Like they said, the kids they do this for already have the nature and nurture going in their favor. They don't need it. I'm not saying "it's not fair". I guess if everyone in an area does it then six is the new five, well, they're just networking and working it out in their own community. I'm going to be immature and vote "yes", they're bucking standardization and carving an individualized educational community that works for them. The one lady that put her kid in on time, well, he's doing fine too.
The lady in Chicago who wanted to redshirt in her area neighborhood where it wasn't routine I sympathize with. If she was worried that he would start to have problems in fifth or sixth grade then she probably knew something about a family trait that wasn't obvious. She wanted the best fit for her kid, but they want to wait until there's a problem.
I'm trying to understand the bigger picture, how these choices cause inequity or inefficiency in the system but I can't see it unless a parent was insisting their kid stay in a class when they fit in another class better. I could see that being awkward. I don't see the bigger picture where one town that redshirts creates inequity if another town doesn't. The cut off dates and course of study are different anyway. One school's cut off is in August and another's in December. I missed U.S. Geography because one state taught it in fifth grade and one State taught it in six. I guess that's what the common core standards effort is about. I guess if they get up in arms against redshirting they'll make a common age initiative next.
I kind of want to go the opposite way, where communities have more creative liberties to make it a redshirting district, for example.
