"Second, redshirting is an arms race. Horowitz observed, "Some people think redshirting will give their kids an academic edge." Conversely, as redshirting becomes more popular, parents can be concerned that if they don't redshirt their children, their offspring will be out-competed for the rest of their school careers by older classmates who did redshirt."
I've read about this in many places and teachers have commented about this. A parent will complain little Johnny is bored and when teacher looks at Johnny's birthdate, he should be in 1st and not K. I spoke with a mom, whom from what she said, he was at the very least high avg if not brighter. Well, she kept him out of K b/c of his short stature. Another kid was already reading and doing simple math, parent planned to hold the kid back b/c of a November birthday (cutoff is Dec) not considering whether emotionally, psychologically, and academically the child was ready.
Redshirting gave us trouble. We thought about early K for DS7, but he's already one of the youngest for his grade (May birthday) and people around here redshirt boys like mad. Early admission would have put him almost 2 years younger than many of the other boys in his class. So we didn't try.
I don't know if it would have helped us to avoid the trouble we had when he finally hit 1st grade, but I think it would have been nice to feel like we had the option.
Red-shirting is very, very common in our small competitive community. When we moved in to our house, the first conversation that we had with our next-door neighbor (whose twin sons have nearly the same birthday as our DS) was if we were planning to red-shirt our son or not. He was only one year old at the time!!
I was also at the pool one day and struck up a conversation with a dad there. He was going on and on about how he was fighting with the school about his third grade son. Apparently the boy was "ranked" #3 in his class, and the father was miffed about it. (I have never heard of our schools "ranking" anyone!) He was fighting with the school to have his kid repeat third grade so that he could be #1 next year!! The school was smart enough to refuse. The boy was very bright and was making excellent progress. Can you imagine such a parent?
On the other hand, you would think that a community which emphasizes competitive academics would be better about providing services for advanced kids. But no! All the parents want is the "label" that their son or daughter is "gifted". It is nothing more than a sport's trophy to them. (hence the red-shirting analogy)
I think this is a hard situation. Just knowing the all day kindergarten my son went through (and our district only has all day kindergarten), it is almost 2 years in a row of first grade and I can see why some parents make that choice when faced with this type of kindergarten. IMHO, kids are shamed if they are unable to focus all day which isn't a great situation. Especially for sensitive kids.
So my son has an October birthday (we have sept 1 cutoff). He is old for grade. I never considered sending him early. I didn't know he was very GT for one. But even now, I couldn't have imagined him being ok in the class he was in a year earlier and doing well behaviorally. Of course now we're going to home school rather than go onto a 2nd grade. And it would have been better to stop after K! A grade skip now would be too little too late. No matter what, he's not a great fit for a standard elementary school environment.
I will say there is a boy in his grade that has an APRIL birthday and he is a 2nd child. He acts out all the time and he is reading a couple grade levels ahead. And he's big. This guy should have definitely not been held back. I know another boy with a July birthday in my DS's class who has highly intelligent (both teach at the college level) and involved parents struggling to read, so for him it was the right choice.
I just wish our public kindergartens weren't so focused on NCLB and achievement, or maybe divided kindergartens out based on age, or temperament, or something.
ebeth, we're in much the same type of community. For the most part, though, parents red-shirt kids around here for sports - chance to make the varsity soccer team in high school and get that college scholarship. So crazy! And then the kids specialize in their sport so early that there's a fair chance they suffer a career-ending injury as a teen, or just plain old burnout. In a way, it's good that college admissions have gotten so out of hand - I realize that the world has changed, we have little control, and I'd much rather DS be happy. I don't feel the pressure other parents feel around here with an 8 year old worrying about getting into college.
I was also at the pool one day and struck up a conversation with a dad there. He was going on and on about how he was fighting with the school about his third grade son. Apparently the boy was "ranked" #3 in his class, and the father was miffed about it. (I have never heard of our schools "ranking" anyone!) He was fighting with the school to have his kid repeat third grade so that he could be #1 next year!! The school was smart enough to refuse. The boy was very bright and was making excellent progress. Can you imagine such a parent?
Wow! That is shocking. I'm not sure which is worse - the insane dad or the school ranking 3rd graders? The funny thing is if he would have been allowed to repeat the poor kid probably would have started underachieving. He clearly "gets" all the material.
Yes, I think sports is the primary reason for redshirting in our area, too. Well, maybe that and so that the boys are more mature and better able to sit still.
I'd prefer the schools just let the kids move around more, but whatever...
I think there is a lot of academic red-shirting around here. Not so much to make sure the child is the top of the list, but for fear the child will end up on the bottom of the list.
Red-shirting is very, very common in our small competitive community. When we moved in to our house, the first conversation that we had with our next-door neighbor (whose twin sons have nearly the same birthday as our DS) was if we were planning to red-shirt our son or not. He was only one year old at the time!!
I was told when I was pregnant with Pud, due in August, that if it were a boy, I just HAD to hold him back on NOT on any condition put him in K at 5. I remember thinking, gosh, let's let the child be born before we start categorizing him/her.
However, I will say that with some boys with summer birthdays, I can see why parents red-shirt them. Some of these boys don't have the maturity or emotional readiness to sit through full-day K at barely 5. I'm sure that also applies to girls, but I've known more boys that way than girls. A good option for us was a part-time, church K. (Granted, Pud was doing 2nd grade work at the time but he loved it and the teachers loved him, so it was a good fit, socially). Not quite half the kids went on to first and the rest repeated K in public school for many reasons.
Oh and for the record, we have plenty of red shirting around here. Not always for good reasons. I don't know anyone personally who does it for sports, but I'm sure they're out there. Everyone I know whose done it, has done it for boy squirrelly issues.
I just had a conversation with a parent last week at my son's piano camp. She had a boy the same age as DS7 and seemed very excited and anxious about ivy league schools already. And DS blew her away with his ability. Her son is bright, but not as scary as DS7. Ugh - I don't need that kind of stress or pressure in my life! I'll cross those bridges as we approach them.
I personally think that the insane dad must have pushed and pushed the teacher to see if his kid was number one in the class. If the #3 actually came from the school, he must have had to drag it out of them. I don't think the school would have ranked them. Or maybe the dad was just estimating the #3 by pumping the other parents for report card info.
But red-shirting makes my life so much harder when my DS has accelerated a year. He was seven all of last year in third grade... most of the other boys in the class were turning 10.
One of the other moms looked at me and said, "You think that the (red-shirting) parents would stop and think for a moment. Who wants their kid driving during freshman year?" I agree. Most boys in 9th grade do not have the emotional/maturity development to be driving a car!
I can understand the squirmy, summer-birthday, boy-thing. That sentence describes my DS to a tee. We were fortunate to only have half-day K, or we would have been in trouble. There was no way he could sit still for full-day K. (He had enough trouble with half-day K!!)
But isn't that just an indication that the school structure is a problem? What are you supposed to do with squirmy little 5 year old boys who are ready for 2nd grade material?? Holding them back can't be the best solution?
My dd8 is an April birthday. Our cutoff is December, so she ended up being one of the older students in her class. Her experience in 1st grade could not have been better (she did not attend K). She was mature, confident and happy. Some of the kids on the younger side struggled a bit. I think your experience at school in your earlier years shapes the rest of your school years.
She was grade skipped for next year, so she will now be one of the younger kids in her class. I guess I will just have to wait and see how this works out.
I can understand the squirmy, summer-birthday, boy-thing. That sentence describes my DS to a tee. We were fortunate to only have half-day K, or we would have been in trouble. There was no way he could sit still for full-day K. (He had enough trouble with half-day K!!)
But isn't that just an indication that the school structure is a problem? What are you supposed to do with squirmy little 5 year old boys who are ready for 2nd grade material?? Holding them back can't be the best solution?
Yup. This was my point, too. If boys can't do what's required for school, then maybe the problem is with school!
5- and 6yo kids can learn stuff without sitting all day. So do that!
Some of the kids on the younger side struggled a bit.
I agree Bianca. Over half of the summer birthday kids that started with DS in K were held back a year and repeated K. (The next-door neighbors twins included) So it does depend on the particular kid. I just think the school should be the one to decide these things, based on the particular child, and not the parent who is trying to relive the glory days of their youth through their child.
One of the mom's around here who is holding back her very bright DD gave reasons as "she's a little too bossy" and mom also didn't want to have DD be just one grade behind DS. I don't understand the one grade apart argument. What's that all about? I could see a problem if they were in the same grade, but huh?
I think your experience at school in your earlier years shapes the rest of your school years.
That's exactly my fear.
My first grade teacher always said a child can have one bad year in elementary; bad teacher, behaviourial problems, etc.; but it better not be first grade because that sets the tone for the rest of the school years. My first grade teacher is now 97, and kindergarten was not in place at the school I started. That thought has been around a long time.
My first grade teacher always said a child can have one bad year in elementary; bad teacher, behaviourial problems, etc.; but it better not be first grade because that sets the tone for the rest of the school years.
We're talking bad 3 yr. old preschool, not great 4 yr. old preschool, bad K, bad 1st, bad 2nd. Hopefully, that thought has been replaced by more current thinking...
Here's hoping a great 3rd grade HSing will help create some resiliency and the trend will be reversed.
I can see both sides of it with DS.... On the one hand it would have been completely ridiculous on the academic side to put him in K or 1 at the "appropriate" time, and nevermind a year later (birthday just making the cutoff). But on the other hand, I don't think he would have enjoyed K or 1 early or on time either. It's not that he's immature, really, but definitely introverted and likes his personal space. Lots of noise and groups of kids and pushing and shoving isn't really his cup of tea.... and the big joke around here when he would have gone to K was that he would have lasted about 2 hours before yelling "OKAY everyone just take two BIG steps that way!"
Up until maybe last year (barely 8) he did best with other kids in small groups and in short periods of time (1-3 hours). And he did best in especially well-controlled situations -- orderly, predictable, quiet, etc. Add to it that until last year his abilities were WAAAAAAY variable (great in math, not so great in writing, etc.) -- I can kind of see in him the "leveling out in third grade" effect, but not in comparison to other kids, just in his own stride. He is much more "level" himself now (just not very "third grade" LOL). And I think he'd be fine in school now.
So I guess what I'm saying is I would hate to have had to make a choice at 5. There wasn't really a good one for him in either direction, and even if we found something that worked then, I don't think it would be the same something that would work now. What I wish is that the whole system were more flexible, especially in the early years, and that we didn't have to pick a single grade or class that fit for everything... which for us just comes back to homeschooling.
I have a general problem with the length of the school day in the US. It's ridiculous that kids in K and elementary grades are expected to be at school for almost as long as high school kids. This makes no sense to me at all.
There is lots of red-shirting around here as well. I saw some kids mature enormously during the year they were kept back, but I also saw others learn so much that they will be extremely bored when they get to K. I think the decision has to be done on individual basis. DS5 is one of the youngest kids in his grade, not that it would matter anymore now.
The story about the father and his "only" 3rd in the class son is unbelievable. Poor kid.
Sometimes I think that situations in which a child would really benefit from redshirting are few and far between. If the typical K class is supposedly taught to the middle 90% of the curve, there's only 5% on the bottom end, just like on the top, i.e., just a few kids. Then again, the issue is really not core IQ levels but rate of development. One tricky aspect, as we all know, is that GT kids tend to be asyncronous, just one of the many reasons a GT kid might not fit well in a typical K classroom. I agree that the issue may be more with the structure of the school environment than with the kid. I don't remember anyone talking about redshirting when we were kids - it was around, as I'll discuss below, but the kids who were a different age for grade were few and far between.
My mother recently told me they had considered redshirting my brother, who was short with an Oct. birthday. But they didn't - someone tested him and said it would be a crime to make him wait. He didn't achieve a more normal height until the end of high school, so waiting to start K wouldn't have helped him anyway. My mom's point was that although it was tough for him to be the shortest boy for so many years, he developed other personality traits in ways he might not have but for his small stature, and that these traits are important for his current career (kinda like everyone has their cross to bear, but with a positive spin).
Like my brother, I was often the shortest in my class, but now he's about 10" taller than me LOL. Obviously it's different to be short and female, but throughout my life I usually have preferred that people underestimate me. I have always felt that conferred an edge, in life in general (from meeting random guys in bars to negotiating with opposing counsel). I don't think there's anything wrong with being the youngest in a class in that regard, when the intellectual background is present.
Originally Posted by kimck
I know another boy with a July birthday in my DS's class who has highly intelligent (both teach at the college level) and involved parents struggling to read, so for him it was the right choice.
With this type of situation, there's also the possibility of an LD scenario, and lack of reading ability in K, or prior to K, does not necessarily speak to intelligence (my DD7 is a case in point). I'd hate to have a smart kid held back due to an LD, and end up stuck that way, a grade back, for twelve years. I guess in that sense I see similarities between redshirting and grade retention - I vaguely recall that research shows retention not to be very effective because it usually doesn't address the core cause of problems. Sometimes another year of development might do the trick, but it's got to be hard to predict that ahead of time.
The other shame about redshirting is that school administration doesn't seem to bat an eye at these kids being different age for grade, and yet gives GT parents such a hard time about acceleration.
I should mention (duh) my DS5, who probably would do poorly in a traditional K class, has trouble with sound-letter association (speech delay doesn't help), and fine motor problems, is a visual-spatial learner with auditory-sequential weaknesses, in addition to being very introverted (has basically no buddies except for his twin brother. His twin brother has several buddies). Also, he's quite small for his age. On the surface he'd seem like a classic case for redshirting, if it weren't for the fact that he's a grade level and a half, or more, ahead in math.
We have, temporarily at least, solved the problem that a traditional school structure wouldn't work for him - he's in a montessori school with a young upstart teacher who gets him and who is very flexible and open to new ideas, and he's doing great. (He has the same teacher/classroom for K as he had for preschool - 3 grade levels in each class. But the K is full day, whereas the preschool was half-day) He starts K in 11 days...
I've done the same sort of thing, snowgirl. Never underestimate the power of a petite, smart woman! Dynamite comes in small packages. <evil grin>
I've even been known to play dumb in order to lure people into a Socratic dialogue. Makes 'em nuts when they realize they've been had, sunk by their own logic (or lack thereof)!
I've even been known to play dumb in order to lure people into a Socratic dialogue. Makes 'em nuts when they realize they've been had, sunk by their own logic (or lack thereof)!
I have a very gifted friend who used to play dumb when she met guys (many years later, she's married to an intellectual equal. She's kinda high maintenance in that way so it's a good thing lol).
Another way to look at the redshirting issue: what man (since it's typically boys) would want to be in the same position in their career as they are now but be a year older than they are now?? (maybe even worse for a woman?) I don't know about everyone else, but I'm old enough already
I never played dumb with guys. If they wanted dumb, they didn't want me. It would have been a waste of time. I'm glad your friend found an equal, snowgirl!
I only played dumb someone with who wouldn't listen to reason, in order to snare him/her in my web of logic. :p
Here in the uk children start reception in the september when they are four. My ds is five at the beginning of september and will be the eldest child in his class.
Some of the children in his class have only just turned four. It seems that children here start school a year earlier. I have never heard of red shirting. Do you have the same opportunity to get a child in early?
I tried to get my son in early for last year, but to no avail. It is virtually unheard of.
Redshirting is very popular at our school. At age 5, in Kindergarten, my son with a May birthday was the second youngest in the class with boys who were much bigger and older. Some of the older boys were bullies. My son's most vivid memory of Kindergarten is when two of these older, bigger boys challenged him to a fight on the playground. He said that luckily he was wearing a watch and knew that the bell was about to ring so instead of looking for the teacher, he put his fists up like he was ready to fight, but didn't have to defend himself because the bell did ring in time for him to avoid a fight. The attitude here is that boys will be boys and teachers seem to ignore some of the problems. I didn't think it was fair that so many boys were held back a year and that my son, in addition to an inappropriate education had to worry about dealing with these older boys on the playground.
It isn't an academic edge that most of the people here hold their kids back for--it is sports. The older, bigger boys are better at football against the schools who do not redshirt.
It isn't an academic edge that most of the people here hold their kids back for--it is sports. The older, bigger boys are better at football against the schools who do not redshirt.
Originally Posted by incogneato
No, here in the US we are only allowed to hold our children back, not allow them to advance forward!
This is where the "logic" of the edumacators breaks down:
Q: Little Johnny, age 5, can read at a 3rd grade level and do multiplication problems with re-numbering. Could we maybe let him skip K and go to 1st grade? Here is the evidence showing he can do this stuff.
A: IMPOSSIBLE! His social development will be negatively impacted by the lack of age-peer interactions!!
AND
Q: Little Jimmy, age 5, will attend K when he's 6 so he can still play HS football when he's 19. Is that okay?
A: Of course!
Okay, so this post is rather, emm, biting, but seriously...what is the official reason for not worrying about age-peer interactions when a 6-year-old is thrown in with a bunch of younger kids??
It isn't an academic edge that most of the people here hold their kids back for--it is sports. The older, bigger boys are better at football against the schools who do not redshirt.
That's the primary reason. I've seen it done.
The flip side of it is that most of these redshirted "football stars" end up mentally stunted when they graduate. Most don't have any unusual athletic talent anyway.
Today I came across an interesting article against redshirting posted on another board, http://naecs.crc.uiuc.edu/position/trends2000.html , "A position statement developed by National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education". There a few nuggets here and there that some of you may be interested in.
Originally Posted by
The specific entry date is irrelevant and recent legislative action in several states to raise the entry age will not accomplish what is intended. The quality and appropriateness of the kindergarten curriculum should be the focus of the reform.
Originally Posted by
Belief in the pure maturational viewpoint underlies many of the deleterious practices described in this paper. The adult belief that children unfold on an immutable timetable, however appealing, cannot be over-generalized to intellectual, social, linguistic, and emotional development. A responsive, success-oriented kindergarten curriculum and a well-trained teacher are bound to have a powerful effect on young children's learning. Children come to school as competent, naturally motivated learners. One of the school's critical responsibilities is to ensure that these characteristics are maintained and strengthened, not destroyed.
The issue is not whether to keep children with age-mates. (Heterogeneous multiage grouping can stimulate and support children's development.) It is whether we can continue to uphold practices and program predicated on failure. Failure by any name does not foster success for any students.
Just a little food for thought from yet another perspective. :-)
We live in Florida where the cutoff is September 1st. Our DS7 has a late November birthday, so he started K when he was 5 going on 6, as per the Florida state requirements. He is now in second grade and not only highly gifted, but also in the 99th percentile on the growth charts and already a skilled golfer. He's a very happy and easy going child. It's absolutely amazing how many people judge us that we have somehow done something wrong by placing him in the grade REQUIRED by our state. Our midwest friends and family (we're from Michigan where the cutoff is December 1), especially, assume that we've "held him back" for sports which is offensive and ridiculous. He's simply in the grade he's supposed to be in...and we have found a school staffed with teachers who appreciate and foster his gifts. Not to mention that we provide him with plenty of outside stimulation to feed his never ending curiosity and need to know. And, yes, he's tall and, yes, he plays sports. So what? Can't a child be both??? Can't a parent take BOTH things into consideration? It's truly amazing how many people assume he must not be bright because he is SO BIG and he's had early success at sports! Especially people with other gifted children. Ugh.
And (gasp!) so what if sports are some families priority...not everyone is academically gifted...perhaps, for some children, sports are their ticket to personal growth and fulfillment and college...who knows? We're all dealing with exceptionally bright children. Some parents are dealing with exceptionally coordinated and athletic children. It is possible to be a gifted athlete.
And, finally (I promise), I have an October birthday, so I started K at age 4 and went to college at age 17 and law school at 21. It worked well for me, but as a parent, I would not want my child away at college that early in today's campus climate. Our DD (21), who has a June birthday, is currently a senior in college and is among the youngest in her class. Back when she was in second grade the school wanted to grade skip her to fourth. We declined and are glad that we did. She certainly could have handled the material academically, but the social issues (may have been) overwhelming. I would not have wanted her living on campus at 16...and I wouldn't want her to have to live at home and miss out on the "right of passage" that is dorm life. ;-) Just MY concerns and MY choices...Who knows...just would have traded one set of concerns (academic) for the other (social.)
The true bottom line is...who cares what other families choose to do? We all need to make the BEST choice for OUR children and try not to judge those that make different choices. I truly believe that MOST people are trying to do the BEST for THEIR family...and who is to say that my choice is better? I can only hope it is the best one for my child. So, go ahead and "red shirt" for sports or "accelerate" for academics! If it is a good fit for your child, go for it! Be glad that we're not all the same and that we actually have so many choices to meet our varied needs!
I'm sorry you are running into folks who think that a child who is good at sports can't be gifted. I appologize on their behalf.
But the sad fact is that at many schools the older kids pick on the younger kids, and larger kids pick on the smaller kids. Until that is handled in a way that helps everyone grow, there will be resentment and amazement on all sides.
I think you are correct that if we adults set a better example of supporting each other's parenting, then maybe we will be one step closer to making school a more supportive place for our kids.
Just a little food for thought from yet another perspective. :-)
We live in Florida where the cutoff is September 1st. Our DS7 has a late November birthday, so he started K when he was 5 going on 6, as per the Florida state requirements. He is now in second grade and not only highly gifted, but also in the 99th percentile on the growth charts and already a skilled golfer. He's a very happy and easy going child. It's absolutely amazing how many people judge us that we have somehow done something wrong by placing him in the grade REQUIRED by our state. Our midwest friends and family (we're from Michigan where the cutoff is December 1), especially, assume that we've "held him back" for sports which is offensive and ridiculous. He's simply in the grade he's supposed to be in...and we have found a school staffed with teachers who appreciate and foster his gifts. Not to mention that we provide him with plenty of outside stimulation to feed his never ending curiosity and need to know. And, yes, he's tall and, yes, he plays sports. So what? Can't a child be both??? Can't a parent take BOTH things into consideration? It's truly amazing how many people assume he must not be bright because he is SO BIG and he's had early success at sports! Especially people with other gifted children. Ugh.
I empathize with you. My kid is 9 and 5 feet 5 inches tall, and weighs in at around 130 lbs. He's a tall drink of water. Not only is he profoundly gifted, but because his birthday fell after the cut off we too had to delay school for a year. In our case, my kid is approached quarterly to play football. He has zero interest. He's a soccer kid all the way. We have been asked if we held him back because he's a big and tall kid to play sports. I can't tell you how many times I have had to roll my eyes, sigh and say, "really?"
It's mind blowing to me that people even ask such a question. Then again, he's mistaken for 15 years old most of the time, and when he behaves like a 9 year old I get those looks as well. But then again, he behaves much better than most 15 year olds, so go figure:):)
And (gasp!) so what if sports are some families priority...not everyone is academically gifted...perhaps, for some children, sports are their ticket to personal growth and fulfillment and college...who knows? We're all dealing with exceptionally bright children. Some parents are dealing with exceptionally coordinated and athletic children. It is possible to be a gifted athlete.
The chances of a kid making it in sports is near zero vs making it in academics. A reasonably bright kid CAN become a degreed professional in almost any field. All of my HS friends have done very well - MDs, PHDs, etc, even though most were not super-gifted.
NONE of my HS classmates who played sports seriously made it in the pros and none were on top college teams or placed in the top 50 in their sports their Senior year in college. Most of these people worked VERY HARD at sports during HS while the rest of us studied.
So, it is an illusion to focus on sports when success in life requires success in non-sports venues. For most kids, it is a massive waste of time and sets kids up for disillusionment.
I know a man who played walk-on baseball at a top baseball school as a freshman. I was roommates with a starter as a sophomore at UT in football. I work out with retired pro athletes. They tell very specific childhood stories about phenomenal athletic feats - throwing the baseball 50 yards, outrunning kids twice their age, benching 200 lbs when they were 12, beating kids twice their age on the tennis court.
My baseball friend just laughs at families who spend most of the their discretionary income and free time on sports. All of his sons are very good athletes, but he stresses academics over sports and limits their sports practice to an hour a day while making them study a lot more.
The downside is debilitating injuries as well. A DW's uncle is so messed up from HS football that he can barely walk and the concussions he suffered have rendered him barely functional. My knees are messed up from HS football and my neck bothers me on occasion.
Nothing wrong with sports, but most kids would be better off hitting the books instead of the practice field.
The good side of sports for me growing up was that it allowed me to connect with my age peers whom I otherwise had nothing in common. I got respect from them when they otherwise would have tried to pick on me. By association, my geeky friends were mostly left alone.
Aw come on Austin, I don't think that we need to lecture each other on the dangers of sports. Every kid is different and every parent is different. Plenty of unusually gifted kids make the most of their years in High School because they love their sports teams. Lots of wonderful life lessons in teamwork and hard word and social skills are learned in the context of team sports. I don't think the lack of odds of a career in professional sports is a fair argument. What about the kids who go on to become sports agents, sports doctors, sports lawyers, statisticians, sports writers, etc.
Love and More Love, Grinity - who was on the Fencing team in High School for a while.
Austin, I don't disagree with anything you've said but I think that physical compentancies are a very important component of quality of life. I'm not saying they are more or less important than academics - I don't think you can compare the two. But I think that the returns to a child from sports don't begin to diminish until they've reached a very high level.
I believe that working hard and achieving at a high level at anything yields more benefits to a person's character than dotting the i's and crossing the t's and getting a B+ average.
Personally, I was an exceptionally BAD student but a very good athlete who worked hard at it. If I hadn't been an athlete I still would have been an exceptionally bad student. I think I would be in a very bad place today if I hadn't had the opportunity as a child to be an athlete. It taught me how to work hard and it exposed me to a caliber of peers that I would not have had otherwise.
And don't even get me started on the obesity epidemic....
"The real opportunity is taking advantage of how eager institutions are to reward good students,� he said. �In America�s colleges, there is a system of discounting for academic achievement. Most people with good academic records aren�t paying full sticker price. We don�t want people to stop playing sports; it�s good for them. But the best opportunity available is to try to improve one�s academic qualifications.� The math of athletic scholarships is complicated and widely misunderstood.
JaneSmith, it's National Childhood Obesity Awareness Month so go for it!
If we're going to make a dent in our country's obesity epidemic, I'd like to see a shift in our focus from organized team sports that most people give up playing as they get older to sports that can be pursued for life. Baseball and football vs. swimming, biking and running. Healthy food would help too.
Aw come on Austin, I don't think that we need to lecture each other on the dangers of sports.
Understood and I agree. I love sports. I play on two soccer teams and work out every day.
But let me argue this point another way.
Some kids find a career in sports professions, but most do not. Had they realistically assessed their options, they'd have been much better off hitting the books.
We are a sports-dominated society that owes its existence and progress to intellectuals, most of whom are treated rather poorly, and to a highly educated workforce able to take direction from intellectuals. This poor treatment is supported by many of our institutions and is deeply embedded in our culture.
This poor treatment of academics and over emphasis on sports short changes the less capable by wasting their limited time and abilities on a dead end activity and diverting attention and resources from education.
Austin, It's easy for your friend to laugh at families spending money and free time on sports...His sons are already very good athletes and I'm guessing, probably don't have to work as hard as others to keep their spot on the team. My son is hghly gifted and pitches for a top national traveling team. It's the only thing that keeps him somewhat accepted and respected by his peers. His academic smarts don't, unfortunately. BUT...He does have to work hard on his baseball...So we have turned into those parents who DO spend the extra money and most of our free time on his sport. Right now, it's our son's social lifeline. He LOVES it and it makes him so HAPPY. You should tell your friend not to laugh at others...
What this thread reminds me of is how sensitive kids are to their parent's dreams and desires. I think that what really hurts kids, with sports or academics, is the situation where the parent really NEEDS the child to be successful for their own ego needs.
OTOH, lots of kids I know need very strong encouragement for any kind of achievement, and that could look like pushing from the outside. Or even in the eyes of the child.
And from the inside, how do we ever know if we are meeting the child's needs or our own ego needs?
Ug! no clean answers when it comes to being a parent, yes? We are going to have to feel our own way here, say a prayer, and hope for the best. At least if we can talk it over, here or else where, we have a better chance of getting it 'right enough.'
It's hard to argue what 'other people's kids' should or shouldn't be encouraged to do. Anyone with enough spare energy to get into the school and mentor other peoples kids has me cheering, but for the most of us, doing the best we can for our own kids is exactly where we need to start. Or let's brainstorm ways to change the anti-intellectual nature of American culture.
First let me say thanks for the supportive replies to my post. Obviously, I'm fairly new to this board and don't often post. I respect that we're all on this board searching for answers on how best to raise our gifted children. I've read so many insightful observations...I really appreciate the informed and intelligent points of view expressed here. After I posted, I was concerned that I may have (inadvertantly) stepped on some toes. Relieved to know that different perspectives are accepted!
Austin, I agree that our society places too much emphasis on sports. And we all know parents who are CRAZY about how they handle their children's early sports lives. It's a shame...but it is reality...and I don't see it changing soon. I would love to live in a society that granted more academic scholarships than athletic and that, later, paid teachers and scientists MORE than football and basketball stars. Imagine!!!! Wow!
But, for now, the truth is that those who find success in sports (and entertainment) are highly rewarded with fame and money. So people will continue to go after the "glory." Only a few will actually become pro's...but only a few, too, will suffer debilitating injuries. Most will fall somewhere in between...perhaps find a sport they use for exercise or relaxation as adults...or as a social venue to get through school or work.
I do speak from experience in this area, as well. Our DD (21) is a senior in college and plays Division I tennis on a full ride in the ACC (the most competitive tennis division in college.) She graduated from high school with a 4.0 unweighted gpa and receives a Presidential Academic scholarship in addition to her full athletic scholarship. We noticed early on that she was a talented athlete, as well as a successful student. Neither of us play tennis, but we put her in a local program to find a sport she could enjoy for a "lifetime." Little did we know the road it would send us on...but we did know from personal experience that being smart was no ticket to free college tuition. Right or wrong (and it is WRONG!), colleges hand out far more money to athletes than to scholars. So, we made a deal with her that as long as she maintained her grades while taking the highest academic courses offered, we'd pay for the training and travel involved to foster her tennis talent. We knew we were taking a risk...and that she could quit with an injury or lack of success at any time. It worked for us and to this day she works very hard at both her sport and her school work. As a result, she will graduate from college debt free and ready to enter medical school next year. And, for the record, she has dozens of friends across the country who have used their sport to pay for highly academically competitive colleges (USC, Duke, Michigan, Maryland,Clemson...to name a few.) Bright, independent young women with bright futures, mostly away from sports.
And, of course, through the years, we've run into crazy people, pushing their daughters to achieve when it was obvious the girls weren't truly interested or talented. We know plenty of players who burned out early or quit and moved on after their parents had spent thousands on tennis, soccer, etc. It is a risk. But so is private school. Or homeschool. Or music school. Sometimes, you have to go for it and give it a try. Eventually, sometimes through failure, we find the right path for our child.
Anyway, sorry to get so off topic from the original post on academic red shirting. AGAIN, these are simply my experiences and observations. My internal "red flag" is generally raised when anyone asserts that the way someone else is raising their child MUST be wrong simply because it is different from their choices! We've certainly had our doubts through the years, and made our mistakes, but always with our children's best interest in mind. Any decision about our children can be difficult (who WANTS to make a mistake?), but I've found that it's much worse when others find the need to jump in and say I am wrong without knowing the facts first. A "one size fits all policy" almost never works. I hope we can all keep that in mind before we judge how someone else chooses to raise their children! I've been parenting for 21 years (how can I still be so young!) and I read boards like this one to get new perspectives everyday. Always more to learn and new ways to see things. Thanks!
