red shirting question

[Anonymous]

^and is on the Dean's List^

[Anonymous]

My kid is a spring birthday at a private school and in K, 1st and 2nd she struggled in the fall because she was constantly being held to a standard set by a group of children who were 12-14 months older than her. She also got frustrated with the pace of her learning and her ability to do certain things on the playground and in a school, grade-based sport.

It wasn’t fair but lots of things aren’t. Like a PP, I reminded her that some of those girls she compared herself to and that teachers compared her to were walking and eating solid food when she hadn’t been been born. At the time she knew a lot of babies and toddlers so that was a really vivid comparison for her. The difference is less now in later elementary grades, although those girls are accelerating the social drama and nonsense. It makes more of a difference when kids have lived 20% longer than their “peers” but that difference is smaller every year.

We did outside gifted testing with a psychologist not to get into a gifted program, but to truly understand where she stood against her peers, since school-based comparisons weren’t helpful because of the broad age spread. WISC and other tests compare kids within 6 months of each other and it was helpful in calming our concerns about if DD was truly behind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My red shirted autistic kid is not ahead of your child in any way. You make the decisions that are best for your child and I'll do the same for mine.

+1. My dyslexic kid is also not ahead of your snowflake. People redshirt kids for MANY reasons.

Also, life in not fair. The sooner you grasp this the better. If you’re expecting fairness you’re in for a long ride.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A question about fairness!

How is it fair for red shirted kids to be in a class with my late June birthday kid? Developmentally they are going to be ahead, do the teachers care or take this into consideration?? It doesn't seem fair. Some can be almost 9 months older.

In a normal grade, kids should span 12 months. That is how school works.

+1000. There are always going to be kids born right before the cut-off and right after. Someone has to be the youngest and someone has to be the oldest in class. If OP is in a district with a typical Sep 1 cut-off date, why is she complaining about her June b-day kid? There will be younger July and August b-day kids who are not red-shirted.

[Anonymous]

The allowable range of age for school entry is huge. Youngest in MCPS is 4 years 10.5 months. Oldest is day before 7th birthday. Nine months isn’t even the midpoint. If you don’t think it’s fair then lobby the relevant agency for a change.

[Anonymous]

My parents got two of us double promotions so we were always younger than the youngest and it has several disadvantages. I don't envy child prodigies whose parents get them to finish high school at 12 and college at 16. What's the rush?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A question about fairness!

How is it fair for red shirted kids to be in a class with my late June birthday kid? Developmentally they are going to be ahead, do the teachers care or take this into consideration?? It doesn't seem fair. Some can be almost 9 months older.

Do you read to your child? Pay for supplements? Are you MC and above? Does your child have health insurance? Safe housing? Stable access to food?

If so, how is it fair for kids in your child’s class who don’t have the above to be in class with your child? Or do you not care about those kids?

Grow up. You are so embarrassing and ridiculous. I didn’t redshirt, I just cannot stand DCUMs whiny, narcissistic, and pathetic anti redshirters.

You are always the most vitriolic person on any red shirting thread. I mean, look at your language in this post, which is 10x more dramatic than anything anyone else has posted.

Usually when people object to red shirting, it's the situations in which it's fully discretionary. Like not situations where a child has an identified developmental disadvantage. It's the people who hold back their summer birthdays (usually boys) because they don't want their sons to be on the smaller side in school. There are also people who do it explicitly for advantages in athletics (and in fact that is where the word comes from, as it originally only described "red shirted" college freshman who would be recruited but not played their freshman year in order to give them time to get bigger/stronger/more competitive).

There are obviously fairness concerns with discretionary redshirting and they are never going to go away, no matter how angry and vicious you get on DCUM threads on the subject.

NP, and I agree with PP. Anti-redshirt parents always gloss over the other unfair, "discretionary" advantages their children have. Where they live, what school they go to, what they eat, what hobbies they have, what tutors they get, etc., etc. But somehow the terrible line in the sand is redshirting, which, incidentally, may be more accessible to some families than other advantages (i.e., if you already have a stay home parent or a family caregiver it doesn't cost extra to delay school entry for a year).

PP may have been a little harsh, but the whining is ridculous.

Some people who oppose redshirting oppose it specifically because they don't have those same discretionary advantages you are talking about. It really depends on the person.

One reason I oppose redshirting except in the instance of developmental delays is because my kid is already at a disadvantage versus kids who have a lot of resources, with parents who can afford tutoring and supplementing, kids who don't have ADHD, kids with more family and people in their corner helping them on. My kid doesn't have any of that stuff. But then on top of that, the really well-resourced families are ALSO the ones more likely to redshirt (because they know the system, because they can afford another year of childcare) so then in addition to their kids having more financial resources and family resources, their kids are also going to bigger and older than my kid all the way through school.

If redshirting was something that MC and LC families did to even the playing field, you might have a point. But redshirting (outside of developmental issues) is largely something that already-advantaged families do to increase their advantages.

So yeah: anti-redshirt.

Except that at age 3 or 4, when kids are getting ready to start school, many who will later be diagnosed with some sort of developmental disability haven't yet been identified. For example, my kid was born 3 days before the cut off in DC. Although she was later diagnosed with autism, all we knew at age 4, when we were deciding to send her to school was that she was barely potty trained, didn't talk to people outside her family, and still only parallel played. If red shirting had only been available to those with a known disability, she wouldn't have qualified.

Incidentally, because of the difference in cut offs between DC and Maryland, had we lived in Maryland, our decision wouldn't even have been considered red shirting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A question about fairness!

How is it fair for red shirted kids to be in a class with my late June birthday kid? Developmentally they are going to be ahead, do the teachers care or take this into consideration?? It doesn't seem fair. Some can be almost 9 months older.

Do you read to your child? Pay for supplements? Are you MC and above? Does your child have health insurance? Safe housing? Stable access to food?

If so, how is it fair for kids in your child’s class who don’t have the above to be in class with your child? Or do you not care about those kids?

Grow up. You are so embarrassing and ridiculous. I didn’t redshirt, I just cannot stand DCUMs whiny, narcissistic, and pathetic anti redshirters.

You are always the most vitriolic person on any red shirting thread. I mean, look at your language in this post, which is 10x more dramatic than anything anyone else has posted.

Usually when people object to red shirting, it's the situations in which it's fully discretionary. Like not situations where a child has an identified developmental disadvantage. It's the people who hold back their summer birthdays (usually boys) because they don't want their sons to be on the smaller side in school. There are also people who do it explicitly for advantages in athletics (and in fact that is where the word comes from, as it originally only described "red shirted" college freshman who would be recruited but not played their freshman year in order to give them time to get bigger/stronger/more competitive).

There are obviously fairness concerns with discretionary redshirting and they are never going to go away, no matter how angry and vicious you get on DCUM threads on the subject.

NP, and I agree with PP. Anti-redshirt parents always gloss over the other unfair, "discretionary" advantages their children have. Where they live, what school they go to, what they eat, what hobbies they have, what tutors they get, etc., etc. But somehow the terrible line in the sand is redshirting, which, incidentally, may be more accessible to some families than other advantages (i.e., if you already have a stay home parent or a family caregiver it doesn't cost extra to delay school entry for a year).

PP may have been a little harsh, but the whining is ridculous.

Some people who oppose redshirting oppose it specifically because they don't have those same discretionary advantages you are talking about. It really depends on the person.

One reason I oppose redshirting except in the instance of developmental delays is because my kid is already at a disadvantage versus kids who have a lot of resources, with parents who can afford tutoring and supplementing, kids who don't have ADHD, kids with more family and people in their corner helping them on. My kid doesn't have any of that stuff. But then on top of that, the really well-resourced families are ALSO the ones more likely to redshirt (because they know the system, because they can afford another year of childcare) so then in addition to their kids having more financial resources and family resources, their kids are also going to bigger and older than my kid all the way through school.

If redshirting was something that MC and LC families did to even the playing field, you might have a point. But redshirting (outside of developmental issues) is largely something that already-advantaged families do to increase their advantages.

So yeah: anti-redshirt.

Except that at age 3 or 4, when kids are getting ready to start school, many who will later be diagnosed with some sort of developmental disability haven't yet been identified. For example, my kid was born 3 days before the cut off in DC. Although she was later diagnosed with autism, all we knew at age 4, when we were deciding to send her to school was that she was barely potty trained, didn't talk to people outside her family, and still only parallel played. If red shirting had only been available to those with a known disability, she wouldn't have qualified.

Incidentally, because of the difference in cut offs between DC and Maryland, had we lived in Maryland, our decision wouldn't even have been considered red shirting.

You are describing developmental delays. Waiting to enroll your kid in K because of delays in potty training and socialization are exactly what people mean when they refer to developmental delays. No one is saying that only a child diagnosed with autism should be redshirted. When someone says that developmental delays are a valid reason to redshirt, they are talking about exactly the situation you are describing.

This is to distinguish from people who redshirt a kid who has no developmental delays (potty trained on time, socially comfortable with other kids, no physical delays, etc.) because they would prefer their kid be among the oldest and biggest in class, as opposed to among the smallest and youngest.

There are a lot of people who fully support redshirting for developmental delays but thinks that redshirting to give a developmentally normal (or even advanced!) kid an edge is unnecessarily aggressive and can ruin age cohorts by putting kids who could absolutely have started K on time in the next cohort, skewing the average (on size, development, academics, everything) unnecessarily.

That's the problem. Some redshirting makes total sense and is likely necessary, and some redshirting is obnoxious hyper competitive snowplow parenting. But when we talk about redshirting, the snowplow parents want to pretend it's all equal. They will use a parent like you, who had a totally valid and important reason to redshirt. It actually does a disservice to everyone.

That's why I think redshirting should require an assessment. I don't think it should be super strict, but I don't think you should be allowed to hold your kid back for K without having someone from the school district weigh in and at least conclude your kid is borderline for K-readiness.

[Anonymous]

Another way to think of this is to ask what would happen if everyone with a similar child redshirted.

If everyone who had a chid showing signs of developmental delays, maybe learning disorders, autism, etc, redshirted their kids, it would benefit both these kids and the other kids in class. Going a child more time to be ready for K is great for everyone and leads to a better experience all around.

Meanwhile, if everyone with a boy born in July or August redshirted, you'd just wind up with a bunch of parents of boys with May and June birthdays who are upset that their kids are the smallest and youngest. Redshirting summer birthdays as a matter of course makes no sense because someone has to be the youngest. From a policy perspective, enabling this kind of redshirting serves no purpose and likely causes as many problems as it solves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A question about fairness!

How is it fair for red shirted kids to be in a class with my late June birthday kid? Developmentally they are going to be ahead, do the teachers care or take this into consideration?? It doesn't seem fair. Some can be almost 9 months older.

Do you read to your child? Pay for supplements? Are you MC and above? Does your child have health insurance? Safe housing? Stable access to food?

If so, how is it fair for kids in your child’s class who don’t have the above to be in class with your child? Or do you not care about those kids?

Grow up. You are so embarrassing and ridiculous. I didn’t redshirt, I just cannot stand DCUMs whiny, narcissistic, and pathetic anti redshirters.

You are always the most vitriolic person on any red shirting thread. I mean, look at your language in this post, which is 10x more dramatic than anything anyone else has posted.

Usually when people object to red shirting, it's the situations in which it's fully discretionary. Like not situations where a child has an identified developmental disadvantage. It's the people who hold back their summer birthdays (usually boys) because they don't want their sons to be on the smaller side in school. There are also people who do it explicitly for advantages in athletics (and in fact that is where the word comes from, as it originally only described "red shirted" college freshman who would be recruited but not played their freshman year in order to give them time to get bigger/stronger/more competitive).

There are obviously fairness concerns with discretionary redshirting and they are never going to go away, no matter how angry and vicious you get on DCUM threads on the subject.

NP, and I agree with PP. Anti-redshirt parents always gloss over the other unfair, "discretionary" advantages their children have. Where they live, what school they go to, what they eat, what hobbies they have, what tutors they get, etc., etc. But somehow the terrible line in the sand is redshirting, which, incidentally, may be more accessible to some families than other advantages (i.e., if you already have a stay home parent or a family caregiver it doesn't cost extra to delay school entry for a year).

PP may have been a little harsh, but the whining is ridculous.

Some people who oppose redshirting oppose it specifically because they don't have those same discretionary advantages you are talking about. It really depends on the person.

One reason I oppose redshirting except in the instance of developmental delays is because my kid is already at a disadvantage versus kids who have a lot of resources, with parents who can afford tutoring and supplementing, kids who don't have ADHD, kids with more family and people in their corner helping them on. My kid doesn't have any of that stuff. But then on top of that, the really well-resourced families are ALSO the ones more likely to redshirt (because they know the system, because they can afford another year of childcare) so then in addition to their kids having more financial resources and family resources, their kids are also going to bigger and older than my kid all the way through school.

If redshirting was something that MC and LC families did to even the playing field, you might have a point. But redshirting (outside of developmental issues) is largely something that already-advantaged families do to increase their advantages.

So yeah: anti-redshirt.

Except that at age 3 or 4, when kids are getting ready to start school, many who will later be diagnosed with some sort of developmental disability haven't yet been identified. For example, my kid was born 3 days before the cut off in DC. Although she was later diagnosed with autism, all we knew at age 4, when we were deciding to send her to school was that she was barely potty trained, didn't talk to people outside her family, and still only parallel played. If red shirting had only been available to those with a known disability, she wouldn't have qualified.

Incidentally, because of the difference in cut offs between DC and Maryland, had we lived in Maryland, our decision wouldn't even have been considered red shirting.

You are describing developmental delays. Waiting to enroll your kid in K because of delays in potty training and socialization are exactly what people mean when they refer to developmental delays. No one is saying that only a child diagnosed with autism should be redshirted. When someone says that developmental delays are a valid reason to redshirt, they are talking about exactly the situation you are describing.

This is to distinguish from people who redshirt a kid who has no developmental delays (potty trained on time, socially comfortable with other kids, no physical delays, etc.) because they would prefer their kid be among the oldest and biggest in class, as opposed to among the smallest and youngest.

There are a lot of people who fully support redshirting for developmental delays but thinks that redshirting to give a developmentally normal (or even advanced!) kid an edge is unnecessarily aggressive and can ruin age cohorts by putting kids who could absolutely have started K on time in the next cohort, skewing the average (on size, development, academics, everything) unnecessarily.

That's the problem. Some redshirting makes total sense and is likely necessary, and some redshirting is obnoxious hyper competitive snowplow parenting. But when we talk about redshirting, the snowplow parents want to pretend it's all equal. They will use a parent like you, who had a totally valid and important reason to redshirt. It actually does a disservice to everyone.

That's why I think redshirting should require an assessment. I don't think it should be super strict, but I don't think you should be allowed to hold your kid back for K without having someone from the school district weigh in and at least conclude your kid is borderline for K-readiness.

Maybe it's my social circle, but I don't know a single person who held their child back "just because" or to get an advantage for a child about whom they didn't have any concerns. It feels like a straw man argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get redshirting for kids who are developmentally behind but in most cases, its just parents trying to give them unfair advantage. Same parents falsely claim learning disabilities and get them free tutoring or extra time on tests.

Falsely claim? How would you know? Are you saying schools, doctors, and other parents are colluding to screw your little precious? That's some extra level paranoia you've got going on there. Just get your kid whatever help they need and they too can do well in school and get what they need to succeed.

It's been said (without support) on this thread several times that parents (always, often, primarily, . . . ) redshirt for some advantage, and this works to the disadvantage of the law-abiding families who start their kids at the earliest opportunity. In real life, I don't see either the advantage, or that this is the motivation. The parents I know who redshirted generally did it for specific kids (that is, not for each of their kids) based on specific needs of those kids. Any competitive sport around here is based on date of birth, and standardized testing is also adjusted for birthdate. My redshirted kid hates competitive sports, and I never aspired for him to be otherwise. So, what is the advantage that you think these nefarious parents are getting for their kids? Is it just that the redshirts have a leg-up at recess? If so, I hope you can muster enough self-awareness to see how petty this is. Proficiency at the jungle gym won't get you far, and there is almost certainly going to be a point in your kid's life when your kid feels bad for not measuring up. Not measuring up is a fact of life, and the playing field is unlevel in all kinds of ways. If this one irks you, then hold your kid back a grade. In any event, your non-redshirted kid will be fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A question about fairness!

How is it fair for red shirted kids to be in a class with my late June birthday kid? Developmentally they are going to be ahead, do the teachers care or take this into consideration?? It doesn't seem fair. Some can be almost 9 months older.

Do you read to your child? Pay for supplements? Are you MC and above? Does your child have health insurance? Safe housing? Stable access to food?

If so, how is it fair for kids in your child’s class who don’t have the above to be in class with your child? Or do you not care about those kids?

Grow up. You are so embarrassing and ridiculous. I didn’t redshirt, I just cannot stand DCUMs whiny, narcissistic, and pathetic anti redshirters.

You are always the most vitriolic person on any red shirting thread. I mean, look at your language in this post, which is 10x more dramatic than anything anyone else has posted.

Usually when people object to red shirting, it's the situations in which it's fully discretionary. Like not situations where a child has an identified developmental disadvantage. It's the people who hold back their summer birthdays (usually boys) because they don't want their sons to be on the smaller side in school. There are also people who do it explicitly for advantages in athletics (and in fact that is where the word comes from, as it originally only described "red shirted" college freshman who would be recruited but not played their freshman year in order to give them time to get bigger/stronger/more competitive).

There are obviously fairness concerns with discretionary redshirting and they are never going to go away, no matter how angry and vicious you get on DCUM threads on the subject.

NP, and I agree with PP. Anti-redshirt parents always gloss over the other unfair, "discretionary" advantages their children have. Where they live, what school they go to, what they eat, what hobbies they have, what tutors they get, etc., etc. But somehow the terrible line in the sand is redshirting, which, incidentally, may be more accessible to some families than other advantages (i.e., if you already have a stay home parent or a family caregiver it doesn't cost extra to delay school entry for a year).

PP may have been a little harsh, but the whining is ridculous.

Some people who oppose redshirting oppose it specifically because they don't have those same discretionary advantages you are talking about. It really depends on the person.

One reason I oppose redshirting except in the instance of developmental delays is because my kid is already at a disadvantage versus kids who have a lot of resources, with parents who can afford tutoring and supplementing, kids who don't have ADHD, kids with more family and people in their corner helping them on. My kid doesn't have any of that stuff. But then on top of that, the really well-resourced families are ALSO the ones more likely to redshirt (because they know the system, because they can afford another year of childcare) so then in addition to their kids having more financial resources and family resources, their kids are also going to bigger and older than my kid all the way through school.

If redshirting was something that MC and LC families did to even the playing field, you might have a point. But redshirting (outside of developmental issues) is largely something that already-advantaged families do to increase their advantages.

So yeah: anti-redshirt.

Except that at age 3 or 4, when kids are getting ready to start school, many who will later be diagnosed with some sort of developmental disability haven't yet been identified. For example, my kid was born 3 days before the cut off in DC. Although she was later diagnosed with autism, all we knew at age 4, when we were deciding to send her to school was that she was barely potty trained, didn't talk to people outside her family, and still only parallel played. If red shirting had only been available to those with a known disability, she wouldn't have qualified.

Incidentally, because of the difference in cut offs between DC and Maryland, had we lived in Maryland, our decision wouldn't even have been considered red shirting.

You are describing developmental delays. Waiting to enroll your kid in K because of delays in potty training and socialization are exactly what people mean when they refer to developmental delays. No one is saying that only a child diagnosed with autism should be redshirted. When someone says that developmental delays are a valid reason to redshirt, they are talking about exactly the situation you are describing.

This is to distinguish from people who redshirt a kid who has no developmental delays (potty trained on time, socially comfortable with other kids, no physical delays, etc.) because they would prefer their kid be among the oldest and biggest in class, as opposed to among the smallest and youngest.

There are a lot of people who fully support redshirting for developmental delays but thinks that redshirting to give a developmentally normal (or even advanced!) kid an edge is unnecessarily aggressive and can ruin age cohorts by putting kids who could absolutely have started K on time in the next cohort, skewing the average (on size, development, academics, everything) unnecessarily.

That's the problem. Some redshirting makes total sense and is likely necessary, and some redshirting is obnoxious hyper competitive snowplow parenting. But when we talk about redshirting, the snowplow parents want to pretend it's all equal. They will use a parent like you, who had a totally valid and important reason to redshirt. It actually does a disservice to everyone.

That's why I think redshirting should require an assessment. I don't think it should be super strict, but I don't think you should be allowed to hold your kid back for K without having someone from the school district weigh in and at least conclude your kid is borderline for K-readiness.

Maybe it's my social circle, but I don't know a single person who held their child back "just because" or to get an advantage for a child about whom they didn't have any concerns. It feels like a straw man argument.

It is a straw man argument. I've never encountered redshirting-for-advantage in the wild but the perception endures. Frankly, if the schools got to decide, I would expect more redshirting -- not less -- particularly if the teachers of the not-ready kids got a say in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A question about fairness!

How is it fair for red shirted kids to be in a class with my late June birthday kid? Developmentally they are going to be ahead, do the teachers care or take this into consideration?? It doesn't seem fair. Some can be almost 9 months older.

Do you read to your child? Pay for supplements? Are you MC and above? Does your child have health insurance? Safe housing? Stable access to food?

If so, how is it fair for kids in your child’s class who don’t have the above to be in class with your child? Or do you not care about those kids?

Grow up. You are so embarrassing and ridiculous. I didn’t redshirt, I just cannot stand DCUMs whiny, narcissistic, and pathetic anti redshirters.

You are always the most vitriolic person on any red shirting thread. I mean, look at your language in this post, which is 10x more dramatic than anything anyone else has posted.

Usually when people object to red shirting, it's the situations in which it's fully discretionary. Like not situations where a child has an identified developmental disadvantage. It's the people who hold back their summer birthdays (usually boys) because they don't want their sons to be on the smaller side in school. There are also people who do it explicitly for advantages in athletics (and in fact that is where the word comes from, as it originally only described "red shirted" college freshman who would be recruited but not played their freshman year in order to give them time to get bigger/stronger/more competitive).

There are obviously fairness concerns with discretionary redshirting and they are never going to go away, no matter how angry and vicious you get on DCUM threads on the subject.

NP, and I agree with PP. Anti-redshirt parents always gloss over the other unfair, "discretionary" advantages their children have. Where they live, what school they go to, what they eat, what hobbies they have, what tutors they get, etc., etc. But somehow the terrible line in the sand is redshirting, which, incidentally, may be more accessible to some families than other advantages (i.e., if you already have a stay home parent or a family caregiver it doesn't cost extra to delay school entry for a year).

PP may have been a little harsh, but the whining is ridculous.

Some people who oppose redshirting oppose it specifically because they don't have those same discretionary advantages you are talking about. It really depends on the person.

One reason I oppose redshirting except in the instance of developmental delays is because my kid is already at a disadvantage versus kids who have a lot of resources, with parents who can afford tutoring and supplementing, kids who don't have ADHD, kids with more family and people in their corner helping them on. My kid doesn't have any of that stuff. But then on top of that, the really well-resourced families are ALSO the ones more likely to redshirt (because they know the system, because they can afford another year of childcare) so then in addition to their kids having more financial resources and family resources, their kids are also going to bigger and older than my kid all the way through school.

If redshirting was something that MC and LC families did to even the playing field, you might have a point. But redshirting (outside of developmental issues) is largely something that already-advantaged families do to increase their advantages.

So yeah: anti-redshirt.

Except that at age 3 or 4, when kids are getting ready to start school, many who will later be diagnosed with some sort of developmental disability haven't yet been identified. For example, my kid was born 3 days before the cut off in DC. Although she was later diagnosed with autism, all we knew at age 4, when we were deciding to send her to school was that she was barely potty trained, didn't talk to people outside her family, and still only parallel played. If red shirting had only been available to those with a known disability, she wouldn't have qualified.

Incidentally, because of the difference in cut offs between DC and Maryland, had we lived in Maryland, our decision wouldn't even have been considered red shirting.

You are describing developmental delays. Waiting to enroll your kid in K because of delays in potty training and socialization are exactly what people mean when they refer to developmental delays. No one is saying that only a child diagnosed with autism should be redshirted. When someone says that developmental delays are a valid reason to redshirt, they are talking about exactly the situation you are describing.

This is to distinguish from people who redshirt a kid who has no developmental delays (potty trained on time, socially comfortable with other kids, no physical delays, etc.) because they would prefer their kid be among the oldest and biggest in class, as opposed to among the smallest and youngest.

There are a lot of people who fully support redshirting for developmental delays but thinks that redshirting to give a developmentally normal (or even advanced!) kid an edge is unnecessarily aggressive and can ruin age cohorts by putting kids who could absolutely have started K on time in the next cohort, skewing the average (on size, development, academics, everything) unnecessarily.

That's the problem. Some redshirting makes total sense and is likely necessary, and some redshirting is obnoxious hyper competitive snowplow parenting. But when we talk about redshirting, the snowplow parents want to pretend it's all equal. They will use a parent like you, who had a totally valid and important reason to redshirt. It actually does a disservice to everyone.

That's why I think redshirting should require an assessment. I don't think it should be super strict, but I don't think you should be allowed to hold your kid back for K without having someone from the school district weigh in and at least conclude your kid is borderline for K-readiness.

Maybe it's my social circle, but I don't know a single person who held their child back "just because" or to get an advantage for a child about whom they didn't have any concerns. It feels like a straw man argument.

It is a straw man argument. I've never encountered redshirting-for-advantage in the wild but the perception endures. Frankly, if the schools got to decide, I would expect more redshirting -- not less -- particularly if the teachers of the not-ready kids got a say in it.

There was one in my child's class. Both my child and the other have late Aug birthdays (Sep 1 cut-off) but the other child was red shirted for no apparent reason other than the parents didnt want their child to be the youngest like mine. I know this because our kids are good friends and the parents told me! Now they are considering trying to skip a grade because being the oldest has created a different set of problems. Unfortunately, this particular school which is lenient about redshirting is not so accommodating for grade skip requests.

To deny that people redshirt for trivial reasons is just being obtuse. In this particular case, the parents were wrongly advised that "everyone" redshirts and discovered it was not the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A question about fairness!

How is it fair for red shirted kids to be in a class with my late June birthday kid? Developmentally they are going to be ahead, do the teachers care or take this into consideration?? It doesn't seem fair. Some can be almost 9 months older.

Do you read to your child? Pay for supplements? Are you MC and above? Does your child have health insurance? Safe housing? Stable access to food?

If so, how is it fair for kids in your child’s class who don’t have the above to be in class with your child? Or do you not care about those kids?

Grow up. You are so embarrassing and ridiculous. I didn’t redshirt, I just cannot stand DCUMs whiny, narcissistic, and pathetic anti redshirters.

You are always the most vitriolic person on any red shirting thread. I mean, look at your language in this post, which is 10x more dramatic than anything anyone else has posted.

Usually when people object to red shirting, it's the situations in which it's fully discretionary. Like not situations where a child has an identified developmental disadvantage. It's the people who hold back their summer birthdays (usually boys) because they don't want their sons to be on the smaller side in school. There are also people who do it explicitly for advantages in athletics (and in fact that is where the word comes from, as it originally only described "red shirted" college freshman who would be recruited but not played their freshman year in order to give them time to get bigger/stronger/more competitive).

There are obviously fairness concerns with discretionary redshirting and they are never going to go away, no matter how angry and vicious you get on DCUM threads on the subject.

NP, and I agree with PP. Anti-redshirt parents always gloss over the other unfair, "discretionary" advantages their children have. Where they live, what school they go to, what they eat, what hobbies they have, what tutors they get, etc., etc. But somehow the terrible line in the sand is redshirting, which, incidentally, may be more accessible to some families than other advantages (i.e., if you already have a stay home parent or a family caregiver it doesn't cost extra to delay school entry for a year).

PP may have been a little harsh, but the whining is ridculous.

Some people who oppose redshirting oppose it specifically because they don't have those same discretionary advantages you are talking about. It really depends on the person.

One reason I oppose redshirting except in the instance of developmental delays is because my kid is already at a disadvantage versus kids who have a lot of resources, with parents who can afford tutoring and supplementing, kids who don't have ADHD, kids with more family and people in their corner helping them on. My kid doesn't have any of that stuff. But then on top of that, the really well-resourced families are ALSO the ones more likely to redshirt (because they know the system, because they can afford another year of childcare) so then in addition to their kids having more financial resources and family resources, their kids are also going to bigger and older than my kid all the way through school.

If redshirting was something that MC and LC families did to even the playing field, you might have a point. But redshirting (outside of developmental issues) is largely something that already-advantaged families do to increase their advantages.

So yeah: anti-redshirt.

Except that at age 3 or 4, when kids are getting ready to start school, many who will later be diagnosed with some sort of developmental disability haven't yet been identified. For example, my kid was born 3 days before the cut off in DC. Although she was later diagnosed with autism, all we knew at age 4, when we were deciding to send her to school was that she was barely potty trained, didn't talk to people outside her family, and still only parallel played. If red shirting had only been available to those with a known disability, she wouldn't have qualified.

Incidentally, because of the difference in cut offs between DC and Maryland, had we lived in Maryland, our decision wouldn't even have been considered red shirting.

You are describing developmental delays. Waiting to enroll your kid in K because of delays in potty training and socialization are exactly what people mean when they refer to developmental delays. No one is saying that only a child diagnosed with autism should be redshirted. When someone says that developmental delays are a valid reason to redshirt, they are talking about exactly the situation you are describing.

This is to distinguish from people who redshirt a kid who has no developmental delays (potty trained on time, socially comfortable with other kids, no physical delays, etc.) because they would prefer their kid be among the oldest and biggest in class, as opposed to among the smallest and youngest.

There are a lot of people who fully support redshirting for developmental delays but thinks that redshirting to give a developmentally normal (or even advanced!) kid an edge is unnecessarily aggressive and can ruin age cohorts by putting kids who could absolutely have started K on time in the next cohort, skewing the average (on size, development, academics, everything) unnecessarily.

That's the problem. Some redshirting makes total sense and is likely necessary, and some redshirting is obnoxious hyper competitive snowplow parenting. But when we talk about redshirting, the snowplow parents want to pretend it's all equal. They will use a parent like you, who had a totally valid and important reason to redshirt. It actually does a disservice to everyone.

That's why I think redshirting should require an assessment. I don't think it should be super strict, but I don't think you should be allowed to hold your kid back for K without having someone from the school district weigh in and at least conclude your kid is borderline for K-readiness.

A child can be both “developmentally delayed” and advanced at the same time. Moreover, if a child is developmentally delayed, that information is private and other parents are not entitled to it. I had a kid with severe speech issues that needed an extra year of speech therapy before even we as parents could consistently understand them, but they were an early reader. They were really advanced in math, but had potty training issues. With the cutoffs at the time, they would have had to start K about a month and a half before they turned 5 (although apparently the school system realized that was too young, because they had already started moving the cutoff earlier, to where current policy would have a child wait until they were 5 to start K as the normal schedule without redshirting).

Every child has issues, and those are none of your business. Sometimes they may need help dealing with those issues, redshirting being one available tool that might help in some cases. Moreover, redshirting is not a magic wand that makes everything wonderful. While it helps in some ways, it can cause problems in others. Redshirting a child unnecessarily will almost certainly cause more problems for that child and family than starting them on time. Most redshirting parents I know consider it on the advice of preschool teachers and still agonize over the decision. That may not be the formal assessment you propose, but is probably more accurate.

[Anonymous]

I have known people who have redshirted because they didn't want their son to be the smallest or among the smallest in class. It's not a straw man or an outlier. You frequently see this viewpoint expressed on this website as well. I think it's particularly common in large suburban school districts (based on the people I know who have done it) where there is a heavy focus on athletics. My brother redshirted his July birthday son for this reason, for instance. His son now plays varsity baseball as a sophomore and is on JV football but likely to make varsity next year, and athletics have been a major focus in their family. They are definitely angling for baseball scholarships and I know my brother beleives . He may be right, I don't know, but that was absolutely part of the thinking. My nephew was not developmentally delayed in any way back in K (he was diagnosed with ADHD last year but it wasn't viewed as an issue back when he was in preschool or K).

I've also known people who redshirted for developmental reasons.