0 members (),
86
guests, and
12
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 146
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 146 |
Ah, but in high school, he'll be bigger and older than the other sophomores so he'll have that advantage, right? I've always thought red-shirting for athletics was a bit far-fetched. I know someone who did it with a son who had a December birthday (cut-off here is Sept 1) so that he would be the biggest kid in high school and play football and basketball. That made him, what, 1 year and 9 months older? Anyway, he ended up hating sports, much to his parents' dismay and excelled in theater and choir.
This study, though, disturbs me. It doesn't take into account so many aspects, such as IQ, challenge level, red-shirting.
I, too, am afraid it will be used against acceleration. Wish I could write a well-formed response to the author and ask her to address the issue with gifted kids.
On quantifying maturity: I think the Iowa Acceleration Scale asks about this. IIRC, we chose to err on the side of caution and put our son down as the lowest category of immature. He's a July birthday so most people here would have red-shirted him. In fact, he has one teacher who insists that he has been grade-skipped twice, not just once. I just nod my head and go on.
Okay, I just reread this and realized that I don't even make a point. I'm not sure what point I wanted to make. Sorry 'bout that!
Last edited by petunia; 11/20/12 03:57 PM. Reason: apologies for rambling!
What I am is good enough, if I would only be it openly. ~Carl Rogers
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
This is not the first such study. I researched a similar topic for work last year. Agreed. Much of what "school" consists of these days is dependent upon executive maturity and highly age-normed expectations (and, dare I say, even beyond age-appropriate expectations for a good portion of kids) of those skills. It's about whether or not kids can/will follow directions, do as they are told, and possess the self-control to NOT be disruptive. Drugging the kids who can't do those things is fairly clearly a matter, at least some of the time, of drugging kids who simply aren't READY to do them... yet. I've said for years (and experienced elementary educators have been saying it, as well) that it isn't kids that have changed-- it's what the system is doing to them (and expects of them).
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
To me, this study and others like it show that many teachers are quick to pathologize normal behavior. And, like ultramarina, I think redshirting makes things much worse. Bingo.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,694
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,694 |
Ironically enough this is bound to be waved in my face by my DDs teacher to indicate yet again just how deluded and abusive she thinks I am for medicating my grade skipped child (who wasn't disruptive, or interfering with anyone else, but most certainly does have ADHD and asks for her medication herself because she feels better and is able to function).
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640 Likes: 2
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640 Likes: 2 |
Drugging the kids who can't do those things is fairly clearly a matter, at least some of the time, of drugging kids who simply aren't READY to do them... yet.
I've said for years (and experienced elementary educators have been saying it, as well) that it isn't kids that have changed-- it's what the system is doing to them (and expects of them). A few doctors are drugging children to close the low income vs. high income achievement gap: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/h...-prescribed-pills-to-help-in-school.htmlAttention Disorder or Not, Pills to Help in School By ALAN SCHWARZ New York Times October 9, 2012 CANTON, Ga. — When Dr. Michael Anderson hears about his low-income patients struggling in elementary school, he usually gives them a taste of some powerful medicine: Adderall. he pills boost focus and impulse control in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Although A.D.H.D is the diagnosis Dr. Anderson makes, he calls the disorder “made up” and “an excuse” to prescribe the pills to treat what he considers the children’s true ill — poor academic performance in inadequate schools. “I don’t have a whole lot of choice,” said Dr. Anderson, a pediatrician for many poor families in Cherokee County, north of Atlanta. “We’ve decided as a society that it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment. So we have to modify the kid.” Dr. Anderson is one of the more outspoken proponents of an idea that is gaining interest among some physicians. They are prescribing stimulants to struggling students in schools starved of extra money — not to treat A.D.H.D., necessarily, but to boost their academic performance.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
Re: Redshirting for sports - It's true that children's recreational leagues usually go by birth date and not grade level, but depending on the sport, that tends to end by junior high.
Before then, kids are playing sports at recess/PE with their grade-level peers, and the older kids naturally excel. This tends to build their images as natural athletes, in the minds of their peers, their coaches, their parents, and themselves. This kind of mindset can then become a self-fulfilling prophecy... they perform better athletes because they believe in their abilities, because coaches give them more attention and opportunities, etc.
I'm not defending redshirting, merely demonstrating that there is a rational explanation for it. The obvious problem here is misplaced priorities.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
“I don’t have a whole lot of choice,” said Dr. Anderson, a pediatrician for many poor families in Cherokee County, north of Atlanta. “We’ve decided as a society that it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment. So we have to modify the kid.”
Dr. Anderson is one of the more outspoken proponents of an idea that is gaining interest among some physicians. They are prescribing stimulants to struggling students in schools starved of extra money — not to treat A.D.H.D., necessarily, but to boost their academic performance. In a way, I congratulate this doctor for finding a solution within his limited sphere of influence for a major societal problem. Also, I'd like to think that he's inadvertently shining a bright light on how allocating resources to schools based on test scores and the wealth of the local community is just cruel and evil.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 978
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 978 |
This is not the first such study. I researched a similar topic for work last year. Ditto. I've also heard about this in the past.
|
|
|
|
|