"Red Shirt" Vent

[princessmom29]

20 min? If that's all it was I think my son would have done much better. Here (well, not in the district we're in now but where we were when he was 5) kindergarten is JUST LIKE 1st grade. So the day looked like: 8:30 until 10, lessons. 10-10:15 recess. 10:15-11:45 lessons. 11:45-12:15 lunch. 12:15-2 lessons. 2-2:15, recess. 2:15-3:35 lessons. Sure, some of the lessons were more hands-on than others, but most of the school day was seat work and even "free play" was with seated activities like coloring pages, lacing cards, and puzzles. I think there are plenty of perfectly normal 5yos who aren't ready to sit at a table for that much of the day, no matter how interesting the material is or how short each individual lesson is.

We're in an area with excellent parental support and involvement. This isn't a school system where the parents just don't care and kids have never seen a book before school, nor is it an area where many parents are overly competitive and looking for an edge. Its a plain old middle class community where parents read to their kids but still look forward to the start of school and the accompanying decrease in daycare bills. Few kids are "red-shirted" but a handful are held back in K each and every year (out of about 50 incoming each year). To me, that indicates a problem with the program/expectations.

Our schedule is very different. DD's K was full day. 8-10 in the calssroom. Circle time, phonics, handwriting practice, calendar math on the rug, all of which was 15-20 min lesson, activity, and then pencil to paper. 10 was snack, then a 30 min recess. bathroom break, then special class (a different one every day) at 11. 11:30 was lunch. another bathroom break, and then PE from 12:15-12:45. 1-2:30 was classroom time agian, reading groups and centers. This was seated play time either at a table or one the rug while the teacher worked with small reading groups. 2:30 is pack up clean up and move to carpool. 1st grade is very similar, but no centers. Very few are ever held back, except at parent request.

 

[princessmom29]

Actually, MOST teachers on these threads I've read over the years have concurred with waiting instead of rushing a child into K.

It's not an either or, waiting or rushing. Sending a child on time is not "rushing" them. I am saying what most teachers are afraid to, because of the backlash from parents. Teacher to teacher, the opinion is QUITE different.

 

[princessmom29]

Lol, agendas are funny. Sometimes they stop us from seeing anything other than our point. Education involves family and the school. At least good education. But when one is looking at readiness, the school has had minimal involvement with the child. Luckily our assessors listen.

but waht if what you are hearing is contrary to all the evidence you are seeing. Which do you believe??

 

[bwilcox]

It's not an either or, waiting or rushing. Sending a child on time is not "rushing" them. I am saying what most teachers are afraid to, because of the backlash from parents. Teacher to teacher, the opinion is QUITE different.

I don't understand why, as a high school teacher, you feel you have the right to speak for K teachers. I have taught with about 10 different K teachers, and my mom and MIL have both taught K for 20+ years. I have heard from ALL of them about students in their class who were just not ready and they wish they would have waited a year to start.
You say 5 year olds are ready to sit still for a 20 minute lesson. What makes 5 the magic number? Obviously, 2 year olds aren't expected to be able to sit still for a 20 minute lesson. What about 3 year olds? 4? What automatically happens at 5 that makes a child suddenly ready? All children are different, and they develop and mature at different speeds. Age is just a number. The age that one child is ready for K is not necessarily the age that is right for another child. EVERY kindergarten teacher I have ever spoken with (and I actually taught elementary) would agree with that statement.

 

[brymolmom]

Ready...Not ready....this isn't really a red shirt discussion any longer. Which is fine - all discussion is good. But true red shirting in MOST cases are not people with little parental involvement who might not grasp the concepts....it is not the parents who are struggling to get their child 'up to par' due to delays and difficulties the child is experiencing. Redshirting is almost all the time in affluent areas and it is about a parent just having a 'feeling ' (made up or just expressed as a reason to hold back without specifying anything specific) that the child is not ready - which, due to the fact that this child's parent HAS been involved and that child likely was already in a good preschool program - it is likely not the case. The redshirted child is, in most cases, ready - but the parent doesn't want them to be the youngest....wants them to be more mature....wants to give them an edge...wants them to be bigger for sports. This is the underlying problem.

 

[princessmom29]

I don't understand why, as a high school teacher, you feel you have the right to speak for K teachers. I have taught with about 10 different K teachers, and my mom and MIL have both taught K for 20+ years. I have heard from ALL of them about students in their class who were just not ready and they wish they would have waited a year to start.
You say 5 year olds are ready to sit still for a 20 minute lesson. What makes 5 the magic number? Obviously, 2 year olds aren't expected to be able to sit still for a 20 minute lesson. What about 3 year olds? 4? What automatically happens at 5 that makes a child suddenly ready? All children are different, and they develop and mature at different speeds. Age is just a number. The age that one child is ready for K is not necessarily the age that is right for another child. EVERY kindergarten teacher I have ever spoken with (and I actually taught elementary) would agree with that statement.

My sister was a K teacher and is now the director of our system's early intervention preschool program, so yes I know LOTS of K teachers, and most of them don't say that the wished the kids who struggled had waited a year, but that they wish they could get some support from home to get that child caught up. One of 2 things happens. the parents don't care, or are convinvced thier child was "not ready." Yes, absolutely wvery child is different and children have different attention spans at different ages, but I would expect that almost every normal five year old should be able to handle a 20 min lesson. That is certianly well within the normal range for attention span at bthat age. A child who cannot do that is considered outside of the normal realm, for example, on an attention defecit evaluation.

Ready...Not ready....this isn't really a red shirt discussion any longer. Which is fine - all discussion is good. But true red shirting in MOST cases are not people with little parental involvement who might not grasp the concepts....it is not the parents who are struggling to get their child 'up to par' due to delays and difficulties the child is experiencing. Redshirting is almost all the time in affluent areas and it is about a parent just having a 'feeling ' (made up or just expressed as a reason to hold back without specifying anything specific) that the child is not ready - which, due to the fact that this child's parent HAS been involved and that child likely was already in a good preschool program - it is likely not the case. The redshirted child is, in most cases, ready - but the parent doesn't want them to be the youngest....wants them to be more mature....wants to give them an edge...wants them to be bigger for sports. This is the underlying problem.

You are correct here, and that is the point I was trying to make. There is seldom a real reason to redshirt a child. They ARE ready, but the parents aren't. The kids pick up on that attitude, and when they are sent to school and parents still aren't ready, it causes problems in the classroom.

 

[GinnyEmma]

In your opinion. You are randomly saying they are ready using the w.a.g. reasoning. It is far easier to judge that way, isn't it?

 

[Leajess99]

To the OP: maybe she just came up with that "fib" b/c she is embarrassed. I highly doubt she would make him repeat a grade just b/c "he is her baby" Chances are the school held him back. My son was held back in 1st grade. He has a late February birthday so he went to K when he was 5.5 years old. The teachers, the principal & us parents had numerous talks about it and in the end they recommended it was best for my son. So yes, he is a year older, maybe taller and plays sports with the kids that are younger. It is not his fault. He is now in 5th grade and an honor roll student! Maybe the kid is just tall?

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

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

 

[Leajess99]

Kids YOU KNOW. How many children from homes that don't value education do you know?? I don't imagine they run in the same social ciricles. The data show, and least in our district, that the majority of children who struggle come from poverty level homes with no emphasis placed on education. In our area Head Start is huge for these families. A lot of head start clients WANT their childern retained in head start another year rather than sent to K because they get to keep all of the financial assistance that goes along with having a child in head start. They get extra food stamp help, utility assitance, a clothing allowance for the kids, ect. There is not interest in teadching thier kids and moving them ahead becuase there is no financial gain in it.

This is the same as here. The schools in the lower economic areas are the ones struggling the most. When my older 2 were in the same elementary school in the next town over (same district), the school had yet again failed their testing requirements and we were notified that we could send the kids to another school. I chose to leave the kids were they were because the oldest one was a strong tester and the school needed kids like him. He scored Distinguished in all areas but writing and he was proficient there. We did end up moving to another school in which the socioeconomic status is mixed levels and you understand why most of the ones struggling are the same ones being sent home with backpacks full of food for the long breaks. Many of those parents do not have the time or want to be bothered helping their kids. My youngest is now in a different school that is all about the kids and smaller (enrollment wise) than the last school.

No, not ALL kids that struggle come from the poorer families but a vast majority do and that is why it is even sadder. Our school district implemented a new program for girls to help empower them. The girls chosen for the program come from the poorer families and it is helping some of these kids.

 

[Leajess99]

So if Kids aren't learning, it's ALL the parents fault, not the teachers or the schools or the fact that kids are being pushed before their ready.

Nice agenda you have there.

My district is quite wealthy. The kids who are struggling with reading have been read plenty of books.

And volunteering in my son's K classroom I quickly saw the boys were not geared for the "sit down shut up" style of teaching most teachers -- they themselves female -- want at inappropriate ages. It wasn't just my child with his learning challenges -- it was almost every boy in the classroom.

It is not all the parent's fault but IF the parent is not involved in the child's education than yes it is their fault as well. A teacher can only do so much. How do you think a teacher is going to get the parent to help if the parent does NOT show for parent teacher conferences or care that the child is not doing their homework or is being disruptive, etc?? A teacher does not just have 1 or 2 students but a parent has only 1 or 2 in that grade or class. I have 3 kids and I am highly involved in their education and always have been. My kids have friends whose parents do not care about their education. If their child is struggling that it is the school's problem. They will not spend extra money for tutoring nor will they help them try to learn the stuff. My 12 year old has offered to help friends learn Math. She has been frustrated through the years as she tries to help friends and then sees they are not interested in it. She asked one of her friends why her mom did not help her and the friend's response was that the mom was too busy. How can you be too busy to help your child??

If you have an issue with a teacher and their "teaching style" than why not address the teacher or the principal?? I do not understand this. My kids have NEVER had teachers that have a "sit down and shut up" type of teaching in elementary. I have been a teacher's aid as well as a parent volunteer in many schools my kids have been in and have never seen this.

I am wondering why the US has such issues when other countries send their kids to school earlier and do not seem to have such issues.

 

[princessmom29]

In your opinion. You are randomly saying they are ready using the w.a.g. reasoning. It is far easier to judge that way, isn't it?

Iti s nOT random. It is research based. Everything I have read o nthe subjects suggest that the "normal" age for reading readiness is 5. Not 6 or 7. The normal attention span of a 5 year old is at least 20 min. "normal" is defined as within one standard deviation, or 95% confidence level. So 95% of 5 year olds can be expected to be ready to learn to read and sit for a 20 min lesson. I think what 95% of children are ready to do is a good place to set the bar for K. I don't see why it wouldn't be?? I am not "judging" anyone. I am simply saying that if the research says 95% of 5 year olds shoudl be ready, why are 25% or more, depending on the community, being redshirted? They don't all need to be. Obviously what the parents think is "not ready" is not completely accurate.

 

[Colleen27]

Iti s nOT random. It is research based. Everything I have read o nthe subjects suggest that the "normal" age for reading readiness is 5. Not 6 or 7. The normal attention span of a 5 year old is at least 20 min. "normal" is defined as within one standard deviation, or 95% confidence level. So 95% of 5 year olds can be expected to be ready to learn to read and sit for a 20 min lesson. I think what 95% of children are ready to do is a good place to set the bar for K. I don't see why it wouldn't be?? I am not "judging" anyone. I am simply saying that if the research says 95% of 5 year olds shoudl be ready, why are 25% or more, depending on the community, being redshirted? They don't all need to be. Obviously what the parents think is "not ready" is not completely accurate.

One standard deviation is about 68% of the population, not 95%. That I believe - that roughly 70% of kids are ready for kindergarten at the traditional age. And of course within that 30% that aren't, there are some diagnosable disorders but there are also those who are simply late bloomers.

Are 25% of kids really being "red-shirted"? I'd love to see some broad-based data on that. My experience would put that number much, much lower - maybe 10%, if that.

 

[Mickey Fliers]

You are correct here, and that is the point I was trying to make. There is seldom a real reason to redshirt a child. They ARE ready, but the parents aren't. The kids pick up on that attitude, and when they are sent to school and parents still aren't ready, it causes problems in the classroom.

Then you clearly haven't been reading. There was absolutely a reason for us to "red shirt" our oldest son. We knew we would be moving between several states and the cut-off would never remain constant. He was always "ready", but we chose to err on the side of caution.

He is now in the 7th grade and just turned 13. Perfect.

 

[jodifla]

Iti s nOT random. It is research based. Everything I have read o nthe subjects suggest that the "normal" age for reading readiness is 5. Not 6 or 7. The normal attention span of a 5 year old is at least 20 min. "normal" is defined as within one standard deviation, or 95% confidence level. So 95% of 5 year olds can be expected to be ready to learn to read and sit for a 20 min lesson. I think what 95% of children are ready to do is a good place to set the bar for K. I don't see why it wouldn't be?? I am not "judging" anyone. I am simply saying that if the research says 95% of 5 year olds shoudl be ready, why are 25% or more, depending on the community, being redshirted? They don't all need to be. Obviously what the parents think is "not ready" is not completely accurate.

Your "research" is highly faulty, and it's too bad you've based your whole philosophy on it.

And what about all those 4 YEAR OLDS in K now!!! They aren't ready for your 20 minute lessons.

But your mind is made up, and you won't listen to reason. And I have no idea why teachers would come on --anonymously -- and tell us they recommend parents wait if their child is on the bubble.

 

[GinnyEmma]

So, is there a link to the research? I'd like to read it.

In that note, is the literacy rate higher now that they have started teaching reading significantly earlier than they did in the seventies? I'm not thinking so. I believe that it is decreasing.

You are making judgments regarding the motivation of others. Unless someone has looked you in the eye and said something you don't know why a choice was made. And then they could still be lying to you. Their kid might still be wetting his pants rather than them wanting him to be bigger on the football team. Unless you live in a very few radical towns, few people give a rats buttend about football when their kid is five. Same goes for academics. Few people are so into the perfect school record outside some areas of the country. I've never met anyone who has made a choice for such stupid reasons. I have been involved with kids from early intervention through college for 25 years. So I admit that a portion of my opinion is objective in nature. I'm dealing with the kids of the kids that I have worked with, and they are the grands of the kids I grew up with.

 

[MSSANDRA]

For those of you that follow these "red shirt" threads you know I am a supporter of giving your children the gift of another year and in almost 25 years as a preschool director/teacher, I have never had a parent regret holding a child back before they started school.

On the elementary retention topic, I deal closely with the kindergarten teachers of our local school. Reality is that almost 40% of kindergarten need retention but it takes till about 4th grade to retain that many kids as it just is impossible to hold them all back in kindergarten. Our school agrees unless there is a special need, they prefer to see kids retained BEFORE kindergarten. The idea grade to retain after that is 1st instead of kindergarten but again you can not hold that many kids back in one year.
They prefer that special needs kids start as early as possible to gain access to special services.

Just another view.

 

[princessmom29]

One standard deviation is about 68% of the population, not 95%. That I believe - that roughly 70% of kids are ready for kindergarten at the traditional age. And of course within that 30% that aren't, there are some diagnosable disorders but there are also those who are simply late bloomers.

Are 25% of kids really being "red-shirted"? I'd love to see some broad-based data on that. My experience would put that number much, much lower - maybe 10%, if that.

I said in SOME places 25% or more are being redshirted. In private schools in our area the numbers range for 20% to 35% red shirted children in K. Public schools are closer to 10%-15%. At least the last couple of years. I looked at the age breakdowns by grade when looking for a school for DD.

The size of a standard deviation depends on the size of the sample used to gather the data, and the spread within the data gathered. One standard deviation in x study will have a different confidence interval than in y study. It is never a set percentage, it depends on the data. so no one standard deviation is not automatically 68%. The larger the study, and the narrower the spread within the data, the smaller the standard deviation.

 

[princessmom29]

For those of you that follow these "red shirt" threads you know I am a supporter of giving your children the gift of another year and in almost 25 years as a preschool director/teacher, I have never had a parent regret holding a child back before they started school.

On the elementary retention topic, I deal closely with the kindergarten teachers of our local school. Reality is that almost 40% of kindergarten need retention but it takes till about 4th grade to retain that many kids as it just is impossible to hold them all back in kindergarten. Our school agrees unless there is a special need, they prefer to see kids retained BEFORE kindergarten. The idea grade to retain after that is 1st instead of kindergarten but again you can not hold that many kids back in one year.
They prefer that special needs kids start as early as possible to gain access to special services.

Just another view.

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

 

[princessmom29]

So, is there a link to the research? I'd like to read it.

In that note, is the literacy rate higher now that they have started teaching reading significantly earlier than they did in the seventies? I'm not thinking so. I believe that it is decreasing.

You are making judgments regarding the motivation of others. Unless someone has looked you in the eye and said something you don't know why a choice was made. And then they could still be lying to you. Their kid might still be wetting his pants rather than them wanting him to be bigger on the football team. Unless you live in a very few radical towns, few people give a rats buttend about football when their kid is five. Same goes for academics. Few people are so into the perfect school record outside some areas of the country. I've never met anyone who has made a choice for such stupid reasons. I have been involved with kids from early intervention through college for 25 years. So I admit that a portion of my opinion is objective in nature. I'm dealing with the kids of the kids that I have worked with, and they are the grands of the kids I grew up with.

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

 

[princessmom29]

Then you clearly haven't been reading. There was absolutely a reason for us to "red shirt" our oldest son. We knew we would be moving between several states and the cut-off would never remain constant. He was always "ready", but we chose to err on the side of caution.

He is now in the 7th grade and just turned 13. Perfect.

I said seldom, not never.