Entering Kindergarten at 6

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m wondering the racial breakdown of red shirted kids. Because this seems like white foolishness to me.

I think you’re largely right. I only know one black kid (affluent family) who was redshirted. All the rest are white families.

"[Redshirting] is also significantly more common among white students – roughly 6 percent of white students are redshirted, compared to less than 3 percent of Asian students and 2 percent or less of black and Hispanic children."
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-16/how-much-does-it-benefit-a-child-to-delay-kindergarten-entry-for-a-year

And what's the racial breakdown of being retained/held back? that's right, disproportionaly African American. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010015/indicator4_17.asp

White kids get "redshirted" by their parents proactively; black kids get retained. What we should actually be doing is making sure more black kids can be redshirted if necessary and placed in excellent PK programs.

This is bass-ackwards thinking. Redshirting is a point of privilege, because it costs money to be able to pay for an extra year of daycare or child care. Additionally, AA students are more likely to lack access to the resources that are predictors of readiness for early childhood education. What we need is MORE Pre-K, Head Start, etc. -- not delaying access to ECE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do some of you reconcile red shirting but then also taking advantage of the free prek3 and 4. They are either ready for all day school or not.

I am the pp poster above who regrets not redshirting. I didn't send my child to all day PK3. We chose a 1/2 day 3-day a week private program. We did send him to an all day PK4, but it was a play-based program. Wish now I would have kept him in it another year. How different the last three years would have been! And not just for my kid - for yours too. He has been rather disruptive in class. You non-redshirting parents, do you really want immature, disruptive summer birthday boys in your kids' classrooms?! My kid takes up A LOT of the teacher's time and attention both in term of behavior and academics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't redshirt my summer birthday boy. I now have a rising third grader who is in NO way ready for third grade socially or academically (reading at K, maybe early 1st, grade level, gravitates to the 1st graders on playground). Now, I am talking about how to hold him back in second without making him feel like a failure. Parents, follow your gut not the calendar and redshirt your kids if you "feel" they are not ready.

I didn't redshirt my late September birthday boy, who turned 5 after he started kindergarten. He is now a rising 3rd grader and reading at a 5th grade level and gets along great with his peers and his teachers.

PP, I have great sympathy for you and your kid, but this is not a redshirting issue.

except I felt at K that he wasn't ready but didn't consider not sending him. I wish now I would have listened to my gut and not followed the calendar. You know if your kids is not in teh same place as other kids his age.

Have you considered getting him evaluated for learning delays/difficulties? It seems some people consider redshirting due to concerns like this, when starting on time and getting them evaluated and into services might be the better course of action. Sometimes people see early signs and hope an extra year may make it go away, when the earlier the intervention, the better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I bet “not being ready for the structure of preschool” is also a white person thing.

Well, it was white because it was my kid. Also white because I had the resources to remove him before he got expelled for behavioral issues -- a black kid would likely have gotten expelled/suspended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m wondering the racial breakdown of red shirted kids. Because this seems like white foolishness to me.

I think you’re largely right. I only know one black kid (affluent family) who was redshirted. All the rest are white families.

"[Redshirting] is also significantly more common among white students – roughly 6 percent of white students are redshirted, compared to less than 3 percent of Asian students and 2 percent or less of black and Hispanic children."
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-16/how-much-does-it-benefit-a-child-to-delay-kindergarten-entry-for-a-year

And what's the racial breakdown of being retained/held back? that's right, disproportionaly African American. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010015/indicator4_17.asp

White kids get "redshirted" by their parents proactively; black kids get retained. What we should actually be doing is making sure more black kids can be redshirted if necessary and placed in excellent PK programs.

This is bass-ackwards thinking. Redshirting is a point of privilege, because it costs money to be able to pay for an extra year of daycare or child care. Additionally, AA students are more likely to lack access to the resources that are predictors of readiness for early childhood education. What we need is MORE Pre-K, Head Start, etc. -- not delaying access to ECE.

We're on the DCPS board, though. A kid could be redshirted and kept in an excellent DCPS PK4 program. And, I actually don't think retaining kids in K is necessarily a terrible thing either as long as they get the support they need the 2nd year. The point is there is little functional difference between redshirting and retaining in K - people just like to bag on the former because, I don't know, they think it's cheating. The race stuff here is really just a smoke screen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't redshirt my summer birthday boy. I now have a rising third grader who is in NO way ready for third grade socially or academically (reading at K, maybe early 1st, grade level, gravitates to the 1st graders on playground). Now, I am talking about how to hold him back in second without making him feel like a failure. Parents, follow your gut not the calendar and redshirt your kids if you "feel" they are not ready.

I didn't redshirt my late September birthday boy, who turned 5 after he started kindergarten. He is now a rising 3rd grader and reading at a 5th grade level and gets along great with his peers and his teachers.

PP, I have great sympathy for you and your kid, but this is not a redshirting issue.

except I felt at K that he wasn't ready but didn't consider not sending him. I wish now I would have listened to my gut and not followed the calendar. You know if your kids is not in teh same place as other kids his age.

Have you considered getting him evaluated for learning delays/difficulties? It seems some people consider redshirting due to concerns like this, when starting on time and getting them evaluated and into services might be the better course of action. Sometimes people see early signs and hope an extra year may make it go away, when the earlier the intervention, the better.

And sometimes the kid is evaluated with learning disabilities and redshirting is STILL the right decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can not compare black kids being retained to not red shirting. Come on people.

Why not? It's pretty much impossible to distinguish between redshirting and retaining in K. The kids who got retained in K are without a doubt kids who would have been redshirted if their parents had the same knowledge base as more affluent parents. Luckily I think it works out to be the same because we're in a strong school with a strong K program. But it's silly to claim that when a white parent redshirts for PK that's some kind of rulebreaking, but when a black kid gets retained because his reading is not progressing, that's OK because the school does it.

I really doubt this. The majority of kids who are redshirted would have been just fine in K (assuming everyone in the class was the appropriate age).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can not compare black kids being retained to not red shirting. Come on people.

Why not? It's pretty much impossible to distinguish between redshirting and retaining in K. The kids who got retained in K are without a doubt kids who would have been redshirted if their parents had the same knowledge base as more affluent parents. Luckily I think it works out to be the same because we're in a strong school with a strong K program. But it's silly to claim that when a white parent redshirts for PK that's some kind of rulebreaking, but when a black kid gets retained because his reading is not progressing, that's OK because the school does it.

I really doubt this. The majority of kids who are redshirted would have been just fine in K (assuming everyone in the class was the appropriate age).

What's your basis for that? There's a lot of research showing that being young for the grade results in ADHD diagnoses. And the point of discussing retention is that there are kids who go *on time* to K who are assessed by the school as needing an extra year. So clearly, they were NOT ok "going on time."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can not compare black kids being retained to not red shirting. Come on people.

Why not? It's pretty much impossible to distinguish between redshirting and retaining in K. The kids who got retained in K are without a doubt kids who would have been redshirted if their parents had the same knowledge base as more affluent parents. Luckily I think it works out to be the same because we're in a strong school with a strong K program. But it's silly to claim that when a white parent redshirts for PK that's some kind of rulebreaking, but when a black kid gets retained because his reading is not progressing, that's OK because the school does it.

I really doubt this. The majority of kids who are redshirted would have been just fine in K (assuming everyone in the class was the appropriate age).

What's your basis for that? There's a lot of research showing that being young for the grade results in ADHD diagnoses. And the point of discussing retention is that there are kids who go *on time* to K who are assessed by the school as needing an extra year. So clearly, they were NOT ok "going on time."

Also for my n of 1: the kid I decided NOT to red shirt is doing very well academically, struggling socially. It breaks my heart and I wonder if I prioritized the wrong thing. I'm hoping he catches up, but I'm not sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m wondering the racial breakdown of red shirted kids. Because this seems like white foolishness to me.

I think you’re largely right. I only know one black kid (affluent family) who was redshirted. All the rest are white families.

"[Redshirting] is also significantly more common among white students – roughly 6 percent of white students are redshirted, compared to less than 3 percent of Asian students and 2 percent or less of black and Hispanic children."
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-16/how-much-does-it-benefit-a-child-to-delay-kindergarten-entry-for-a-year

And what's the racial breakdown of being retained/held back? that's right, disproportionaly African American. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010015/indicator4_17.asp

White kids get "redshirted" by their parents proactively; black kids get retained. What we should actually be doing is making sure more black kids can be redshirted if necessary and placed in excellent PK programs.

This is bass-ackwards thinking. Redshirting is a point of privilege, because it costs money to be able to pay for an extra year of daycare or child care. Additionally, AA students are more likely to lack access to the resources that are predictors of readiness for early childhood education. What we need is MORE Pre-K, Head Start, etc. -- not delaying access to ECE.

We're on the DCPS board, though. A kid could be redshirted and kept in an excellent DCPS PK4 program. And, I actually don't think retaining kids in K is necessarily a terrible thing either as long as they get the support they need the 2nd year. The point is there is little functional difference between redshirting and retaining in K - people just like to bag on the former because, I don't know, they think it's cheating. The race stuff here is really just a smoke screen.

But it's not redshirting if the school is recommending it. You can't go to PK-3, PK-4, and PK-4 again unless it's somehow school initiated, and I suspect it wouldn't be that way because of how the funding for PK comes in. Delaying starting PK is a luxury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m wondering the racial breakdown of red shirted kids. Because this seems like white foolishness to me.

I think you’re largely right. I only know one black kid (affluent family) who was redshirted. All the rest are white families.

"[Redshirting] is also significantly more common among white students – roughly 6 percent of white students are redshirted, compared to less than 3 percent of Asian students and 2 percent or less of black and Hispanic children."
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-16/how-much-does-it-benefit-a-child-to-delay-kindergarten-entry-for-a-year

And what's the racial breakdown of being retained/held back? that's right, disproportionaly African American. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010015/indicator4_17.asp

White kids get "redshirted" by their parents proactively; black kids get retained. What we should actually be doing is making sure more black kids can be redshirted if necessary and placed in excellent PK programs.

This is bass-ackwards thinking. Redshirting is a point of privilege, because it costs money to be able to pay for an extra year of daycare or child care. Additionally, AA students are more likely to lack access to the resources that are predictors of readiness for early childhood education. What we need is MORE Pre-K, Head Start, etc. -- not delaying access to ECE.

We're on the DCPS board, though. A kid could be redshirted and kept in an excellent DCPS PK4 program. And, I actually don't think retaining kids in K is necessarily a terrible thing either as long as they get the support they need the 2nd year. The point is there is little functional difference between redshirting and retaining in K - people just like to bag on the former because, I don't know, they think it's cheating. The race stuff here is really just a smoke screen.

But it's not redshirting if the school is recommending it. You can't go to PK-3, PK-4, and PK-4 again unless it's somehow school initiated, and I suspect it wouldn't be that way because of how the funding for PK comes in. Delaying starting PK is a luxury.

Argh. Schools, teachers, and doctors are almost ALWAYS involved in the decision to redshirt or not. My argument is that MORE parents should be able to redshirt; and that the prevalence of retention in K suggests a need for MORE redshirting. And it is possible to repeat PK4 - that would be at the principal's discretion. Calling it a "luxury" is a red herring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m wondering the racial breakdown of red shirted kids. Because this seems like white foolishness to me.

I think you’re largely right. I only know one black kid (affluent family) who was redshirted. All the rest are white families.

"[Redshirting] is also significantly more common among white students – roughly 6 percent of white students are redshirted, compared to less than 3 percent of Asian students and 2 percent or less of black and Hispanic children."
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-16/how-much-does-it-benefit-a-child-to-delay-kindergarten-entry-for-a-year

And what's the racial breakdown of being retained/held back? that's right, disproportionaly African American. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010015/indicator4_17.asp

White kids get "redshirted" by their parents proactively; black kids get retained. What we should actually be doing is making sure more black kids can be redshirted if necessary and placed in excellent PK programs.

This is bass-ackwards thinking. Redshirting is a point of privilege, because it costs money to be able to pay for an extra year of daycare or child care. Additionally, AA students are more likely to lack access to the resources that are predictors of readiness for early childhood education. What we need is MORE Pre-K, Head Start, etc. -- not delaying access to ECE.

We're on the DCPS board, though. A kid could be redshirted and kept in an excellent DCPS PK4 program. And, I actually don't think retaining kids in K is necessarily a terrible thing either as long as they get the support they need the 2nd year. The point is there is little functional difference between redshirting and retaining in K - people just like to bag on the former because, I don't know, they think it's cheating. The race stuff here is really just a smoke screen.

But it's not redshirting if the school is recommending it. You can't go to PK-3, PK-4, and PK-4 again unless it's somehow school initiated, and I suspect it wouldn't be that way because of how the funding for PK comes in. Delaying starting PK is a luxury.

Argh. Schools, teachers, and doctors are almost ALWAYS involved in the decision to redshirt or not. My argument is that MORE parents should be able to redshirt; and that the prevalence of retention in K suggests a need for MORE redshirting. And it is possible to repeat PK4 - that would be at the principal's discretion. Calling it a "luxury" is a red herring.

And my bigger point is: stop being a hypocritical busybody pretending that your against redshirting due to social justice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do some of you reconcile red shirting but then also taking advantage of the free prek3 and 4. They are either ready for all day school or not.

I am the pp poster above who regrets not redshirting. I didn't send my child to all day PK3. We chose a 1/2 day 3-day a week private program. We did send him to an all day PK4, but it was a play-based program. Wish now I would have kept him in it another year. How different the last three years would have been! And not just for my kid - for yours too. He has been rather disruptive in class. You non-redshirting parents, do you really want immature, disruptive summer birthday boys in your kids' classrooms?! My kid takes up A LOT of the teacher's time and attention both in term of behavior and academics.

But he was three years more mature and still being disruptive, so may be you are focusing on the wrong thing as a cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do some of you reconcile red shirting but then also taking advantage of the free prek3 and 4. They are either ready for all day school or not.

I am the pp poster above who regrets not redshirting. I didn't send my child to all day PK3. We chose a 1/2 day 3-day a week private program. We did send him to an all day PK4, but it was a play-based program. Wish now I would have kept him in it another year. How different the last three years would have been! And not just for my kid - for yours too. He has been rather disruptive in class. You non-redshirting parents, do you really want immature, disruptive summer birthday boys in your kids' classrooms?! My kid takes up A LOT of the teacher's time and attention both in term of behavior and academics.

But he was three years more mature and still being disruptive, so may be you are focusing on the wrong thing as a cause.

Maybe you should MYOB, because these kids are very complicated and it's not always clear what the right thing is, and parents do what they can to help, which may include redshirting.

Or, you can just go on bashing parents with struggling kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m wondering the racial breakdown of red shirted kids. Because this seems like white foolishness to me.

I think you’re largely right. I only know one black kid (affluent family) who was redshirted. All the rest are white families.

"[Redshirting] is also significantly more common among white students – roughly 6 percent of white students are redshirted, compared to less than 3 percent of Asian students and 2 percent or less of black and Hispanic children."
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-16/how-much-does-it-benefit-a-child-to-delay-kindergarten-entry-for-a-year

And what's the racial breakdown of being retained/held back? that's right, disproportionaly African American. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010015/indicator4_17.asp

White kids get "redshirted" by their parents proactively; black kids get retained. What we should actually be doing is making sure more black kids can be redshirted if necessary and placed in excellent PK programs.

This is bass-ackwards thinking. Redshirting is a point of privilege, because it costs money to be able to pay for an extra year of daycare or child care. Additionally, AA students are more likely to lack access to the resources that are predictors of readiness for early childhood education. What we need is MORE Pre-K, Head Start, etc. -- not delaying access to ECE.

We're on the DCPS board, though. A kid could be redshirted and kept in an excellent DCPS PK4 program. And, I actually don't think retaining kids in K is necessarily a terrible thing either as long as they get the support they need the 2nd year. The point is there is little functional difference between redshirting and retaining in K - people just like to bag on the former because, I don't know, they think it's cheating. The race stuff here is really just a smoke screen.

But it's not redshirting if the school is recommending it. You can't go to PK-3, PK-4, and PK-4 again unless it's somehow school initiated, and I suspect it wouldn't be that way because of how the funding for PK comes in. Delaying starting PK is a luxury.

Argh. Schools, teachers, and doctors are almost ALWAYS involved in the decision to redshirt or not. My argument is that MORE parents should be able to redshirt; and that the prevalence of retention in K suggests a need for MORE redshirting. And it is possible to repeat PK4 - that would be at the principal's discretion. Calling it a "luxury" is a red herring.

And my bigger point is: stop being a hypocritical busybody pretending that your against redshirting due to social justice.

I'm not pretending to be against redshirting. I am against it. It screws up dynamics for classrooms and families who are using the cut-off as a guide. It's yet another attempt to try to get ahead at the expense of others.

I'm a WOC and no doctor in my community has EVER recommended "redshirting" to another family that I know of, which for definition's sake is the preemptive decision to hold back a child from enrolling in a school. I'll say it again, but it's a luxury to delay enrolling in schools that most families in my community simply can't afford.

It's idiotic to think that students who come from more at-risk backgrounds will be better off if they delay entering schools makes absolutely no sense.