"Redshirting" a Late Summer Birthday and Private PK/K Recommendations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, as someone whose 4 year old is in a preK class full of kids who are *already* turning 6, I say send your kids to school on time.

You're going to have a rough time in life.

Uh, no. PP is simply sending her kid to school ON TIME as it's supposed to happen. These other people are being a bit selfish, in my opinion, in redshirting their kids. Seriously, someone has to be the oldest and the youngest in the class. It's not the end of the world. I get it if your kid has serious delays or medical issues, but outside of that, get over it. Why is it more fair that your kid will now be 6 for all of kindergarten when there are kids who are literally just turning 5 a day or two before the year starts, vs. your kid being 5 like all the other kids in the class but not turning 6 until most of them have already turned 6? I have a summer birthday and never thought twice about this. Being around older kids can push you to do better. It just seems terribly selfish and unfair to set up a scenario where your kid is going to be a year older and thus possibly better able to compete for sports positions and scholarships, etc. Think about all of the kids whose families are low-income and can't afford to send their kids to private pre-K or "junior K" (whatever the heck that is!) and probably have less a chance to compete for these things in the first place due to circumstances beyond their control. It just makes me angry. End of rant.

Why should my Kid be the youngest when I can legally send her in K when she will turn 6 3 days before school starts (Aug 27th birthday)? She was born at 39 weeks, if she were born at 40 she would have to start at 6 as well. Sorry.. deal with it... I think it’s totally fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, as someone whose 4 year old is in a preK class full of kids who are *already* turning 6, I say send your kids to school on time.

You're going to have a rough time in life.

Uh, no. PP is simply sending her kid to school ON TIME as it's supposed to happen. These other people are being a bit selfish, in my opinion, in redshirting their kids. Seriously, someone has to be the oldest and the youngest in the class. It's not the end of the world. I get it if your kid has serious delays or medical issues, but outside of that, get over it. Why is it more fair that your kid will now be 6 for all of kindergarten when there are kids who are literally just turning 5 a day or two before the year starts, vs. your kid being 5 like all the other kids in the class but not turning 6 until most of them have already turned 6? I have a summer birthday and never thought twice about this. Being around older kids can push you to do better. It just seems terribly selfish and unfair to set up a scenario where your kid is going to be a year older and thus possibly better able to compete for sports positions and scholarships, etc. Think about all of the kids whose families are low-income and can't afford to send their kids to private pre-K or "junior K" (whatever the heck that is!) and probably have less a chance to compete for these things in the first place due to circumstances beyond their control. It just makes me angry. End of rant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, as someone whose 4 year old is in a preK class full of kids who are *already* turning 6, I say send your kids to school on time.

You're going to have a rough time in life.

Uh, no. PP is simply sending her kid to school ON TIME as it's supposed to happen. These other people are being a bit selfish, in my opinion, in redshirting their kids. Seriously, someone has to be the oldest and the youngest in the class. It's not the end of the world. I get it if your kid has serious delays or medical issues, but outside of that, get over it. Why is it more fair that your kid will now be 6 for all of kindergarten when there are kids who are literally just turning 5 a day or two before the year starts, vs. your kid being 5 like all the other kids in the class but not turning 6 until most of them have already turned 6? I have a summer birthday and never thought twice about this. Being around older kids can push you to do better. It just seems terribly selfish and unfair to set up a scenario where your kid is going to be a year older and thus possibly better able to compete for sports positions and scholarships, etc. Think about all of the kids whose families are low-income and can't afford to send their kids to private pre-K or "junior K" (whatever the heck that is!) and probably have less a chance to compete for these things in the first place due to circumstances beyond their control. It just makes me angry. End of rant.

Why should my Kid be the youngest when I can legally send her in K when she will turn 6 3 days before school starts (Aug 27th birthday)? She was born at 39 weeks, if she were born at 40 she would have to start at 6 as well. Sorry.. deal with it... I think it’s totally fair.

Because someone's kid has to be the youngest. I guess I just feel like the regulations are there for a purpose, and it's bending the rules to not follow them. What about the kid who was born on Aug 27 but whose family can't afford to send him to an extra year of preschool or daycare and needs to start public K? Yes, the cut-offs are arbitrary, but if you push it back to Aug 27 because you don't want your kid to be the youngest, then why won't the next parent want to push it back to Aug 15 because her kid shouldn't be the youngest, and then another parent to July 25, and so on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, as someone whose 4 year old is in a preK class full of kids who are *already* turning 6, I say send your kids to school on time.

You're going to have a rough time in life.

Uh, no. PP is simply sending her kid to school ON TIME as it's supposed to happen. These other people are being a bit selfish, in my opinion, in redshirting their kids. Seriously, someone has to be the oldest and the youngest in the class. It's not the end of the world. I get it if your kid has serious delays or medical issues, but outside of that, get over it. Why is it more fair that your kid will now be 6 for all of kindergarten when there are kids who are literally just turning 5 a day or two before the year starts, vs. your kid being 5 like all the other kids in the class but not turning 6 until most of them have already turned 6? I have a summer birthday and never thought twice about this. Being around older kids can push you to do better. It just seems terribly selfish and unfair to set up a scenario where your kid is going to be a year older and thus possibly better able to compete for sports positions and scholarships, etc. Think about all of the kids whose families are low-income and can't afford to send their kids to private pre-K or "junior K" (whatever the heck that is!) and probably have less a chance to compete for these things in the first place due to circumstances beyond their control. It just makes me angry. End of rant.

Why should my Kid be the youngest when I can legally send her in K when she will turn 6 3 days before school starts (Aug 27th birthday)? She was born at 39 weeks, if she were born at 40 she would have to start at 6 as well. Sorry.. deal with it... I think it’s totally fair.

Because someone's kid has to be the youngest. I guess I just feel like the regulations are there for a purpose, and it's bending the rules to not follow them. What about the kid who was born on Aug 27 but whose family can't afford to send him to an extra year of preschool or daycare and needs to start public K? Yes, the cut-offs are arbitrary, but if you push it back to Aug 27 because you don't want your kid to be the youngest, then why won't the next parent want to push it back to Aug 15 because her kid shouldn't be the youngest, and then another parent to July 25, and so on.

I understand your point, but I doubt any parent would do what you are suggesting. If they truly think it is in the interest of their child, they will redshirt. Just a curiosity, but what’s your kid’s birthday?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, as someone whose 4 year old is in a preK class full of kids who are *already* turning 6, I say send your kids to school on time.

You're going to have a rough time in life.

Uh, no. PP is simply sending her kid to school ON TIME as it's supposed to happen. These other people are being a bit selfish, in my opinion, in redshirting their kids. Seriously, someone has to be the oldest and the youngest in the class. It's not the end of the world. I get it if your kid has serious delays or medical issues, but outside of that, get over it. Why is it more fair that your kid will now be 6 for all of kindergarten when there are kids who are literally just turning 5 a day or two before the year starts, vs. your kid being 5 like all the other kids in the class but not turning 6 until most of them have already turned 6? I have a summer birthday and never thought twice about this. Being around older kids can push you to do better. It just seems terribly selfish and unfair to set up a scenario where your kid is going to be a year older and thus possibly better able to compete for sports positions and scholarships, etc. Think about all of the kids whose families are low-income and can't afford to send their kids to private pre-K or "junior K" (whatever the heck that is!) and probably have less a chance to compete for these things in the first place due to circumstances beyond their control. It just makes me angry. End of rant.

Why should my Kid be the youngest when I can legally send her in K when she will turn 6 3 days before school starts (Aug 27th birthday)? She was born at 39 weeks, if she were born at 40 she would have to start at 6 as well. Sorry.. deal with it... I think it’s totally fair.

Because someone's kid has to be the youngest. I guess I just feel like the regulations are there for a purpose, and it's bending the rules to not follow them. What about the kid who was born on Aug 27 but whose family can't afford to send him to an extra year of preschool or daycare and needs to start public K? Yes, the cut-offs are arbitrary, but if you push it back to Aug 27 because you don't want your kid to be the youngest, then why won't the next parent want to push it back to Aug 15 because her kid shouldn't be the youngest, and then another parent to July 25, and so on.

I understand your point, but I doubt any parent would do what you are suggesting. If they truly think it is in the interest of their child, they will redshirt. Just a curiosity, but what’s your kid’s birthday?

Really? Some people honestly can't afford another year of childcare or preschool. Some people don't speak English fluently or have access to knowledge about the educational system and have no concept that they even could/should consider "redshirting" -- they see the cut-off date for enrollment and follow the rules accordingly. My child's birthday is in June, and he's very small for his age. We could afford private school and considered doing private for a year before putting him into public, but the plan was always to be in-grade -- that he would go to a private, nature-based kindergarten program and then enter in 1st grade. I'm not saying this is right for every child or that there aren't circumstances when you would want to "redshirt," but just that it's not feasible for everyone and is setting up a bit of an unnecessary divide. I have good friends whose kid has a late August birthday, and they are thrilled to have one less year of preschool to pay for.

[Anonymous]

Not Rockville/Potomac, but National Child Research Center in Cleveland Park DC has a wonderful program for redshirted five year olds and older four year olds: The Treetop/Explorer year. It is a great combination of play (with a focus on social-emotional development) and age-appropriate pre-math and pre-literacy. The focus on individual needs is amazing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, as someone whose 4 year old is in a preK class full of kids who are *already* turning 6, I say send your kids to school on time.

You're going to have a rough time in life.

Uh, no. PP is simply sending her kid to school ON TIME as it's supposed to happen. These other people are being a bit selfish, in my opinion, in redshirting their kids. Seriously, someone has to be the oldest and the youngest in the class. It's not the end of the world. I get it if your kid has serious delays or medical issues, but outside of that, get over it. Why is it more fair that your kid will now be 6 for all of kindergarten when there are kids who are literally just turning 5 a day or two before the year starts, vs. your kid being 5 like all the other kids in the class but not turning 6 until most of them have already turned 6? I have a summer birthday and never thought twice about this. Being around older kids can push you to do better. It just seems terribly selfish and unfair to set up a scenario where your kid is going to be a year older and thus possibly better able to compete for sports positions and scholarships, etc. Think about all of the kids whose families are low-income and can't afford to send their kids to private pre-K or "junior K" (whatever the heck that is!) and probably have less a chance to compete for these things in the first place due to circumstances beyond their control. It just makes me angry. End of rant.

If it was supposed to happen, redshirting would not have been a possibility.

I'm not going to make decisions that shape my child's life based on what is fair for low-income families. They sure aren't basing theirs on what's best for MY child - why would they?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Really? Some people honestly can't afford another year of childcare or preschool. Some people don't speak English fluently or have access to knowledge about the educational system and have no concept that they even could/should consider "redshirting" -- they see the cut-off date for enrollment and follow the rules accordingly. My child's birthday is in June, and he's very small for his age. We could afford private school and considered doing private for a year before putting him into public, but the plan was always to be in-grade -- that he would go to a private, nature-based kindergarten program and then enter in 1st grade. I'm not saying this is right for every child or that there aren't circumstances when you would want to "redshirt," but just that it's not feasible for everyone and is setting up a bit of an unnecessary divide. I have good friends whose kid has a late August birthday, and they are thrilled to have one less year of preschool to pay for.

What on earth does that have to do with anything? If some families aren't in a position to take their child to a library, are you not going to take yours? If some families can't afford to buy books, are you going to stop buying yours? What's with the weird concept of forced equality where none exists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Really? Some people honestly can't afford another year of childcare or preschool. Some people don't speak English fluently or have access to knowledge about the educational system and have no concept that they even could/should consider "redshirting" -- they see the cut-off date for enrollment and follow the rules accordingly. My child's birthday is in June, and he's very small for his age. We could afford private school and considered doing private for a year before putting him into public, but the plan was always to be in-grade -- that he would go to a private, nature-based kindergarten program and then enter in 1st grade. I'm not saying this is right for every child or that there aren't circumstances when you would want to "redshirt," but just that it's not feasible for everyone and is setting up a bit of an unnecessary divide. I have good friends whose kid has a late August birthday, and they are thrilled to have one less year of preschool to pay for.

What on earth does that have to do with anything? If some families aren't in a position to take their child to a library, are you not going to take yours? If some families can't afford to buy books, are you going to stop buying yours? What's with the weird concept of forced equality where none exists?

Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, as someone whose 4 year old is in a preK class full of kids who are *already* turning 6, I say send your kids to school on time.

You're going to have a rough time in life.

Uh, no. PP is simply sending her kid to school ON TIME as it's supposed to happen. These other people are being a bit selfish, in my opinion, in redshirting their kids. Seriously, someone has to be the oldest and the youngest in the class. It's not the end of the world. I get it if your kid has serious delays or medical issues, but outside of that, get over it. Why is it more fair that your kid will now be 6 for all of kindergarten when there are kids who are literally just turning 5 a day or two before the year starts, vs. your kid being 5 like all the other kids in the class but not turning 6 until most of them have already turned 6? I have a summer birthday and never thought twice about this. Being around older kids can push you to do better. It just seems terribly selfish and unfair to set up a scenario where your kid is going to be a year older and thus possibly better able to compete for sports positions and scholarships, etc. Think about all of the kids whose families are low-income and can't afford to send their kids to private pre-K or "junior K" (whatever the heck that is!) and probably have less a chance to compete for these things in the first place due to circumstances beyond their control. It just makes me angry. End of rant.

Why should my Kid be the youngest when I can legally send her in K when she will turn 6 3 days before school starts (Aug 27th birthday)? She was born at 39 weeks, if she were born at 40 she would have to start at 6 as well. Sorry.. deal with it... I think it’s totally fair.

Because someone's kid has to be the youngest. I guess I just feel like the regulations are there for a purpose, and it's bending the rules to not follow them. What about the kid who was born on Aug 27 but whose family can't afford to send him to an extra year of preschool or daycare and needs to start public K? Yes, the cut-offs are arbitrary, but if you push it back to Aug 27 because you don't want your kid to be the youngest, then why won't the next parent want to push it back to Aug 15 because her kid shouldn't be the youngest, and then another parent to July 25, and so on.

I understand your point, but I doubt any parent would do what you are suggesting. If they truly think it is in the interest of their child, they will redshirt. Just a curiosity, but what’s your kid’s birthday?

Really? Some people honestly can't afford another year of childcare or preschool. Some people don't speak English fluently or have access to knowledge about the educational system and have no concept that they even could/should consider "redshirting" -- they see the cut-off date for enrollment and follow the rules accordingly. My child's birthday is in June, and he's very small for his age. We could afford private school and considered doing private for a year before putting him into public, but the plan was always to be in-grade -- that he would go to a private, nature-based kindergarten program and then enter in 1st grade. I'm not saying this is right for every child or that there aren't circumstances when you would want to "redshirt," but just that it's not feasible for everyone and is setting up a bit of an unnecessary divide. I have good friends whose kid has a late August birthday, and they are thrilled to have one less year of preschool to pay for.

My DD is in private school so I doubt it will affect the children you are talking about. So, in your opinion, I should not do what I think it’s best for my DD because it will be bad for other kids? This makes no sense. I understand that with a June birthday your son will end up being the youngest if all July and August birthdays are redshirted. So your issue here is that you don’t want your child to be the youngest.... Just like me! You don’t have a point. sorry

[Anonymous]

Hi OP. CCPC in NWDC has (or used to have) a class for kids with late summer birthday or who need an extra year. Check them out.

We have a kid with a late summer birthday who had an extra year. No regrets. We asked around while making the decision (not on this board, BTW, though this is a good exercise for growing a thick skin). Most interesting were responses from friends of our parents, all of whom said they either wished they had held back their late summer birthday kids or were glad they did - 35 or 40 years after making the decision. Another data point. GL, OP.

[Anonymous]

NP here. We will be "redshirting" our kid, and we've known it since he was born. The cutoff in VA is 9/30 and he was born in early September. No way am I starting off a 4 year old in kindergarten -- it's not in the best interests of my child, and I'm not legally required to start him for another year. I think a lot of people go to a private K program, and then do public K after that. I would ask around in your neighborhood and see if other parents can recommend a nearby school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. We will be "redshirting" our kid, and we've known it since he was born. The cutoff in VA is 9/30 and he was born in early September. No way am I starting off a 4 year old in kindergarten -- it's not in the best interests of my child, and I'm not legally required to start him for another year. I think a lot of people go to a private K program, and then do public K after that. I would ask around in your neighborhood and see if other parents can recommend a nearby school.

He'd be 4 for what, a few weeks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, as someone whose 4 year old is in a preK class full of kids who are *already* turning 6, I say send your kids to school on time.

You're going to have a rough time in life.

Uh, no. PP is simply sending her kid to school ON TIME as it's supposed to happen. These other people are being a bit selfish, in my opinion, in redshirting their kids. Seriously, someone has to be the oldest and the youngest in the class. It's not the end of the world. I get it if your kid has serious delays or medical issues, but outside of that, get over it. Why is it more fair that your kid will now be 6 for all of kindergarten when there are kids who are literally just turning 5 a day or two before the year starts, vs. your kid being 5 like all the other kids in the class but not turning 6 until most of them have already turned 6? I have a summer birthday and never thought twice about this. Being around older kids can push you to do better. It just seems terribly selfish and unfair to set up a scenario where your kid is going to be a year older and thus possibly better able to compete for sports positions and scholarships, etc. Think about all of the kids whose families are low-income and can't afford to send their kids to private pre-K or "junior K" (whatever the heck that is!) and probably have less a chance to compete for these things in the first place due to circumstances beyond their control. It just makes me angry. End of rant.

Why should my Kid be the youngest when I can legally send her in K when she will turn 6 3 days before school starts (Aug 27th birthday)? She was born at 39 weeks, if she were born at 40 she would have to start at 6 as well. Sorry.. deal with it... I think it’s totally fair.

Because someone's kid has to be the youngest. I guess I just feel like the regulations are there for a purpose, and it's bending the rules to not follow them. What about the kid who was born on Aug 27 but whose family can't afford to send him to an extra year of preschool or daycare and needs to start public K? Yes, the cut-offs are arbitrary, but if you push it back to Aug 27 because you don't want your kid to be the youngest, then why won't the next parent want to push it back to Aug 15 because her kid shouldn't be the youngest, and then another parent to July 25, and so on.

I understand your point, but I doubt any parent would do what you are suggesting. If they truly think it is in the interest of their child, they will redshirt. Just a curiosity, but what’s your kid’s birthday?

Really? Some people honestly can't afford another year of childcare or preschool. Some people don't speak English fluently or have access to knowledge about the educational system and have no concept that they even could/should consider "redshirting" -- they see the cut-off date for enrollment and follow the rules accordingly. My child's birthday is in June, and he's very small for his age. We could afford private school and considered doing private for a year before putting him into public, but the plan was always to be in-grade -- that he would go to a private, nature-based kindergarten program and then enter in 1st grade. I'm not saying this is right for every child or that there aren't circumstances when you would want to "redshirt," but just that it's not feasible for everyone and is setting up a bit of an unnecessary divide. I have good friends whose kid has a late August birthday, and they are thrilled to have one less year of preschool to pay for.

I agree with this. My first grader has two good friends (boys) who turned 6 in August, after K had ended. Both are doing awesome. Unless there are severe special needs, redshirting doesn't do your kid any favors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, as someone whose 4 year old is in a preK class full of kids who are *already* turning 6, I say send your kids to school on time.

You're going to have a rough time in life.

Uh, no. PP is simply sending her kid to school ON TIME as it's supposed to happen. These other people are being a bit selfish, in my opinion, in redshirting their kids. Seriously, someone has to be the oldest and the youngest in the class. It's not the end of the world. I get it if your kid has serious delays or medical issues, but outside of that, get over it. Why is it more fair that your kid will now be 6 for all of kindergarten when there are kids who are literally just turning 5 a day or two before the year starts, vs. your kid being 5 like all the other kids in the class but not turning 6 until most of them have already turned 6? I have a summer birthday and never thought twice about this. Being around older kids can push you to do better. It just seems terribly selfish and unfair to set up a scenario where your kid is going to be a year older and thus possibly better able to compete for sports positions and scholarships, etc. Think about all of the kids whose families are low-income and can't afford to send their kids to private pre-K or "junior K" (whatever the heck that is!) and probably have less a chance to compete for these things in the first place due to circumstances beyond their control. It just makes me angry. End of rant.

Why should my Kid be the youngest when I can legally send her in K when she will turn 6 3 days before school starts (Aug 27th birthday)? She was born at 39 weeks, if she were born at 40 she would have to start at 6 as well. Sorry.. deal with it... I think it’s totally fair.

Because someone's kid has to be the youngest. I guess I just feel like the regulations are there for a purpose, and it's bending the rules to not follow them. What about the kid who was born on Aug 27 but whose family can't afford to send him to an extra year of preschool or daycare and needs to start public K? Yes, the cut-offs are arbitrary, but if you push it back to Aug 27 because you don't want your kid to be the youngest, then why won't the next parent want to push it back to Aug 15 because her kid shouldn't be the youngest, and then another parent to July 25, and so on.

I understand your point, but I doubt any parent would do what you are suggesting. If they truly think it is in the interest of their child, they will redshirt. Just a curiosity, but what’s your kid’s birthday?

Really? Some people honestly can't afford another year of childcare or preschool. Some people don't speak English fluently or have access to knowledge about the educational system and have no concept that they even could/should consider "redshirting" -- they see the cut-off date for enrollment and follow the rules accordingly. My child's birthday is in June, and he's very small for his age. We could afford private school and considered doing private for a year before putting him into public, but the plan was always to be in-grade -- that he would go to a private, nature-based kindergarten program and then enter in 1st grade. I'm not saying this is right for every child or that there aren't circumstances when you would want to "redshirt," but just that it's not feasible for everyone and is setting up a bit of an unnecessary divide. I have good friends whose kid has a late August birthday, and they are thrilled to have one less year of preschool to pay for.

I agree with this. My first grader has two good friends (boys) who turned 6 in August, after K had ended. Both are doing awesome. Unless there are severe special needs, redshirting doesn't do your kid any favors.

So you magically know how every child will fare, based on what, exactly? Your sample size of 2 kids who aren't even your own?

Also FYI, in cases of special needs it can actually be better to start on time and not redshirt, because then the child can get more intensive services.

The rules ALLOW redshirting; and private schools sometime REQUIRE it. It's not bending the rules or cheating. People only redshirt because they have a real reason to; not because they're trying to get some unfair advantage over your child. If your child is socially/academically on track, can cope with the demands of today's "rigorous" kindergarten, then great, they don't need to be redshirted, and you should consider yourself lucky. If you have doubts about how they would cope, then redshirt. End of story.