One More on Redshirting, or Yes I Am That Kind of Feminist

[pantryslut]

I didn't address the gender politics of redshirting kindergartners in my previous post b/c although it's a significant factor in the overarching North American dialogue on the practice, it hasn't really been present in my little local conversations on the subject.

But it is quite true that certain educators advocate redshirting specifically for boys, based on tired chestnuts about how boys are, y'know, less socially and verbally adept than girls and so less ready for the, um, iron forge of kindergarten? Anyway.

It is v.v. tempting, therefore, to write up an essay on how the practice of redshirting is, in some respects, a way of preserving male privilege. The boys, when they finally go, go to kindergarten bigger, stronger, and maintain their academic status on the top of the heap, too. Thus.

Comments

[wild_irises]

And whyever would you not be that kind of feminist?

[pantryslut]

I can't imagine why not, but in case casual visitors to my journal had forgotten and all.

[dancingsinging]

You have an excellent point about how redshirting only the boys works to preserve male privilege.

It is also true there are physiological developmental factors for boys (specifically, the later myelination of their neurons, so that they are physiologically unable to track words on a page for reading) that make it more likely for them to "fail" when asked to learn to read too early.

I don't know about redshirting kids on a one by one basis, but I certainly am an advocate of chilling a little bit with the early academic expectations.

[pantryslut]

I am unable to find a scientific reference on late myelination affecting reading in a gendered manner in my more-than-cursory search on the subject at PubMed.

And at some point someone will have to address how boys can be (eta for clarity: supposedly) physiologically, biologically better at spatial thinking *and* less able to track words on a page.

Plus, I smell Waldorf ideology here, and that's a can of worms I am not opening.

[dancingsinging]

I heard about the research from a friend of mine with a graduate degree in early childhood education. She described a study wherein the boys who couldn't read words on a page could read them one at a time when held in front of them (I think it was on cards but maybe a screen?). I believed her that the study existed because I trust the source, but now that you couldn't find it I'll go ask her about it.

I certainly wouldn't claim that boys are better biologically at spatial thinking (I'd love to see a study that controlled for gendered toys) and I don't know anyone who believes both things. That seems like an "idiocy by association" argument and it's unfair.

In any case, I'm surprised you'd think that of me. I hope it's just because you find the original assertion absurd and not a personal association.

[pantryslut]

There is a huge difference between stating "people [boys or otherwise] who are poor at reading words on a page can read words one at a time when they are held in front of them, data exists" and saying "that's because of a physiological difference due to late myelination of neurons that occurs in a gender-differentiated way around ages 3-6 and this is a fact not theory." A does not logically lead to B here -- in fact there's a huge gap to be crossed -- and I find no support, as I said, for B *as fact.* Or theory, even, although I'm less skeptical that it's out there somewhere. I could even guess where it comes from and its relationship to brain lateralization theories and gendered patterns of dyslexia and other learning disorders. But it hasn't, as far as I can tell, come close to being proven, and you bet I'm annoyed at having theory presented as simple fact in cases like this. I responded in large part b/c I do not want other casual readers of my journal misled.

[dancingsinging]

I can certainly see how what I did was annoying. I'll be more careful next time.

If I am able to track down more info, do you want me to let you know about it?