Redshirting consequences at Lafayette

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're planning to testify at the SBOE hearing next week presumably about how it's incredibly unfair that DCPS is enforcing its own policy. It is spearheaded by a Lafayette parent as I understand.

The letter they're circulating uses some pretty extreme language saying kindergarten access is being threatened if your child was born before September 30th and leads to a lot of confusion. It's actually pretty gross to try and scare parents about something that absolutely will not threaten their kid's access to kindergarten but they seem to be targeting UMC PTOs too which is equally gross.

If the SBOE or DCPS give any air to this I’m going to be so angry. There are kindergarteners in DCPS exposed to mold and lead in their dilapidated buildings but no lets focus on rich parents whining because they didn’t get their way.

Tell that outrage to the idiot DCPS person who referred child protective services to these parents. Taking time and resources away from families who really need it for a publicity stunt.

Please get facts straight, DCPS doesn’t have a policy. It’s a date at which children born before are entitled to kindergarten. Not that they must enter kindergarten.

It’s really amazing how easy it is for people to make up their own alternative facts.

It wasn't like these families were shying away from the cameras WRT being "found" for CPS.

But aren't these children in school- private pre-k?

"Private pre-k" is childcare, not school.

Mmmmm… not sure what pre k you are sending your kids to but lots of pre k programs are not daycares…..

"Unless specifically exempted, every Caregiver and Child Development Facility, regardless of the name by which the Facility is designated must be licensed to operate a child care facility in the District of Columbia." https://osse.dc.gov/node/446

Yes, many private pre k programs provide educational content. But at the end of the day, they are still childcare. Public, public charter, and even private elementary and secondary schools operate under total different requirements than childcare facilities.

So you’re saying the pre-k programs at GDS, sidwell, Beauvoir etc are daycares?

No. If you clicked on the OSSE link you would see that those programs fall under an exempted category.

I'm not sure why someone spending $45K+ at one of those schools would care about the kindergarten cut-off age for public school.

I am well aware these programs are exempt. I am making the point that most true pre-K programs are not daycare. We personally know of many families who went to schools that are part of the exempted category and later went on to public school (including K).

In that case, you can carry on at the private school (an "educational institution" in the compulsory school attendance law) or you can switch to DCPS and expect to comply with the DCPS policy very clearly laid out in the enrollment handbook.

As we tell young children “You need to focus on yourself and what you’re doing and worry less about what others are doing”

These kids, if allowed to enroll in K rather than first, will be granted the "equitable access" preference for high school enrollment. So this affects their classmates and siblings for the next decade +.

We just found out that a UMC family at our school used this to get their kid into Latin for MS! I had no idea this was allowed and think that, irrespective of the outcome here, the EA policy should be adjusted.

Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A vote on various "Let Students Attend Kindergarten" bills is on the agenda for Wednesday's meeting.

The goals of the bills are:

(1) to ensure minors attending prek-4 classes in public, private, or parochial pre-kindergarten educational program are not considered truant or victims of educational neglect;

(2) to ensure that if a minor living in another state turns five after that state’s kindergarten entrance-age date cutoff, but before September 30, and then the family moves into the District during the DC school year, that the child will not be considered truant; and

(3) to ensure students enrolled in private or parochial pre-k programs and students moving into the District of Columbia shall be permitted to be enrolled in kindergarten at the request of the minor’s parent or guardian.

Seems to me they have a good point regarding a child who moves to DC from another state, having missed their state's cut-off for K but made DC's (e.g., born on September 16 but moving from a state with a September 1 cut-off). If that family moves in January, it seems pretty unreasonable to require that child to enroll and get just half a year of kindergarten. (If they move in September, seems like they should have to enroll, but maybe can excuse it as they are trying to get their bearings.). I think this is better addressed by moving DC's cut-off to September 1, but ymmv.

The other provisions are to allow wealthy families to redshirt their kids at will. I don't think that's necessary or desirable. Specifically, they want to add a new section to the code as follows:

(1) For School Year 2025-2026, any minor who has not attended kindergarten, and who has not reached the age of 6 on or before May 31 shall be permitted to be enrolled in kindergarten at the request of the minor’s parent or guardian.

(2) For School Year 2026 - 2027 and beyond, any minor who has not attended kindergarten, and who has not reached the age of 6 on or before June 30 shall be permitted to be enrolled in kindergarten at the request of the minor’s parent or guardian.

it doesn't mention private or parochial schools specifically, but of course families attending public pre-K will have to abide by the existing cut-off, so I think in practice this would only allow for parents who can pay to redshirt (at least for a year of pk4).

I'm not sure why they want May 31 for next year and June 30 for the years after. Hopefully one of them can chime in.

This is insane. This would mean close to a 2 year age span at UNW schools becoming the norm. Redshirting MAY and JUNE birthdays???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're planning to testify at the SBOE hearing next week presumably about how it's incredibly unfair that DCPS is enforcing its own policy. It is spearheaded by a Lafayette parent as I understand.

The letter they're circulating uses some pretty extreme language saying kindergarten access is being threatened if your child was born before September 30th and leads to a lot of confusion. It's actually pretty gross to try and scare parents about something that absolutely will not threaten their kid's access to kindergarten but they seem to be targeting UMC PTOs too which is equally gross.

If the SBOE or DCPS give any air to this I’m going to be so angry. There are kindergarteners in DCPS exposed to mold and lead in their dilapidated buildings but no lets focus on rich parents whining because they didn’t get their way.

Tell that outrage to the idiot DCPS person who referred child protective services to these parents. Taking time and resources away from families who really need it for a publicity stunt.

Please get facts straight, DCPS doesn’t have a policy. It’s a date at which children born before are entitled to kindergarten. Not that they must enter kindergarten.

It’s really amazing how easy it is for people to make up their own alternative facts.

It wasn't like these families were shying away from the cameras WRT being "found" for CPS.

But aren't these children in school- private pre-k?

"Private pre-k" is childcare, not school.

Mmmmm… not sure what pre k you are sending your kids to but lots of pre k programs are not daycares…..

"Unless specifically exempted, every Caregiver and Child Development Facility, regardless of the name by which the Facility is designated must be licensed to operate a child care facility in the District of Columbia." https://osse.dc.gov/node/446

Yes, many private pre k programs provide educational content. But at the end of the day, they are still childcare. Public, public charter, and even private elementary and secondary schools operate under total different requirements than childcare facilities.

So you’re saying the pre-k programs at GDS, sidwell, Beauvoir etc are daycares?

No. If you clicked on the OSSE link you would see that those programs fall under an exempted category.

I'm not sure why someone spending $45K+ at one of those schools would care about the kindergarten cut-off age for public school.

I am well aware these programs are exempt. I am making the point that most true pre-K programs are not daycare. We personally know of many families who went to schools that are part of the exempted category and later went on to public school (including K).

In that case, you can carry on at the private school (an "educational institution" in the compulsory school attendance law) or you can switch to DCPS and expect to comply with the DCPS policy very clearly laid out in the enrollment handbook.

As we tell young children “You need to focus on yourself and what you’re doing and worry less about what others are doing”

These kids, if allowed to enroll in K rather than first, will be granted the "equitable access" preference for high school enrollment. So this affects their classmates and siblings for the next decade +.

We just found out that a UMC family at our school used this to get their kid into Latin for MS! I had no idea this was allowed and think that, irrespective of the outcome here, the EA policy should be adjusted.

Disgusting.

PP says Latin MS which isn’t correct as I am reading the policy which states, “In high school and are one year older, or more, than the age for the grade in which they are currently enrolled.” So maybe Latin high school but not MS. In any case, it is a factor in high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A vote on various "Let Students Attend Kindergarten" bills is on the agenda for Wednesday's meeting.

The goals of the bills are:

(1) to ensure minors attending prek-4 classes in public, private, or parochial pre-kindergarten educational program are not considered truant or victims of educational neglect;

(2) to ensure that if a minor living in another state turns five after that state’s kindergarten entrance-age date cutoff, but before September 30, and then the family moves into the District during the DC school year, that the child will not be considered truant; and

(3) to ensure students enrolled in private or parochial pre-k programs and students moving into the District of Columbia shall be permitted to be enrolled in kindergarten at the request of the minor’s parent or guardian.

Seems to me they have a good point regarding a child who moves to DC from another state, having missed their state's cut-off for K but made DC's (e.g., born on September 16 but moving from a state with a September 1 cut-off). If that family moves in January, it seems pretty unreasonable to require that child to enroll and get just half a year of kindergarten. (If they move in September, seems like they should have to enroll, but maybe can excuse it as they are trying to get their bearings.). I think this is better addressed by moving DC's cut-off to September 1, but ymmv.

The other provisions are to allow wealthy families to redshirt their kids at will. I don't think that's necessary or desirable. Specifically, they want to add a new section to the code as follows:

(1) For School Year 2025-2026, any minor who has not attended kindergarten, and who has not reached the age of 6 on or before May 31 shall be permitted to be enrolled in kindergarten at the request of the minor’s parent or guardian.

(2) For School Year 2026 - 2027 and beyond, any minor who has not attended kindergarten, and who has not reached the age of 6 on or before June 30 shall be permitted to be enrolled in kindergarten at the request of the minor’s parent or guardian.

it doesn't mention private or parochial schools specifically, but of course families attending public pre-K will have to abide by the existing cut-off, so I think in practice this would only allow for parents who can pay to redshirt (at least for a year of pk4).

I'm not sure why they want May 31 for next year and June 30 for the years after. Hopefully one of them can chime in.

This is insane. This would mean close to a 2 year age span at UNW schools becoming the norm. Redshirting MAY and JUNE birthdays???

Remember Pumpkin Mom? This is Pumpkin Mom but for redshirting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A vote on various "Let Students Attend Kindergarten" bills is on the agenda for Wednesday's meeting.

The goals of the bills are:

(1) to ensure minors attending prek-4 classes in public, private, or parochial pre-kindergarten educational program are not considered truant or victims of educational neglect;

(2) to ensure that if a minor living in another state turns five after that state’s kindergarten entrance-age date cutoff, but before September 30, and then the family moves into the District during the DC school year, that the child will not be considered truant; and

(3) to ensure students enrolled in private or parochial pre-k programs and students moving into the District of Columbia shall be permitted to be enrolled in kindergarten at the request of the minor’s parent or guardian.

Seems to me they have a good point regarding a child who moves to DC from another state, having missed their state's cut-off for K but made DC's (e.g., born on September 16 but moving from a state with a September 1 cut-off). If that family moves in January, it seems pretty unreasonable to require that child to enroll and get just half a year of kindergarten. (If they move in September, seems like they should have to enroll, but maybe can excuse it as they are trying to get their bearings.). I think this is better addressed by moving DC's cut-off to September 1, but ymmv.

The other provisions are to allow wealthy families to redshirt their kids at will. I don't think that's necessary or desirable. Specifically, they want to add a new section to the code as follows:

(1) For School Year 2025-2026, any minor who has not attended kindergarten, and who has not reached the age of 6 on or before May 31 shall be permitted to be enrolled in kindergarten at the request of the minor’s parent or guardian.

(2) For School Year 2026 - 2027 and beyond, any minor who has not attended kindergarten, and who has not reached the age of 6 on or before June 30 shall be permitted to be enrolled in kindergarten at the request of the minor’s parent or guardian.

it doesn't mention private or parochial schools specifically, but of course families attending public pre-K will have to abide by the existing cut-off, so I think in practice this would only allow for parents who can pay to redshirt (at least for a year of pk4).

I'm not sure why they want May 31 for next year and June 30 for the years after. Hopefully one of them can chime in.

My guess- Jen Jen or Avra have a kid born in June so it will always be known as the snowflake loop hole

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A vote on various "Let Students Attend Kindergarten" bills is on the agenda for Wednesday's meeting.

The goals of the bills are:

(1) to ensure minors attending prek-4 classes in public, private, or parochial pre-kindergarten educational program are not considered truant or victims of educational neglect;

(2) to ensure that if a minor living in another state turns five after that state’s kindergarten entrance-age date cutoff, but before September 30, and then the family moves into the District during the DC school year, that the child will not be considered truant; and

(3) to ensure students enrolled in private or parochial pre-k programs and students moving into the District of Columbia shall be permitted to be enrolled in kindergarten at the request of the minor’s parent or guardian.

Seems to me they have a good point regarding a child who moves to DC from another state, having missed their state's cut-off for K but made DC's (e.g., born on September 16 but moving from a state with a September 1 cut-off). If that family moves in January, it seems pretty unreasonable to require that child to enroll and get just half a year of kindergarten. (If they move in September, seems like they should have to enroll, but maybe can excuse it as they are trying to get their bearings.). I think this is better addressed by moving DC's cut-off to September 1, but ymmv.

The other provisions are to allow wealthy families to redshirt their kids at will. I don't think that's necessary or desirable. Specifically, they want to add a new section to the code as follows:

(1) For School Year 2025-2026, any minor who has not attended kindergarten, and who has not reached the age of 6 on or before May 31 shall be permitted to be enrolled in kindergarten at the request of the minor’s parent or guardian.

(2) For School Year 2026 - 2027 and beyond, any minor who has not attended kindergarten, and who has not reached the age of 6 on or before June 30 shall be permitted to be enrolled in kindergarten at the request of the minor’s parent or guardian.

it doesn't mention private or parochial schools specifically, but of course families attending public pre-K will have to abide by the existing cut-off, so I think in practice this would only allow for parents who can pay to redshirt (at least for a year of pk4).

I'm not sure why they want May 31 for next year and June 30 for the years after. Hopefully one of them can chime in.

This is insane. This would mean close to a 2 year age span at UNW schools becoming the norm. Redshirting MAY and JUNE birthdays???

We relocated from Minnesota summer 2022 to take care of my mom, moved into the house I grew up in, in a neighborhood I would never be able to afford (and frankly my parents wouldn't be able to afford now. Yay for buying in 1989, I suppose). DC attends a wealthy suburban school. I was shocked at the number of May and June redshirts when DC started kindergarten. Even one April birthday. And everyone just acts like this is the most normal thing in the world.

We're moving back to Minnesota this summer, I'll be interested to see how things compare.

[Anonymous]

These kids, if allowed to enroll in K rather than first, will be granted the "equitable access" preference for high school enrollment. So this affects their classmates and siblings for the next decade +.

How does the equitable access preference work for these kids?

[Anonymous]

If the code permits kids this age to enroll in kindergarten, then they aren’t really one year older than the age for the grade in which they are currently enrolled, right? I’d argue the age would now start with kids born in after May 30 or June 30 or whatever.

The silver lining could be that these bills close that ridiculous loophole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the code permits kids this age to enroll in kindergarten, then they aren’t really one year older than the age for the grade in which they are currently enrolled, right? I’d argue the age would now start with kids born in after May 30 or June 30 or whatever.

The silver lining could be that these bills close that ridiculous loophole.

Assuming they also change the PK ages, it would basically just give most kids 2 shots at the PK & K lotteries and will absolutely be used as such for those without financial pressure to use free PK. If they don’t change the PK ages, then this is literally the very rich kids loophole: you can only use it for K if you’re rich? So rich Kers have the option to try the lottery twice and redshirt if they want? Sounds great for them… and like it will definitely perpetuate inequities across the system

[Anonymous]

How about letting parents decide whats best for their kids? Redshirt if you want to, instead of following some arbitrary rule and cut off. I dont really understand what the fuss is all about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

These kids, if allowed to enroll in K rather than first, will be granted the "equitable access" preference for high school enrollment. So this affects their classmates and siblings for the next decade +.

How does the equitable access preference work for these kids?

Yes. Can someone please ELI5 this please

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the code permits kids this age to enroll in kindergarten, then they aren’t really one year older than the age for the grade in which they are currently enrolled, right? I’d argue the age would now start with kids born in after May 30 or June 30 or whatever.

The silver lining could be that these bills close that ridiculous loophole.

Assuming they also change the PK ages, it would basically just give most kids 2 shots at the PK & K lotteries and will absolutely be used as such for those without financial pressure to use free PK. If they don’t change the PK ages, then this is literally the very rich kids loophole: you can only use it for K if you’re rich? So rich Kers have the option to try the lottery twice and redshirt if they want? Sounds great for them… and like it will definitely perpetuate inequities across the system

This is so dumb. Privileges in society is not applying to public kindergarten lottery two years in a row.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're planning to testify at the SBOE hearing next week presumably about how it's incredibly unfair that DCPS is enforcing its own policy. It is spearheaded by a Lafayette parent as I understand.

The letter they're circulating uses some pretty extreme language saying kindergarten access is being threatened if your child was born before September 30th and leads to a lot of confusion. It's actually pretty gross to try and scare parents about something that absolutely will not threaten their kid's access to kindergarten but they seem to be targeting UMC PTOs too which is equally gross.

If the SBOE or DCPS give any air to this I’m going to be so angry. There are kindergarteners in DCPS exposed to mold and lead in their dilapidated buildings but no lets focus on rich parents whining because they didn’t get their way.

Tell that outrage to the idiot DCPS person who referred child protective services to these parents. Taking time and resources away from families who really need it for a publicity stunt.

Please get facts straight, DCPS doesn’t have a policy. It’s a date at which children born before are entitled to kindergarten. Not that they must enter kindergarten.

It’s really amazing how easy it is for people to make up their own alternative facts.

It wasn't like these families were shying away from the cameras WRT being "found" for CPS.

But aren't these children in school- private pre-k?

"Private pre-k" is childcare, not school.

Mmmmm… not sure what pre k you are sending your kids to but lots of pre k programs are not daycares…..

"Unless specifically exempted, every Caregiver and Child Development Facility, regardless of the name by which the Facility is designated must be licensed to operate a child care facility in the District of Columbia." https://osse.dc.gov/node/446

Yes, many private pre k programs provide educational content. But at the end of the day, they are still childcare. Public, public charter, and even private elementary and secondary schools operate under total different requirements than childcare facilities.

So you’re saying the pre-k programs at GDS, sidwell, Beauvoir etc are daycares?

No. If you clicked on the OSSE link you would see that those programs fall under an exempted category.

I'm not sure why someone spending $45K+ at one of those schools would care about the kindergarten cut-off age for public school.

I am well aware these programs are exempt. I am making the point that most true pre-K programs are not daycare. We personally know of many families who went to schools that are part of the exempted category and later went on to public school (including K).

In that case, you can carry on at the private school (an "educational institution" in the compulsory school attendance law) or you can switch to DCPS and expect to comply with the DCPS policy very clearly laid out in the enrollment handbook.

As we tell young children “You need to focus on yourself and what you’re doing and worry less about what others are doing”

As you well know, kids having classmates 15-18 months older than them has a real effect. This is not an individual decision with no effects on others.

What’s that real effect you’re talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're planning to testify at the SBOE hearing next week presumably about how it's incredibly unfair that DCPS is enforcing its own policy. It is spearheaded by a Lafayette parent as I understand.

The letter they're circulating uses some pretty extreme language saying kindergarten access is being threatened if your child was born before September 30th and leads to a lot of confusion. It's actually pretty gross to try and scare parents about something that absolutely will not threaten their kid's access to kindergarten but they seem to be targeting UMC PTOs too which is equally gross.

If the SBOE or DCPS give any air to this I’m going to be so angry. There are kindergarteners in DCPS exposed to mold and lead in their dilapidated buildings but no lets focus on rich parents whining because they didn’t get their way.

Tell that outrage to the idiot DCPS person who referred child protective services to these parents. Taking time and resources away from families who really need it for a publicity stunt.

Please get facts straight, DCPS doesn’t have a policy. It’s a date at which children born before are entitled to kindergarten. Not that they must enter kindergarten.

It’s really amazing how easy it is for people to make up their own alternative facts.

It wasn't like these families were shying away from the cameras WRT being "found" for CPS.

But aren't these children in school- private pre-k?

"Private pre-k" is childcare, not school.

Mmmmm… not sure what pre k you are sending your kids to but lots of pre k programs are not daycares…..

"Unless specifically exempted, every Caregiver and Child Development Facility, regardless of the name by which the Facility is designated must be licensed to operate a child care facility in the District of Columbia." https://osse.dc.gov/node/446

Yes, many private pre k programs provide educational content. But at the end of the day, they are still childcare. Public, public charter, and even private elementary and secondary schools operate under total different requirements than childcare facilities.

So you’re saying the pre-k programs at GDS, sidwell, Beauvoir etc are daycares?

No. If you clicked on the OSSE link you would see that those programs fall under an exempted category.

I'm not sure why someone spending $45K+ at one of those schools would care about the kindergarten cut-off age for public school.

I am well aware these programs are exempt. I am making the point that most true pre-K programs are not daycare. We personally know of many families who went to schools that are part of the exempted category and later went on to public school (including K).

In that case, you can carry on at the private school (an "educational institution" in the compulsory school attendance law) or you can switch to DCPS and expect to comply with the DCPS policy very clearly laid out in the enrollment handbook.

As we tell young children “You need to focus on yourself and what you’re doing and worry less about what others are doing”

As you well know, kids having classmates 15-18 months older than them has a real effect. This is not an individual decision with no effects on others.

What’s that real effect you’re talking about?

If there is no impact why hold back?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about letting parents decide whats best for their kids? Redshirt if you want to, instead of following some arbitrary rule and cut off. I dont really understand what the fuss is all about.

You realize schools and the district are not catering to one parent they have to balance an entire ecosystem of families. If every family wants to redshirt that's a nightmare for admin and at best leaves teachers with kids who could be possibly 18 months apart which is not how classes are equipped outside of Montessori.

Like public health and the idea of letting everyone make their own choices, we exist in a society and there are typically rules and systems to make society work for as many people as possible.