I said, we didn't hold back our oldest for sport reasons. He need it from a confidence/maturity stand point but it has helped him in sports. I am in favor of it if you think your child needs it. It certainly doesn't hurt.




    This is actually my problem with it. It certainly doesn't hurt your child, but it certainly does crowd out another child from having the leadership experience, starting spot on the team, etc. that your redshirt giant is taking.



    IMHO it's an incredibly selfish move and the fact that it's so pervasive is indicative of where we are as a society right now.



    It's the "jacked lofts" debate of kids; no harm no foul to call a 3i a 5i...until you realize that there's no place left at the top of the bag for a 2i anymore.






    Like Palmetto golfer, my son was September so that bday is actually in the normal area of trying to decide to start them or wait a year, they will either be oldest or youngest. It is hardy a "redshirt" scenario.




    Raynor...My son was born on the 28th of August...3 days before the cutoff...if you think this has somehow given my son some massive advantage you are out of your mind.



    I have done a lot of coaching in the past 5 years in football and basketball. Here is the truth that some parents just don't want to hear. Some kids are just more athletic and get sports better than others. Just like some kids get math better than others. I coach some that are awesome kids but couldn't start for the team 2 grades below them!!! Hear what I am saying. This kid's parents could "redshirt" this child for 2 years and it still wouldn't get them a starting spot. On the flip side, I know some kids that could play and start for the team 2 years above them. Some kids have it and some kids don't. God gives us all different gifts.



    The biggest advantage that some kids have over others???? A parent willing to work with them. I see it all of the time. The kids that have parents that are willing to throw a ball and play outside with them are the ones way ahead of the others. That is 10x more important than this so called "redshirt"




    If it makes no difference...then why do you redshirt?



    My daughter is August 25th. And she's the youngest in her class (September 1 cutoff). The oldest kid in her grade (first grade)is a full 18 months older than she is, and he is the "star" of the class. Not athletically, because they aren't really at that point yet. He's the best reader. He's the best at math. He's the best behaved. He's ahead of most of the second graders (where he would be middle-of-the-pack in age).



    For my kid, it's probably helpful. He sets an example that she chases. But I also know that she does feel diminished because she's not as "smart" as he is.



    From my POV, the public school system should stick to hard and fast cutoff dates OR the exclusive discretionary input of the teachers (private schools can do as they wish, that's why they're private).
  • deadsolid...shankdeadsolid...shank ClubWRX Posts: 14,614 ClubWRX
    raynorfan1 wrote:


    agatha wrote:

    raynorfan1 wrote:



    I agree with Agatha



    I have two boys....oldest is an August birthday and the younger is an October birthday. The cutoff for sports around here is Sept. 1st. The two of them are very different so I get to see if from different perspectives.



    Oldest son (12 y/o) - usually is the youngest and he is thin to begin with. In football and soccer, he was a middle of the pack kid. he did ok but certainly didn't stand out. We made the decision to have him repeat 4K. This had nothing to do with sports. He is a quiet kid and we thought it was best for his maturity. Now he is in 6th grade. At his school, he plays basketball for 6th grade and starts. If we had not held him back, there is no way he could play meaningful minutes for the 7th grade team. He is not big/fast/strong enough to hang. He would play some be definitely not start.



    Younger son (10 y/o) - totally different. He is usually one of the older kids on the field. Most of the time, he is the best player. He is just bigger/faster/stronger than the other kids. He has a ton of confidence. He is always the quarterback/point guard/shortstop when he plays. He is athletically gifted but it certainly doesn't hurt to be one of the older kids.



    Like I said, we didn't hold back our oldest for sport reasons. He need it from a confidence/maturity stand point but it has helped him in sports. I am in favor of it if you think your child needs it. It certainly doesn't hurt.




    This is actually my problem with it. It certainly doesn't hurt your child, but it certainly does crowd out another child from having the leadership experience, starting spot on the team, etc. that your redshirt giant is taking.



    IMHO it's an incredibly selfish move and the fact that it's so pervasive is indicative of where we are as a society right now.



    It's the "jacked lofts" debate of kids; no harm no foul to call a 3i a 5i...until you realize that there's no place left at the top of the bag for a 2i anymore.






    Like Palmetto golfer, my son was September so that bday is actually in the normal area of trying to decide to start them or wait a year, they will either be oldest or youngest. It is hardy a "redshirt" scenario.




    Raynor...My son was born on the 28th of August...3 days before the cutoff...if you think this has somehow given my son some massive advantage you are out of your mind.



    I have done a lot of coaching in the past 5 years in football and basketball. Here is the truth that some parents just don't want to hear. Some kids are just more athletic and get sports better than others. Just like some kids get math better than others. I coach some that are awesome kids but couldn't start for the team 2 grades below them!!! Hear what I am saying. This kid's parents could "redshirt" this child for 2 years and it still wouldn't get them a starting spot. On the flip side, I know some kids that could play and start for the team 2 years above them. Some kids have it and some kids don't. God gives us all different gifts.



    The biggest advantage that some kids have over others???? A parent willing to work with them. I see it all of the time. The kids that have parents that are willing to throw a ball and play outside with them are the ones way ahead of the others. That is 10x more important than this so called "redshirt"




    If it makes no difference...then why do you redshirt?



    My daughter is August 25th. And she's the youngest in her class (September 1 cutoff). The oldest kid in her grade (first grade)is a full 18 months older than she is, and he is the "star" of the class. Not athletically, because they aren't really at that point yet. He's the best reader. He's the best at math. He's the best behaved. He's ahead of most of the second graders (where he would be middle-of-the-pack in age).



    For my kid, it's probably helpful. He sets an example that she chases. But I also know that she does feel diminished because she's not as "smart" as he is.



    From my POV, the public school system should stick to hard and fast cutoff dates OR the exclusive discretionary input of the teachers (private schools can do as they wish, that's why they're private).




    I don’t disagree with that at all.
    Titleist 910 8.5
    Titleist 910 15*
    Titleist 910H 17*
    2-6 Mizuno MP-60, 7-PW MP-67
    SC GoLo
    Vokey SM5 52,58,62
  • NolesNoles Posts: 1,420 ✭✭
    edited Nov 8, 2018 #72
    raynorfan1 wrote:



    I agree with Agatha



    I have two boys....oldest is an August birthday and the younger is an October birthday. The cutoff for sports around here is Sept. 1st. The two of them are very different so I get to see if from different perspectives.



    Oldest son (12 y/o) - usually is the youngest and he is thin to begin with. In football and soccer, he was a middle of the pack kid. he did ok but certainly didn't stand out. We made the decision to have him repeat 4K. This had nothing to do with sports. He is a quiet kid and we thought it was best for his maturity. Now he is in 6th grade. At his school, he plays basketball for 6th grade and starts. If we had not held him back, there is no way he could play meaningful minutes for the 7th grade team. He is not big/fast/strong enough to hang. He would play some be definitely not start.



    Younger son (10 y/o) - totally different. He is usually one of the older kids on the field. Most of the time, he is the best player. He is just bigger/faster/stronger than the other kids. He has a ton of confidence. He is always the quarterback/point guard/shortstop when he plays. He is athletically gifted but it certainly doesn't hurt to be one of the older kids.



    Like I said, we didn't hold back our oldest for sport reasons. He need it from a confidence/maturity stand point but it has helped him in sports. I am in favor of it if you think your child needs it. It certainly doesn't hurt.




    This is actually my problem with it. It certainly doesn't hurt your child, but it certainly does crowd out another child from having the leadership experience, starting spot on the team, etc. that your redshirt giant is taking.



    IMHO it's an incredibly selfish move and the fact that it's so pervasive is indicative of where we are as a society right now.



    It's the "jacked lofts" debate of kids; no harm no foul to call a 3i a 5i...until you realize that there's no place left at the top of the bag for a 2i anymore.
    . The opposite can also be argued as well. If I think I should hold my child back but I don't, and put a child in school that isn't really ready in an academic or maturity sense, then I am hurting those potential classmates as well. My immature, behind the pace academically child will certainly have a negative effect on that class and those kids in it.



    Bottom line, parents need to do what they think is best for their child. No one knows each child better than their parent.
  • SixcatSixcat SWVAPosts: 1,416 ✭✭

    Sixcat wrote:

    CTgolf wrote:


    "Posted a 375-pound bench press and a 32-inch vertical jump in spring max testing"



    I guess if you're an elite star then it doesn't matter. Those guys are getting the opportunities whether they graduate on time, late, or early. But for someone who is only merely "very very good" then it seems like having the extra year would help a lot.



    I'm not advocating the ethics or morality behind it (my child is among the youngest in the grade). It just seems obvious that it is an advantage and, if allowed by a state (i.e. legal) then more people should consider it. Per this forum's estimates parents are already spending tens of thousands of dollars on junior golf per year to help their kids succeed - why not do the logical thing and hold them back to give them additional edge?




    As I said earlier, I understand why some parents "red-shirt." It's not something I would consider. My oldest daughter has a July birthday and is the second youngest student in her grade level for the entire school system. She has the highest GPA within her grade level as well. "Red-shirting" her wouldn't have made much sense. But given her July birthday and being the 2nd youngest kid in her grade level, the practice of "red-shirting" seems to be overused. I would have expected several students in an entire grade level to have birthdays between July and September.



    Mr. Peoples weight lifting prowess is a direct result of being the youngest and often one of the smallest football players as a rising middle schooler. He needed to get stronger as a middle school kid and did with the help of former NFL OL Mark Dixon. Steven's high school football coach. Edit to add; Steven set the 375 pound bench press mark in the spring of 2014. Just after turning 18 in late September 2013.




    Do you really believe that he wouldn't have attained that level of success if he had been a year later in school.



    There is obviously an abundance of natural talent there. He may have worked a bit harder being younger, possibly a bit more motivation, but odds are with that innate talent level he was going to be successful regardless of class.




    Yes, he would be in a similar position today and he may very well be the exception rather than the rule. The need to "red-shirt" wouldn't have mattered for this kid. His family made the correct decision that, he wouldn't benefit from "red-shirting."



    My issue with the concept in general, is the 5'-6" tall 165 pound dad who thinks "red-shirting" his son is magically going to turn him into a 6'-2" tall and 235 pound athlete. I can't speak to what happens in other localities but where I live, this is a very real problem. As I said in a previous post, my daughters school had 31 kids repeat 8th grade this year for athletic purposes. That's 31 kids in an 8th grade class of 112! The practice has gotten way out of hand locally!



    If a child exhibits a lack of maturity or needs a boost in the classroom, absolutely, hold them back. If a parent feels their child would benefit from starting school a year later, hold them back. But to hold an honor-roll student back to gain some perceived advantage in sports is nonsensical! And to have nearly 30% of a grade level held back for athletics is ridiculous.
  • raynorfan1raynorfan1 Members Posts: 3,519 ✭✭
    edited Nov 8, 2018 #74
    Noles wrote:


    The opposite can also be argued as well. If I think I should hold my child back but I don't, and put a child in school that isn't really ready in an academic or maturity sense, then I am hurting those potential classmates as well. My immature, behind the pace academically child will certainly have a negative effect on that class and those kids in it.



    Bottom line, parents need to do what they think is best for their child. No one knows each child better than their parent.




    I disagree.



    I agree with the premise that if you put a child in school and they're not prepared for it, they could be disruptive and slow down the class. There is nobody better positioned than the professional staff at the school - who have educated hundreds of children - to make this determination. And if they think a child should be held back, or isn't ready to advance to the next grade, they should exercise that discretion. That's their job. If parents feel strongly that the teachers/professional staff of the school are making a mistake, they should look into private school options.



    We can all (I think) agree that kids develop at different rates and we should be striving to put kids into an academic (and other setting) where they will be sort of in the middle of the bell curve. Where I think it is selfish/unfair is when parents manipulate the system to ensure that their kid is a top decile performer.
  • heavy_hitterheavy_hitter Members Posts: 3,003 ✭✭
    TigerMom wrote:

    leftyDH04 wrote:


    No real effect on academics?



    That's the line I'd question.




    There is one kid who took a year off before high school and trained in famous tennis academy



    Did some distance learning courses and SAT prep during that year



    Went back home the next year and resumed in the grade below his normal classmates



    He ended up at school of his choice playing tennis and parents said he was better prepared academically and stronger player




    Do you think that works for everybody? That is the exception, not the rule.
  • deadsolid...shankdeadsolid...shank ClubWRX Posts: 14,614 ClubWRX
    edited Nov 8, 2018 #76
    Sixcat wrote:


    Sixcat wrote:

    CTgolf wrote:


    "Posted a 375-pound bench press and a 32-inch vertical jump in spring max testing"



    I guess if you're an elite star then it doesn't matter. Those guys are getting the opportunities whether they graduate on time, late, or early. But for someone who is only merely "very very good" then it seems like having the extra year would help a lot.



    I'm not advocating the ethics or morality behind it (my child is among the youngest in the grade). It just seems obvious that it is an advantage and, if allowed by a state (i.e. legal) then more people should consider it. Per this forum's estimates parents are already spending tens of thousands of dollars on junior golf per year to help their kids succeed - why not do the logical thing and hold them back to give them additional edge?




    As I said earlier, I understand why some parents "red-shirt." It's not something I would consider. My oldest daughter has a July birthday and is the second youngest student in her grade level for the entire school system. She has the highest GPA within her grade level as well. "Red-shirting" her wouldn't have made much sense. But given her July birthday and being the 2nd youngest kid in her grade level, the practice of "red-shirting" seems to be overused. I would have expected several students in an entire grade level to have birthdays between July and September.



    Mr. Peoples weight lifting prowess is a direct result of being the youngest and often one of the smallest football players as a rising middle schooler. He needed to get stronger as a middle school kid and did with the help of former NFL OL Mark Dixon. Steven's high school football coach. Edit to add; Steven set the 375 pound bench press mark in the spring of 2014. Just after turning 18 in late September 2013.




    Do you really believe that he wouldn't have attained that level of success if he had been a year later in school.



    There is obviously an abundance of natural talent there. He may have worked a bit harder being younger, possibly a bit more motivation, but odds are with that innate talent level he was going to be successful regardless of class.




    Yes, he would be in a similar position today and he may very well be the exception rather than the rule. The need to "red-shirt" wouldn't have mattered for this kid. His family made the correct decision that, he wouldn't benefit from "red-shirting."



    My issue with the concept in general, is the 5'-6" tall 165 pound dad who thinks "red-shirting" his son is magically going to turn him into a 6'-2" tall and 235 pound athlete. I can't speak to what happens in other localities but where I live, this is a very real problem. As I said in a previous post, my daughters school had 31 kids repeat 8th grade this year for athletic purposes. That's 31 kids in an 8th grade class of 112! The practice has gotten way out of hand locally!



    If a child exhibits a lack of maturity or needs a boost in the classroom, absolutely, hold them back. If a parent feels their child would benefit from starting school a year later, hold them back. But to hold an honor-roll student back to gain some perceived advantage in sports is nonsensical! And to have nearly 30% of a grade level held back for athletics is ridiculous.




    All valid points, can’t argue them.



    For the record (I think I posted earlier in this thread), I’m not advocating for holding kids back for sports by any means. Both of mine graduated HS at 17 so were young in relation to their classmates.



    The Mrs is an Early Childhood education person, want to see her get fired up, this topic will do it. 😀
    Titleist 910 8.5
    Titleist 910 15*
    Titleist 910H 17*
    2-6 Mizuno MP-60, 7-PW MP-67
    SC GoLo
    Vokey SM5 52,58,62
  • SixcatSixcat SWVAPosts: 1,416 ✭✭

    Sixcat wrote:


    Sixcat wrote:

    CTgolf wrote:


    "Posted a 375-pound bench press and a 32-inch vertical jump in spring max testing"



    I guess if you're an elite star then it doesn't matter. Those guys are getting the opportunities whether they graduate on time, late, or early. But for someone who is only merely "very very good" then it seems like having the extra year would help a lot.



    I'm not advocating the ethics or morality behind it (my child is among the youngest in the grade). It just seems obvious that it is an advantage and, if allowed by a state (i.e. legal) then more people should consider it. Per this forum's estimates parents are already spending tens of thousands of dollars on junior golf per year to help their kids succeed - why not do the logical thing and hold them back to give them additional edge?




    As I said earlier, I understand why some parents "red-shirt." It's not something I would consider. My oldest daughter has a July birthday and is the second youngest student in her grade level for the entire school system. She has the highest GPA within her grade level as well. "Red-shirting" her wouldn't have made much sense. But given her July birthday and being the 2nd youngest kid in her grade level, the practice of "red-shirting" seems to be overused. I would have expected several students in an entire grade level to have birthdays between July and September.



    Mr. Peoples weight lifting prowess is a direct result of being the youngest and often one of the smallest football players as a rising middle schooler. He needed to get stronger as a middle school kid and did with the help of former NFL OL Mark Dixon. Steven's high school football coach. Edit to add; Steven set the 375 pound bench press mark in the spring of 2014. Just after turning 18 in late September 2013.




    Do you really believe that he wouldn't have attained that level of success if he had been a year later in school.



    There is obviously an abundance of natural talent there. He may have worked a bit harder being younger, possibly a bit more motivation, but odds are with that innate talent level he was going to be successful regardless of class.




    Yes, he would be in a similar position today and he may very well be the exception rather than the rule. The need to "red-shirt" wouldn't have mattered for this kid. His family made the correct decision that, he wouldn't benefit from "red-shirting."



    My issue with the concept in general, is the 5'-6" tall 165 pound dad who thinks "red-shirting" his son is magically going to turn him into a 6'-2" tall and 235 pound athlete. I can't speak to what happens in other localities but where I live, this is a very real problem. As I said in a previous post, my daughters school had 31 kids repeat 8th grade this year for athletic purposes. That's 31 kids in an 8th grade class of 112! The practice has gotten way out of hand locally!



    If a child exhibits a lack of maturity or needs a boost in the classroom, absolutely, hold them back. If a parent feels their child would benefit from starting school a year later, hold them back. But to hold an honor-roll student back to gain some perceived advantage in sports is nonsensical! And to have nearly 30% of a grade level held back for athletics is ridiculous.




    All valid points, can't argue them.



    For the record (I think I posted earlier in this thread), I'm not advocating for holding kids back for sports by any means. Both of mine graduated HS at 17 so were young in relation to their classmates.



    The Mrs is an Early Childhood education person, want to see her get fired up, this topic will do it. ��




    My wife was appointed to school board in May. I'm not permitted to seek public appointment or election due to my employment contract. She's trying to help curb some of this locally.



    Our local high school has won more than 30 team and individual state championships in a variety of sports since 2009. Since the school opened in 1953, it has produced a grand total of 3 athletic scholarships. These local kids are peaking in high school and have little to nothing to show for the effort!
  • NolesNoles Posts: 1,420 ✭✭
    raynorfan1 wrote:

    Noles wrote:


    The opposite can also be argued as well. If I think I should hold my child back but I don't, and put a child in school that isn't really ready in an academic or maturity sense, then I am hurting those potential classmates as well. My immature, behind the pace academically child will certainly have a negative effect on that class and those kids in it.



    Bottom line, parents need to do what they think is best for their child. No one knows each child better than their parent.




    I disagree.



    I agree with the premise that if you put a child in school and they're not prepared for it, they could be disruptive and slow down the class. There is nobody better positioned than the professional staff at the school - who have educated hundreds of children - to make this determination. And if they think a child should be held back, or isn't ready to advance to the next grade, they should exercise that discretion. That's their job. If parents feel strongly that the teachers/professional staff of the school are making a mistake, they should look into private school options.



    We can all (I think) agree that kids develop at different rates and we should be striving to put kids into an academic (and other setting) where they will be sort of in the middle of the bell curve. Where I think it is selfish/unfair is when parents manipulate the system to ensure that their kid is a top decile performer.
    We definitely are not going to agree on this subject.
  • SixcatSixcat SWVAPosts: 1,416 ✭✭
    leezer99 wrote:

    Sixcat wrote:


    Our local high school has won more than 30 team and individual state championships in a variety of sports since 2009. Since the school opened in 1953, it has produced a grand total of 3 athletic scholarships. These local kids are peaking in high school and have little to nothing to show for the effort!




    That's not good. Do you really attribute the lack of athletic scholarships to kids reaching their peak in HS or is it an administrative failure? Would seem like any school in the country could produce at least one athletic scholarship every decade with the right guidance counselor.




    It's failure from every aspect and begins at home from a young age.
  • raynorfan1raynorfan1 Members Posts: 3,519 ✭✭
    Noles wrote:

    raynorfan1 wrote:

    Noles wrote:


    The opposite can also be argued as well. If I think I should hold my child back but I don't, and put a child in school that isn't really ready in an academic or maturity sense, then I am hurting those potential classmates as well. My immature, behind the pace academically child will certainly have a negative effect on that class and those kids in it.



    Bottom line, parents need to do what they think is best for their child. No one knows each child better than their parent.




    I disagree.



    I agree with the premise that if you put a child in school and they're not prepared for it, they could be disruptive and slow down the class. There is nobody better positioned than the professional staff at the school - who have educated hundreds of children - to make this determination. And if they think a child should be held back, or isn't ready to advance to the next grade, they should exercise that discretion. That's their job. If parents feel strongly that the teachers/professional staff of the school are making a mistake, they should look into private school options.



    We can all (I think) agree that kids develop at different rates and we should be striving to put kids into an academic (and other setting) where they will be sort of in the middle of the bell curve. Where I think it is selfish/unfair is when parents manipulate the system to ensure that their kid is a top decile performer.
    We definitely are not going to agree on this subject.




    That's fair.



    I'll also agree that each of us has our own experience / local realities. We have an incredibly strong school system with phenomenal teachers and administrators whose judgement I respect far beyond my own. I get that not everybody has the same reality, and you have to do what you think is best.



    That said, putting your child first (which I acknowledge a large number of people would and do do), is also inherently a selfish behavior. That doesn't make it per se wrong; selfish motivations drive a lot of what's good about the world.
  • heavy_hitterheavy_hitter Members Posts: 3,003 ✭✭
    raynorfan1 wrote:

    Noles wrote:

    raynorfan1 wrote:

    Noles wrote:


    The opposite can also be argued as well. If I think I should hold my child back but I don't, and put a child in school that isn't really ready in an academic or maturity sense, then I am hurting those potential classmates as well. My immature, behind the pace academically child will certainly have a negative effect on that class and those kids in it.



    Bottom line, parents need to do what they think is best for their child. No one knows each child better than their parent.




    I disagree.



    I agree with the premise that if you put a child in school and they're not prepared for it, they could be disruptive and slow down the class. There is nobody better positioned than the professional staff at the school - who have educated hundreds of children - to make this determination. And if they think a child should be held back, or isn't ready to advance to the next grade, they should exercise that discretion. That's their job. If parents feel strongly that the teachers/professional staff of the school are making a mistake, they should look into private school options.



    We can all (I think) agree that kids develop at different rates and we should be striving to put kids into an academic (and other setting) where they will be sort of in the middle of the bell curve. Where I think it is selfish/unfair is when parents manipulate the system to ensure that their kid is a top decile performer.
    We definitely are not going to agree on this subject.




    That's fair.



    I'll also agree that each of us has our own experience / local realities. We have an incredibly strong school system with phenomenal teachers and administrators whose judgement I respect far beyond my own. I get that not everybody has the same reality, and you have to do what you think is best.



    That said, putting your child first (which I acknowledge a large number of people would and do do), is also inherently a selfish behavior. That doesn't make it per se wrong; selfish motivations drive a lot of what's good about the world.




    Public education in the US is failing. The more government has gotten involved, the worse it has gotten. When the initiative became to send everyone to college, education started to get watered down.
  • deadsolid...shankdeadsolid...shank ClubWRX Posts: 14,614 ClubWRX

    raynorfan1 wrote:

    Noles wrote:

    raynorfan1 wrote:

    Noles wrote:


    The opposite can also be argued as well. If I think I should hold my child back but I don't, and put a child in school that isn't really ready in an academic or maturity sense, then I am hurting those potential classmates as well. My immature, behind the pace academically child will certainly have a negative effect on that class and those kids in it.



    Bottom line, parents need to do what they think is best for their child. No one knows each child better than their parent.




    I disagree.



    I agree with the premise that if you put a child in school and they're not prepared for it, they could be disruptive and slow down the class. There is nobody better positioned than the professional staff at the school - who have educated hundreds of children - to make this determination. And if they think a child should be held back, or isn't ready to advance to the next grade, they should exercise that discretion. That's their job. If parents feel strongly that the teachers/professional staff of the school are making a mistake, they should look into private school options.



    We can all (I think) agree that kids develop at different rates and we should be striving to put kids into an academic (and other setting) where they will be sort of in the middle of the bell curve. Where I think it is selfish/unfair is when parents manipulate the system to ensure that their kid is a top decile performer.
    We definitely are not going to agree on this subject.




    That's fair.



    I'll also agree that each of us has our own experience / local realities. We have an incredibly strong school system with phenomenal teachers and administrators whose judgement I respect far beyond my own. I get that not everybody has the same reality, and you have to do what you think is best.



    That said, putting your child first (which I acknowledge a large number of people would and do do), is also inherently a selfish behavior. That doesn't make it per se wrong; selfish motivations drive a lot of what's good about the world.




    Public education in the US is failing. The more government has gotten involved, the worse it has gotten. When the initiative became to send everyone to college, education started to get watered down.




    When the pinheads in charge realize that formal education is not for everyone, and our classrooms stop moving at the pace of the slowest students, it MIGHT start a change in the right direction



    I hope we’re not getting too close to political discussion here. It’s a good topic and I would hate to see it get shut down.
    Titleist 910 8.5
    Titleist 910 15*
    Titleist 910H 17*
    2-6 Mizuno MP-60, 7-PW MP-67
    SC GoLo
    Vokey SM5 52,58,62
  • SixcatSixcat SWVAPosts: 1,416 ✭✭


    When the pinheads in charge realize that formal education is not for everyone, and our classrooms stop moving at the pace of the slowest students, it MIGHT start a change in the right direction



    I hope we’re not getting too close to political discussion here. It’s a good topic and I would hate to see it get shut down.




    The local school system implemented a class calendar concept about 5 years ago that has the rest of the state visiting on a regular basis to see how it works. It's simple really and is derived from a year-round school concept. The school year begins in late July. The first grading period is 45 days long. Following the first 45 day grading period, students can choose to take "intersession" courses such as guitar lessons, piano lessons, welding classes, weight lifting or even job shadowing for high school students. There are dozens of these opportunities. This lasts 2-weeks and then school closes for a week. Therefore, it's called a 45-15 model. In class for 45 days, out of class for 15 days. During the 15 day "intersession" between grading periods, students in good standing can stay home, take vacations with family, or take advantage of these unique opportunities such as guitar lessons. Students who are in jeopardy of falling behind are required to do 2-weeks of "remediation".



    When the second grading period begins following the 3-week break, they begin another 45 day classroom session. Followed by another 15 day "intersession", which falls around Christmas and New Year. This 45-15 model continues until summer vacation, which is two back-to-back 15 day breaks.



    School system standardized testing scores have skyrocketed since this took effect. I'm not a fan of "standardized testing" but this system allows teachers time to teach each student rather than "teach to the test". The teachers in our school district rave about this system.



    I believe there is hope!
  • NolesNoles Posts: 1,420 ✭✭
    raynorfan1 wrote:

    Noles wrote:

    raynorfan1 wrote:

    Noles wrote:


    The opposite can also be argued as well. If I think I should hold my child back but I don't, and put a child in school that isn't really ready in an academic or maturity sense, then I am hurting those potential classmates as well. My immature, behind the pace academically child will certainly have a negative effect on that class and those kids in it.



    Bottom line, parents need to do what they think is best for their child. No one knows each child better than their parent.




    I disagree.



    I agree with the premise that if you put a child in school and they're not prepared for it, they could be disruptive and slow down the class. There is nobody better positioned than the professional staff at the school - who have educated hundreds of children - to make this determination. And if they think a child should be held back, or isn't ready to advance to the next grade, they should exercise that discretion. That's their job. If parents feel strongly that the teachers/professional staff of the school are making a mistake, they should look into private school options.



    We can all (I think) agree that kids develop at different rates and we should be striving to put kids into an academic (and other setting) where they will be sort of in the middle of the bell curve. Where I think it is selfish/unfair is when parents manipulate the system to ensure that their kid is a top decile performer.
    We definitely are not going to agree on this subject.




    That's fair.



    I'll also agree that each of us has our own experience / local realities. We have an incredibly strong school system with phenomenal teachers and administrators whose judgement I respect far beyond my own. I get that not everybody has the same reality, and you have to do what you think is best.



    That said, putting your child first (which I acknowledge a large number of people would and do do), is also inherently a selfish behavior. That doesn't make it per se wrong; selfish motivations drive a lot of what's good about the world.
    I am a public school teacher in a very successful district in the suburbs of Philadelphia and a parent of one public school student, and one private school student. That's where my views come from. I also think that putting my child first is not selfish. Putting my own interest first is inherently selfish, hence the term SELF-ish. Had I not started my daughter a year later, my wife could have gone back to work sooner and that absolutely would have been better for me.
  • raynorfan1raynorfan1 Members Posts: 3,519 ✭✭
    Noles wrote:


    I am a public school teacher in a very successful district in the suburbs of Philadelphia and a parent of one public school student, and one private school student. That's where my views come from. I also think that putting my child first is not selfish. Putting my own interest first is inherently selfish, hence the term SELF-ish. Had I not started my daughter a year later, my wife could have gone back to work sooner and that absolutely would have been better for me.




    Pretty blurry line between your "self" interest and that of your child. I'm not sure that I, personally, could draw that distinction.



    I'm (legitimately) interested in why you, as a teacher, believe that this is good public policy? Because I've struggled with it for a while, and I don't see it. To me, it feels like an extension of a race-to-the-bottom approach that we've been on as a society forever.



    It seems perfectly reasonable to me to hold kids back to prevent them from being disadvantaged. If you're talking about giving a kid an opportunity to achieve in the fat part of the bell curve instead of in the bottom tail, I fully support it. Where it falls apart in my mind is when you start manipulating the structure to create "champions" who perform at the top of the bell curve by virtue of their age (rather than by virtue of their actual ability).



    I get why as a parent, one would want this. I don't get how anybody can view it as good public policy.
  • CheckJVCheckJV Male Model Posts: 2,092 ✭✭
    I took me 3 years to get through 5th grade and I can tell you it was a huge advantage being able to drive myself to middle school.
  • NolesNoles Posts: 1,420 ✭✭
    raynorfan1 wrote:

    Noles wrote:


    I am a public school teacher in a very successful district in the suburbs of Philadelphia and a parent of one public school student, and one private school student. That's where my views come from. I also think that putting my child first is not selfish. Putting my own interest first is inherently selfish, hence the term SELF-ish. Had I not started my daughter a year later, my wife could have gone back to work sooner and that absolutely would have been better for me.




    Pretty blurry line between your "self" interest and that of your child. I'm not sure that I, personally, could draw that distinction.



    I'm (legitimately) interested in why you, as a teacher, believe that this is good public policy? Because I've struggled with it for a while, and I don't see it. To me, it feels like an extension of a race-to-the-bottom approach that we've been on as a society forever.



    It seems perfectly reasonable to me to hold kids back to prevent them from being disadvantaged. If you're talking about giving a kid an opportunity to achieve in the fat part of the bell curve instead of in the bottom tail, I fully support it. Where it falls apart in my mind is when you start manipulating the structure to create "champions" who perform at the top of the bell curve by virtue of their age (rather than by virtue of their actual ability).



    I get why as a parent, one would want this. I don't get how anybody can view it as good public policy.
    I'll try to be as succinct as possible. In my 22 years in elementary school, things have changed dramatically. What kindergarten looked like in 1997 is completely different than it looks now. The type of work being done, the rigor of the school day, the number of assessments, and the shortening and elimination of recess are just examples of things during the school day that make it completely different. Add homework (I didn't have homework when I was in kindergarten) and also before and after care for a lot of kids. When I started teaching, my district didn't have a before or after care program. Now, some kids are at school by 7:00 and aren't picked up until 6:00. I feel so sorry for those kids. You know what hasn't changed? The age cutoff for kindergarten. If a parent looks at this and thinks their 5 year old is not ready for today's kindergarten experience, I have no problem with it. I did it with my daughter and think it was a great decision for her.
  • raynorfan1raynorfan1 Members Posts: 3,519 ✭✭
    Noles wrote:


    If a parent looks at this and thinks their 5 year old is not ready for today's kindergarten experience, I have no problem with it. I did it with my daughter and think it was a great decision for her.




    To be clear, I have no problem if their 5 year old is not ready for Kindergarten with them holding them. None. I think they should seek out and take the advice of teachers or professionals who have been with the kid, but if the kid isn't ready, the kid isn't ready. Fine by me.



    What I have a problem with are the parents who happily acknowledge that their kid is ready for Kindergarten, maybe a bit above average, but they think they would excel if they held them a year. That's the thinking that IMHO is messed up.
  • kekoakekoa ClubWRX Posts: 8,782 ClubWRX
    edited Nov 8, 2018 #89

    TigerMom wrote:

    leftyDH04 wrote:


    No real effect on academics?



    That's the line I'd question.




    There is one kid who took a year off before high school and trained in famous tennis academy



    Did some distance learning courses and SAT prep during that year



    Went back home the next year and resumed in the grade below his normal classmates



    He ended up at school of his choice playing tennis and parents said he was better prepared academically and stronger player




    Do you think that works for everybody? That is the exception, not the rule.




    Of course she does. I’m still still waiting for TigerMom to post something with any substance relating to Junior Golf or golf in general.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
  • TigerMomTigerMom Posts: 222 ✭✭
    kekoa wrote:


    TigerMom wrote:

    leftyDH04 wrote:


    No real effect on academics?



    That's the line I'd question.




    There is one kid who took a year off before high school and trained in famous tennis academy



    Did some distance learning courses and SAT prep during that year



    Went back home the next year and resumed in the grade below his normal classmates



    He ended up at school of his choice playing tennis and parents said he was better prepared academically and stronger player




    Do you think that works for everybody? That is the exception, not the rule.




    Of course she does. I’m still still waiting for TigerMom to post something with any substance relating to Junior Golf or golf in general.




    Actually keko I started this thread, which seems to be quite popular and generating lots of discussion



    Ironically YOU are the one who has added nothing to this topic



    You are a very rude person
  • TigerMomTigerMom Posts: 222 ✭✭

    TigerMom wrote:

    leftyDH04 wrote:


    No real effect on academics?



    That's the line I'd question.




    There is one kid who took a year off before high school and trained in famous tennis academy



    Did some distance learning courses and SAT prep during that year



    Went back home the next year and resumed in the grade below his normal classmates



    He ended up at school of his choice playing tennis and parents said he was better prepared academically and stronger player




    Do you think that works for everybody? That is the exception, not the rule.




    It doesn’t need to work for everyone



    I am giving an example of someone who benefited both academically and athletically



    Taking a year off to focus on the main sport and shore up academic weaknesses (in this case, low SAT) can help a lot of kids who are dedicated student-athletes
13»
Sign In or Register to comment.