Why don’t schools make you just through some hoops for redshirting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People really forget what it looks like to send a kid to kindergarten who isn't ready. You end up with child who continually disrupts the entire classroom and who ends up 100% miserable because they can't seem to meet expectations and view themselves as bad.

It really isn't good for the other students or teacher. Redshirting for maturity isn't the same as for a sports advantage.

I have zero problem with redshirting for maturity. But I agree with OP that outside of a certain age window (say within 3 months of the cutoff, which would cover all summer birthday for a Sep 1 cutoff), a redshirting decision should require some kind of assessment or evidence of delays. Because some people will say they are redshirting for maturity, but they aren't. If you are redshirting a January birthday, and there is no clear evidence that it's necessary, I just assume it's because you are trying to work an advantage.

Bracing to be called a "crazed anti-redshirter" even though I literally just expressed support for redshirting in 3, 2, 1...

NP. Your position is pretty much the most reasonable one on this thread!

Why do you think this is a reasonable position? PP is demanding that cash-strapped school districts across the entire country implement an entire assessment protocol, presumably to be administered by costly specialist evaluators, to solve something that very few people and districts seem to think is a problem. There is no widespread evidence of harm from redshirting and there are very few kids redshirted who are outside PPs three-month window. If there was actually a problem here, school districts could implement a strict cutoff rule, like NYC has, no expensive assessments needed. However, very few districts nationally have followed NYC’s approach.

I genuinely do not understand what is “reasonable” about demanding an entire regulatory apparatus be installed in school districts across the country. What PP wants is probably millions of dollars per district, by the time it’s up and running. That’s millions of dollars that could be spent on education, just so PPs kid doesn’t encounter a kid that is older than PPs kid. Could you explain why you think that’s reasonable? It seems wildly and somewhat insanely unreasonable to me.

Uh, I'm PP and I'm not "demanding" anything of the sort. The vast majority of parents don't want to redshirt, and of those that do, most of the time the kids are summer birthdays. My suggestion (actually OP's suggestion, I just happen to agree with it) is that outside maybe a 3 month window, redshirting should require some kind process. So this means that for the small handful of students each year whose parents want to redshirt them even though they will be a minimum of 5 years and 3 months on September 1st, the parents have the option of (1) providing documentation from their own pediatrician/behavioral psychologist/etc. showing a delay that merits a delayed start, or (2) asking a district counselor to assess the child. This would really not be enormously burdensome because we are talking about a small percentage of the overall school population, and most parents in this category who want to redshirt likely would already have the documentation necessary. But the advantage of this approach is that it would discourage anyone hoping to game the system by redshirting a winter or spring birthday without any documentation.

Most parents send their kids on time and most prefer to do so.

…no one is “gaming the system” by sending a winter or spring birthday. This narrative of victimization just ignores the facts which are…the rules say you have to send by 6. That’s it. Those are the rules. I’m sorry you don’t like them, but the idea that people following the rules that exist for everyone are somehow hurting you is something you should work through in therapy not public policy.

The rules say send by 6, not start kindergarten at 6. A child isn’t required to attend kindergarten. A child can skip it and enter first grade at 6. If a child is entering school for the first time at 6.5, they probably should be evaluated to see if they’re better suited for kindergarten or 1st.

They have been evaluated, by their parents, who care more about their outcomes than any school administrator. The parents are the ones who bear the expense of another year of paid PreK and the parents own the results of their choices. Butt out.

One family I know with a winter birthday redshirted their advanced child because they knew they were moving to a state with a 1 September cutoff. People have all sorts of reasons that don’t need your approval because— it has nothing to do with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People really forget what it looks like to send a kid to kindergarten who isn't ready. You end up with child who continually disrupts the entire classroom and who ends up 100% miserable because they can't seem to meet expectations and view themselves as bad.

It really isn't good for the other students or teacher. Redshirting for maturity isn't the same as for a sports advantage.

I have zero problem with redshirting for maturity. But I agree with OP that outside of a certain age window (say within 3 months of the cutoff, which would cover all summer birthday for a Sep 1 cutoff), a redshirting decision should require some kind of assessment or evidence of delays. Because some people will say they are redshirting for maturity, but they aren't. If you are redshirting a January birthday, and there is no clear evidence that it's necessary, I just assume it's because you are trying to work an advantage.

Bracing to be called a "crazed anti-redshirter" even though I literally just expressed support for redshirting in 3, 2, 1...

NP. Your position is pretty much the most reasonable one on this thread!

Why do you think this is a reasonable position? PP is demanding that cash-strapped school districts across the entire country implement an entire assessment protocol, presumably to be administered by costly specialist evaluators, to solve something that very few people and districts seem to think is a problem. There is no widespread evidence of harm from redshirting and there are very few kids redshirted who are outside PPs three-month window. If there was actually a problem here, school districts could implement a strict cutoff rule, like NYC has, no expensive assessments needed. However, very few districts nationally have followed NYC’s approach.

I genuinely do not understand what is “reasonable” about demanding an entire regulatory apparatus be installed in school districts across the country. What PP wants is probably millions of dollars per district, by the time it’s up and running. That’s millions of dollars that could be spent on education, just so PPs kid doesn’t encounter a kid that is older than PPs kid. Could you explain why you think that’s reasonable? It seems wildly and somewhat insanely unreasonable to me.

I lived in a place that used to do this. Every kid came in for an evaluation the summer before they were supposed to be starting 1st (no public kindergarten). Some kids were asked to delay 1st by a year and attend a public "readiness" program, essentially redshirting them. It seemed to work pretty well, but did mean that there were a good number of older "readiness" kids in each grade (probably 10-15%).

I don’t think eliminating public kindergarten in favor of “readiness programs” and evaluations of readiness is at all a good idea.

I don't think PP was suggesting eliminating public kindergarten. She's just saying that back when districts didn't have public kindergarten, it was more typical for there to be a readiness assessment. Now kindergarten is pretty standard in public schools, but we still have issues with readiness determinations, as evidenced by this conversation. I think there is an argument that there should still be some kind of determination of readiness, though questions about who should make it and when.

This isn't an anti-redshirt position, by the way. Readiness assessments are actually pretty explicitly pro-redshirt because they acknowledge upfront that not all 5 year olds are ready for kindergarten. Districts that have strict no redshirt policies (like DCPS, for instance) would not be open to readiness assessments because they would be seen as explicitly inequitable -- the kids most likely to be deemed not ready would likely come from the families for whom waiting to enroll would be most burdensome. DCPS gets around this now with a public preschool program which both helps prepare kids for elementary (including kids who otherwise would not have access to that kind of predatory experience) while also locking kids into a age progression that is pretty strict and makes redshirting almost impossible.

What do you propose defunding to put this readiness assessment in place? What educational program will you cut back to pay for readiness assessments? Who will run the assessments, how will the criteria be determined, what independent evaluations will you support, who needs to be trained on how to assess?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People really forget what it looks like to send a kid to kindergarten who isn't ready. You end up with child who continually disrupts the entire classroom and who ends up 100% miserable because they can't seem to meet expectations and view themselves as bad.

It really isn't good for the other students or teacher. Redshirting for maturity isn't the same as for a sports advantage.

I have zero problem with redshirting for maturity. But I agree with OP that outside of a certain age window (say within 3 months of the cutoff, which would cover all summer birthday for a Sep 1 cutoff), a redshirting decision should require some kind of assessment or evidence of delays. Because some people will say they are redshirting for maturity, but they aren't. If you are redshirting a January birthday, and there is no clear evidence that it's necessary, I just assume it's because you are trying to work an advantage.

Bracing to be called a "crazed anti-redshirter" even though I literally just expressed support for redshirting in 3, 2, 1...

NP. Your position is pretty much the most reasonable one on this thread!

Why do you think this is a reasonable position? PP is demanding that cash-strapped school districts across the entire country implement an entire assessment protocol, presumably to be administered by costly specialist evaluators, to solve something that very few people and districts seem to think is a problem. There is no widespread evidence of harm from redshirting and there are very few kids redshirted who are outside PPs three-month window. If there was actually a problem here, school districts could implement a strict cutoff rule, like NYC has, no expensive assessments needed. However, very few districts nationally have followed NYC’s approach.

I genuinely do not understand what is “reasonable” about demanding an entire regulatory apparatus be installed in school districts across the country. What PP wants is probably millions of dollars per district, by the time it’s up and running. That’s millions of dollars that could be spent on education, just so PPs kid doesn’t encounter a kid that is older than PPs kid. Could you explain why you think that’s reasonable? It seems wildly and somewhat insanely unreasonable to me.

I lived in a place that used to do this. Every kid came in for an evaluation the summer before they were supposed to be starting 1st (no public kindergarten). Some kids were asked to delay 1st by a year and attend a public "readiness" program, essentially redshirting them. It seemed to work pretty well, but did mean that there were a good number of older "readiness" kids in each grade (probably 10-15%).

I don’t think eliminating public kindergarten in favor of “readiness programs” and evaluations of readiness is at all a good idea.

I don't think PP was suggesting eliminating public kindergarten. She's just saying that back when districts didn't have public kindergarten, it was more typical for there to be a readiness assessment. Now kindergarten is pretty standard in public schools, but we still have issues with readiness determinations, as evidenced by this conversation. I think there is an argument that there should still be some kind of determination of readiness, though questions about who should make it and when.

This isn't an anti-redshirt position, by the way. Readiness assessments are actually pretty explicitly pro-redshirt because they acknowledge upfront that not all 5 year olds are ready for kindergarten. Districts that have strict no redshirt policies (like DCPS, for instance) would not be open to readiness assessments because they would be seen as explicitly inequitable -- the kids most likely to be deemed not ready would likely come from the families for whom waiting to enroll would be most burdensome. DCPS gets around this now with a public preschool program which both helps prepare kids for elementary (including kids who otherwise would not have access to that kind of predatory experience) while also locking kids into a age progression that is pretty strict and makes redshirting almost impossible.

What do you propose defunding to put this readiness assessment in place? What educational program will you cut back to pay for readiness assessments? Who will run the assessments, how will the criteria be determined, what independent evaluations will you support, who needs to be trained on how to assess?

+1

I don’t see how this would be a value-add for schools at all. Redshirting doesn’t create problems for schools (and in fact seems to be softly encouraged). It may be annoying to parents at times (as many things can be) but it doesn’t mean the school is going to spend $$$$ to fix it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People really forget what it looks like to send a kid to kindergarten who isn't ready. You end up with child who continually disrupts the entire classroom and who ends up 100% miserable because they can't seem to meet expectations and view themselves as bad.

It really isn't good for the other students or teacher. Redshirting for maturity isn't the same as for a sports advantage.

I have zero problem with redshirting for maturity. But I agree with OP that outside of a certain age window (say within 3 months of the cutoff, which would cover all summer birthday for a Sep 1 cutoff), a redshirting decision should require some kind of assessment or evidence of delays. Because some people will say they are redshirting for maturity, but they aren't. If you are redshirting a January birthday, and there is no clear evidence that it's necessary, I just assume it's because you are trying to work an advantage.

Bracing to be called a "crazed anti-redshirter" even though I literally just expressed support for redshirting in 3, 2, 1...

NP. Your position is pretty much the most reasonable one on this thread!

Why do you think this is a reasonable position? PP is demanding that cash-strapped school districts across the entire country implement an entire assessment protocol, presumably to be administered by costly specialist evaluators, to solve something that very few people and districts seem to think is a problem. There is no widespread evidence of harm from redshirting and there are very few kids redshirted who are outside PPs three-month window. If there was actually a problem here, school districts could implement a strict cutoff rule, like NYC has, no expensive assessments needed. However, very few districts nationally have followed NYC’s approach.

I genuinely do not understand what is “reasonable” about demanding an entire regulatory apparatus be installed in school districts across the country. What PP wants is probably millions of dollars per district, by the time it’s up and running. That’s millions of dollars that could be spent on education, just so PPs kid doesn’t encounter a kid that is older than PPs kid. Could you explain why you think that’s reasonable? It seems wildly and somewhat insanely unreasonable to me.

Uh, I'm PP and I'm not "demanding" anything of the sort. The vast majority of parents don't want to redshirt, and of those that do, most of the time the kids are summer birthdays. My suggestion (actually OP's suggestion, I just happen to agree with it) is that outside maybe a 3 month window, redshirting should require some kind process. So this means that for the small handful of students each year whose parents want to redshirt them even though they will be a minimum of 5 years and 3 months on September 1st, the parents have the option of (1) providing documentation from their own pediatrician/behavioral psychologist/etc. showing a delay that merits a delayed start, or (2) asking a district counselor to assess the child. This would really not be enormously burdensome because we are talking about a small percentage of the overall school population, and most parents in this category who want to redshirt likely would already have the documentation necessary. But the advantage of this approach is that it would discourage anyone hoping to game the system by redshirting a winter or spring birthday without any documentation.

Most parents send their kids on time and most prefer to do so.

So, you want redshirting outside of a three-month window to be managed in a parallel IEP-like system? Who is going to do these assessments and how will they be paid and trained? Will they need special training like IEP evaluators? What certifications will be needed? What “district counselors” do you think have the free time and resources to handle something like this? (Do you know literally anything about how over-burdened most counselors are in most districts now?) What administrative employees have the free time to implement this program, particularly in poorer districts? How much money do you think should be funneled towards this?

Meanwhile your system will also work like IEPs in practice, meaning that the children of wealthy and educated parents who can spot issues will have their children in expensive private psychologist offices years before school starts, assessments complete, while poorer children or those children who don’t have parents advocating for them will never be assessed. You could attempt to take the position that public preschool programs should be set up to identify kids like this, who could benefit, but now you are talking millions of dollars annually.

I’m sorry, but I fail to see why you believe this is a remotely reasonable idea. Do you know anything about the IEP system? Why would you think it’s reasonable to build an entire structure like the IEP system for a very small number of children, just so your kid won’t encounter an older child? That strikes me as wholly unreasonable and frankly strongly on the entitled end of things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People really forget what it looks like to send a kid to kindergarten who isn't ready. You end up with child who continually disrupts the entire classroom and who ends up 100% miserable because they can't seem to meet expectations and view themselves as bad.

It really isn't good for the other students or teacher. Redshirting for maturity isn't the same as for a sports advantage.

I have zero problem with redshirting for maturity. But I agree with OP that outside of a certain age window (say within 3 months of the cutoff, which would cover all summer birthday for a Sep 1 cutoff), a redshirting decision should require some kind of assessment or evidence of delays. Because some people will say they are redshirting for maturity, but they aren't. If you are redshirting a January birthday, and there is no clear evidence that it's necessary, I just assume it's because you are trying to work an advantage.

Bracing to be called a "crazed anti-redshirter" even though I literally just expressed support for redshirting in 3, 2, 1...

NP. Your position is pretty much the most reasonable one on this thread!

Why do you think this is a reasonable position? PP is demanding that cash-strapped school districts across the entire country implement an entire assessment protocol, presumably to be administered by costly specialist evaluators, to solve something that very few people and districts seem to think is a problem. There is no widespread evidence of harm from redshirting and there are very few kids redshirted who are outside PPs three-month window. If there was actually a problem here, school districts could implement a strict cutoff rule, like NYC has, no expensive assessments needed. However, very few districts nationally have followed NYC’s approach.

I genuinely do not understand what is “reasonable” about demanding an entire regulatory apparatus be installed in school districts across the country. What PP wants is probably millions of dollars per district, by the time it’s up and running. That’s millions of dollars that could be spent on education, just so PPs kid doesn’t encounter a kid that is older than PPs kid. Could you explain why you think that’s reasonable? It seems wildly and somewhat insanely unreasonable to me.

Uh, I'm PP and I'm not "demanding" anything of the sort. The vast majority of parents don't want to redshirt, and of those that do, most of the time the kids are summer birthdays. My suggestion (actually OP's suggestion, I just happen to agree with it) is that outside maybe a 3 month window, redshirting should require some kind process. So this means that for the small handful of students each year whose parents want to redshirt them even though they will be a minimum of 5 years and 3 months on September 1st, the parents have the option of (1) providing documentation from their own pediatrician/behavioral psychologist/etc. showing a delay that merits a delayed start, or (2) asking a district counselor to assess the child. This would really not be enormously burdensome because we are talking about a small percentage of the overall school population, and most parents in this category who want to redshirt likely would already have the documentation necessary. But the advantage of this approach is that it would discourage anyone hoping to game the system by redshirting a winter or spring birthday without any documentation.

Most parents send their kids on time and most prefer to do so.

…no one is “gaming the system” by sending a winter or spring birthday. This narrative of victimization just ignores the facts which are…the rules say you have to send by 6. That’s it. Those are the rules. I’m sorry you don’t like them, but the idea that people following the rules that exist for everyone are somehow hurting you is something you should work through in therapy not public policy.

The rules say send by 6, not start kindergarten at 6. A child isn’t required to attend kindergarten. A child can skip it and enter first grade at 6. If a child is entering school for the first time at 6.5, they probably should be evaluated to see if they’re better suited for kindergarten or 1st.

Again with the magical thinking about how someone should just do some “evaluation” because of your own issues that would be better addressed in therapy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People really forget what it looks like to send a kid to kindergarten who isn't ready. You end up with child who continually disrupts the entire classroom and who ends up 100% miserable because they can't seem to meet expectations and view themselves as bad.

It really isn't good for the other students or teacher. Redshirting for maturity isn't the same as for a sports advantage.

I have zero problem with redshirting for maturity. But I agree with OP that outside of a certain age window (say within 3 months of the cutoff, which would cover all summer birthday for a Sep 1 cutoff), a redshirting decision should require some kind of assessment or evidence of delays. Because some people will say they are redshirting for maturity, but they aren't. If you are redshirting a January birthday, and there is no clear evidence that it's necessary, I just assume it's because you are trying to work an advantage.

Bracing to be called a "crazed anti-redshirter" even though I literally just expressed support for redshirting in 3, 2, 1...

NP. Your position is pretty much the most reasonable one on this thread!

Why do you think this is a reasonable position? PP is demanding that cash-strapped school districts across the entire country implement an entire assessment protocol, presumably to be administered by costly specialist evaluators, to solve something that very few people and districts seem to think is a problem. There is no widespread evidence of harm from redshirting and there are very few kids redshirted who are outside PPs three-month window. If there was actually a problem here, school districts could implement a strict cutoff rule, like NYC has, no expensive assessments needed. However, very few districts nationally have followed NYC’s approach.

I genuinely do not understand what is “reasonable” about demanding an entire regulatory apparatus be installed in school districts across the country. What PP wants is probably millions of dollars per district, by the time it’s up and running. That’s millions of dollars that could be spent on education, just so PPs kid doesn’t encounter a kid that is older than PPs kid. Could you explain why you think that’s reasonable? It seems wildly and somewhat insanely unreasonable to me.

I lived in a place that used to do this. Every kid came in for an evaluation the summer before they were supposed to be starting 1st (no public kindergarten). Some kids were asked to delay 1st by a year and attend a public "readiness" program, essentially redshirting them. It seemed to work pretty well, but did mean that there were a good number of older "readiness" kids in each grade (probably 10-15%).

I don’t think eliminating public kindergarten in favor of “readiness programs” and evaluations of readiness is at all a good idea.

I don't think PP was suggesting eliminating public kindergarten. She's just saying that back when districts didn't have public kindergarten, it was more typical for there to be a readiness assessment. Now kindergarten is pretty standard in public schools, but we still have issues with readiness determinations, as evidenced by this conversation. I think there is an argument that there should still be some kind of determination of readiness, though questions about who should make it and when.

This isn't an anti-redshirt position, by the way. Readiness assessments are actually pretty explicitly pro-redshirt because they acknowledge upfront that not all 5 year olds are ready for kindergarten. Districts that have strict no redshirt policies (like DCPS, for instance) would not be open to readiness assessments because they would be seen as explicitly inequitable -- the kids most likely to be deemed not ready would likely come from the families for whom waiting to enroll would be most burdensome. DCPS gets around this now with a public preschool program which both helps prepare kids for elementary (including kids who otherwise would not have access to that kind of predatory experience) while also locking kids into a age progression that is pretty strict and makes redshirting almost impossible.

What do you propose defunding to put this readiness assessment in place? What educational program will you cut back to pay for readiness assessments? Who will run the assessments, how will the criteria be determined, what independent evaluations will you support, who needs to be trained on how to assess?

There is no transparency in the testing and a principal can say no for any reason and not tell you the reason. Our principal refused to let us test. She was so nasty about it we did not want to send ours to that school and opted for private. So, I guess she won by driving us away. The qualification is the needs need to be functioning at a 1-2 grade level which isn’t fair when most kids don’t come in reading or writing or basic math skills and many of the kids testing in do and are still turned down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People really forget what it looks like to send a kid to kindergarten who isn't ready. You end up with child who continually disrupts the entire classroom and who ends up 100% miserable because they can't seem to meet expectations and view themselves as bad.

It really isn't good for the other students or teacher. Redshirting for maturity isn't the same as for a sports advantage.

I have zero problem with redshirting for maturity. But I agree with OP that outside of a certain age window (say within 3 months of the cutoff, which would cover all summer birthday for a Sep 1 cutoff), a redshirting decision should require some kind of assessment or evidence of delays. Because some people will say they are redshirting for maturity, but they aren't. If you are redshirting a January birthday, and there is no clear evidence that it's necessary, I just assume it's because you are trying to work an advantage.

Bracing to be called a "crazed anti-redshirter" even though I literally just expressed support for redshirting in 3, 2, 1...

NP. Your position is pretty much the most reasonable one on this thread!

Why do you think this is a reasonable position? PP is demanding that cash-strapped school districts across the entire country implement an entire assessment protocol, presumably to be administered by costly specialist evaluators, to solve something that very few people and districts seem to think is a problem. There is no widespread evidence of harm from redshirting and there are very few kids redshirted who are outside PPs three-month window. If there was actually a problem here, school districts could implement a strict cutoff rule, like NYC has, no expensive assessments needed. However, very few districts nationally have followed NYC’s approach.

I genuinely do not understand what is “reasonable” about demanding an entire regulatory apparatus be installed in school districts across the country. What PP wants is probably millions of dollars per district, by the time it’s up and running. That’s millions of dollars that could be spent on education, just so PPs kid doesn’t encounter a kid that is older than PPs kid. Could you explain why you think that’s reasonable? It seems wildly and somewhat insanely unreasonable to me.

Uh, I'm PP and I'm not "demanding" anything of the sort. The vast majority of parents don't want to redshirt, and of those that do, most of the time the kids are summer birthdays. My suggestion (actually OP's suggestion, I just happen to agree with it) is that outside maybe a 3 month window, redshirting should require some kind process. So this means that for the small handful of students each year whose parents want to redshirt them even though they will be a minimum of 5 years and 3 months on September 1st, the parents have the option of (1) providing documentation from their own pediatrician/behavioral psychologist/etc. showing a delay that merits a delayed start, or (2) asking a district counselor to assess the child. This would really not be enormously burdensome because we are talking about a small percentage of the overall school population, and most parents in this category who want to redshirt likely would already have the documentation necessary. But the advantage of this approach is that it would discourage anyone hoping to game the system by redshirting a winter or spring birthday without any documentation.

Most parents send their kids on time and most prefer to do so.

…no one is “gaming the system” by sending a winter or spring birthday. This narrative of victimization just ignores the facts which are…the rules say you have to send by 6. That’s it. Those are the rules. I’m sorry you don’t like them, but the idea that people following the rules that exist for everyone are somehow hurting you is something you should work through in therapy not public policy.

The rules say send by 6, not start kindergarten at 6. A child isn’t required to attend kindergarten. A child can skip it and enter first grade at 6. If a child is entering school for the first time at 6.5, they probably should be evaluated to see if they’re better suited for kindergarten or 1st.

Again with the magical thinking about how someone should just do some “evaluation” because of your own issues that would be better addressed in therapy.

If a child is not ready to start school on time, it should be mandatory that they are evaluated and given services that year to catch them up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People really forget what it looks like to send a kid to kindergarten who isn't ready. You end up with child who continually disrupts the entire classroom and who ends up 100% miserable because they can't seem to meet expectations and view themselves as bad.

It really isn't good for the other students or teacher. Redshirting for maturity isn't the same as for a sports advantage.

I don’t even care if people do it for sports. Truly I do not care.

How old are your kids?
The only reason I care is because my kid is the youngest and it’s just annoying (not more, not less) but just annoying with grade based things for sports. Our dance studio is sorted by grade and the girl 15m older has gotten the lead every single year. I’m not anti redshirt, it’s just irritating because I see the advantage over my own kid who is as talented. I see that she is disappointed.

Why did you choose that dance studio? I have a dancer too who has attended at least three schools by now (she is a teen) and we have never seen it grouped by age after kindergarten. And auditions have nothing to do with grade - certain levels of class qualify for auditioning which has to do with years of study not age. If you feel your child isn’t benefiting from the studio, speak up with management or go somewhere else. For dance instruction this should be a complete non issue, and I say that as someone whose dancer is a May birthday and often the youngest in her grade.

+1. My late July DD who is the youngest in her grade is in competitive dance and that's done by actual birthday, has nothing to do with grade in school. Additionally, all classes are sorted by skill. They are still loosely grouped by age so a 17 year old isn't with a 7 year old, but there's a decent range in most of her classes. I'd say the average range in her classes is 6-10 years old. This is even for rec (non-competition kids). I would not send my child to a dance studio that sorts by grade, because that's meaningless in dance ability. There's a girl that is my DD's age who is phenomenal and dances with older kids for the most part, and rightly so, because that's where her skillset lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Easy to redshirt. Fast forward. Harder when it's a 19 year old man still in high school.

You don’t know how to do math.

My DD has kids in her 3rd grade that will turn 10 this spring. Add 9 years and they will certainly turn 19 the spring of their senior year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People really forget what it looks like to send a kid to kindergarten who isn't ready. You end up with child who continually disrupts the entire classroom and who ends up 100% miserable because they can't seem to meet expectations and view themselves as bad.

It really isn't good for the other students or teacher. Redshirting for maturity isn't the same as for a sports advantage.

I have zero problem with redshirting for maturity. But I agree with OP that outside of a certain age window (say within 3 months of the cutoff, which would cover all summer birthday for a Sep 1 cutoff), a redshirting decision should require some kind of assessment or evidence of delays. Because some people will say they are redshirting for maturity, but they aren't. If you are redshirting a January birthday, and there is no clear evidence that it's necessary, I just assume it's because you are trying to work an advantage.

Bracing to be called a "crazed anti-redshirter" even though I literally just expressed support for redshirting in 3, 2, 1...

NP. Your position is pretty much the most reasonable one on this thread!

Why do you think this is a reasonable position? PP is demanding that cash-strapped school districts across the entire country implement an entire assessment protocol, presumably to be administered by costly specialist evaluators, to solve something that very few people and districts seem to think is a problem. There is no widespread evidence of harm from redshirting and there are very few kids redshirted who are outside PPs three-month window. If there was actually a problem here, school districts could implement a strict cutoff rule, like NYC has, no expensive assessments needed. However, very few districts nationally have followed NYC’s approach.

I genuinely do not understand what is “reasonable” about demanding an entire regulatory apparatus be installed in school districts across the country. What PP wants is probably millions of dollars per district, by the time it’s up and running. That’s millions of dollars that could be spent on education, just so PPs kid doesn’t encounter a kid that is older than PPs kid. Could you explain why you think that’s reasonable? It seems wildly and somewhat insanely unreasonable to me.

Uh, I'm PP and I'm not "demanding" anything of the sort. The vast majority of parents don't want to redshirt, and of those that do, most of the time the kids are summer birthdays. My suggestion (actually OP's suggestion, I just happen to agree with it) is that outside maybe a 3 month window, redshirting should require some kind process. So this means that for the small handful of students each year whose parents want to redshirt them even though they will be a minimum of 5 years and 3 months on September 1st, the parents have the option of (1) providing documentation from their own pediatrician/behavioral psychologist/etc. showing a delay that merits a delayed start, or (2) asking a district counselor to assess the child. This would really not be enormously burdensome because we are talking about a small percentage of the overall school population, and most parents in this category who want to redshirt likely would already have the documentation necessary. But the advantage of this approach is that it would discourage anyone hoping to game the system by redshirting a winter or spring birthday without any documentation.

Most parents send their kids on time and most prefer to do so.

…no one is “gaming the system” by sending a winter or spring birthday. This narrative of victimization just ignores the facts which are…the rules say you have to send by 6. That’s it. Those are the rules. I’m sorry you don’t like them, but the idea that people following the rules that exist for everyone are somehow hurting you is something you should work through in therapy not public policy.

The rules say send by 6, not start kindergarten at 6. A child isn’t required to attend kindergarten. A child can skip it and enter first grade at 6. If a child is entering school for the first time at 6.5, they probably should be evaluated to see if they’re better suited for kindergarten or 1st.

Again with the magical thinking about how someone should just do some “evaluation” because of your own issues that would be better addressed in therapy.

If a child is not ready to start school on time, it should be mandatory that they are evaluated and given services that year to catch them up.

Okay then, answer the practical questions: who will be trained to do this? On what criteria? Who is doing the evaluation as part of their job performance, and how are they compensated? How many evaluations of this sort should be performed? What critical services will you defund to pay for this? What budget will you allocate? What pedagogical and evidentiary basis do you have to justify the program, the costs, and to show it will be more important than the programs you defund to pay for these evaluations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People really forget what it looks like to send a kid to kindergarten who isn't ready. You end up with child who continually disrupts the entire classroom and who ends up 100% miserable because they can't seem to meet expectations and view themselves as bad.

It really isn't good for the other students or teacher. Redshirting for maturity isn't the same as for a sports advantage.

I have zero problem with redshirting for maturity. But I agree with OP that outside of a certain age window (say within 3 months of the cutoff, which would cover all summer birthday for a Sep 1 cutoff), a redshirting decision should require some kind of assessment or evidence of delays. Because some people will say they are redshirting for maturity, but they aren't. If you are redshirting a January birthday, and there is no clear evidence that it's necessary, I just assume it's because you are trying to work an advantage.

Bracing to be called a "crazed anti-redshirter" even though I literally just expressed support for redshirting in 3, 2, 1...

NP. Your position is pretty much the most reasonable one on this thread!

Why do you think this is a reasonable position? PP is demanding that cash-strapped school districts across the entire country implement an entire assessment protocol, presumably to be administered by costly specialist evaluators, to solve something that very few people and districts seem to think is a problem. There is no widespread evidence of harm from redshirting and there are very few kids redshirted who are outside PPs three-month window. If there was actually a problem here, school districts could implement a strict cutoff rule, like NYC has, no expensive assessments needed. However, very few districts nationally have followed NYC’s approach.

I genuinely do not understand what is “reasonable” about demanding an entire regulatory apparatus be installed in school districts across the country. What PP wants is probably millions of dollars per district, by the time it’s up and running. That’s millions of dollars that could be spent on education, just so PPs kid doesn’t encounter a kid that is older than PPs kid. Could you explain why you think that’s reasonable? It seems wildly and somewhat insanely unreasonable to me.

Uh, I'm PP and I'm not "demanding" anything of the sort. The vast majority of parents don't want to redshirt, and of those that do, most of the time the kids are summer birthdays. My suggestion (actually OP's suggestion, I just happen to agree with it) is that outside maybe a 3 month window, redshirting should require some kind process. So this means that for the small handful of students each year whose parents want to redshirt them even though they will be a minimum of 5 years and 3 months on September 1st, the parents have the option of (1) providing documentation from their own pediatrician/behavioral psychologist/etc. showing a delay that merits a delayed start, or (2) asking a district counselor to assess the child. This would really not be enormously burdensome because we are talking about a small percentage of the overall school population, and most parents in this category who want to redshirt likely would already have the documentation necessary. But the advantage of this approach is that it would discourage anyone hoping to game the system by redshirting a winter or spring birthday without any documentation.

Most parents send their kids on time and most prefer to do so.

…no one is “gaming the system” by sending a winter or spring birthday. This narrative of victimization just ignores the facts which are…the rules say you have to send by 6. That’s it. Those are the rules. I’m sorry you don’t like them, but the idea that people following the rules that exist for everyone are somehow hurting you is something you should work through in therapy not public policy.

The rules say send by 6, not start kindergarten at 6. A child isn’t required to attend kindergarten. A child can skip it and enter first grade at 6. If a child is entering school for the first time at 6.5, they probably should be evaluated to see if they’re better suited for kindergarten or 1st.

Again with the magical thinking about how someone should just do some “evaluation” because of your own issues that would be better addressed in therapy.

If a child is not ready to start school on time, it should be mandatory that they are evaluated and given services that year to catch them up.

This is crazy. You can pathologize your child, put them through detailed testing and intervention or… you can just wait a year. Talk about over-medicalizing. And I assume you intend to pay for these expensive and unnecessary evaluations?

There is a range of normal development. Sometimes truly all that is needed is to wait a year. I believe it’s what doctors call “tincture of time”.

I’m sure as heck not going to put my kid through that just so that you don’t have to have a classroom with a 14 month age spread instead of a 12 month age spread. Nice try.

[Anonymous]

In a world where being youngest in the class is strongly correlated with ADHD diagnosis and medication (something that generally holds true across the world, including places that strictly bar redshirting*), it strikes me as entirely unethical to demand families not redshirt. You don’t get to demand another child goes down a likely medical pathway because you are willing to take on that risk for your own child.

* The only place where the study results haven’t been replicated is the one country that allows parents a large two-year leeway in start time decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People really forget what it looks like to send a kid to kindergarten who isn't ready. You end up with child who continually disrupts the entire classroom and who ends up 100% miserable because they can't seem to meet expectations and view themselves as bad.

It really isn't good for the other students or teacher. Redshirting for maturity isn't the same as for a sports advantage.

I have zero problem with redshirting for maturity. But I agree with OP that outside of a certain age window (say within 3 months of the cutoff, which would cover all summer birthday for a Sep 1 cutoff), a redshirting decision should require some kind of assessment or evidence of delays. Because some people will say they are redshirting for maturity, but they aren't. If you are redshirting a January birthday, and there is no clear evidence that it's necessary, I just assume it's because you are trying to work an advantage.

Bracing to be called a "crazed anti-redshirter" even though I literally just expressed support for redshirting in 3, 2, 1...

NP. Your position is pretty much the most reasonable one on this thread!

Why do you think this is a reasonable position? PP is demanding that cash-strapped school districts across the entire country implement an entire assessment protocol, presumably to be administered by costly specialist evaluators, to solve something that very few people and districts seem to think is a problem. There is no widespread evidence of harm from redshirting and there are very few kids redshirted who are outside PPs three-month window. If there was actually a problem here, school districts could implement a strict cutoff rule, like NYC has, no expensive assessments needed. However, very few districts nationally have followed NYC’s approach.

I genuinely do not understand what is “reasonable” about demanding an entire regulatory apparatus be installed in school districts across the country. What PP wants is probably millions of dollars per district, by the time it’s up and running. That’s millions of dollars that could be spent on education, just so PPs kid doesn’t encounter a kid that is older than PPs kid. Could you explain why you think that’s reasonable? It seems wildly and somewhat insanely unreasonable to me.

Uh, I'm PP and I'm not "demanding" anything of the sort. The vast majority of parents don't want to redshirt, and of those that do, most of the time the kids are summer birthdays. My suggestion (actually OP's suggestion, I just happen to agree with it) is that outside maybe a 3 month window, redshirting should require some kind process. So this means that for the small handful of students each year whose parents want to redshirt them even though they will be a minimum of 5 years and 3 months on September 1st, the parents have the option of (1) providing documentation from their own pediatrician/behavioral psychologist/etc. showing a delay that merits a delayed start, or (2) asking a district counselor to assess the child. This would really not be enormously burdensome because we are talking about a small percentage of the overall school population, and most parents in this category who want to redshirt likely would already have the documentation necessary. But the advantage of this approach is that it would discourage anyone hoping to game the system by redshirting a winter or spring birthday without any documentation.

Most parents send their kids on time and most prefer to do so.

…no one is “gaming the system” by sending a winter or spring birthday. This narrative of victimization just ignores the facts which are…the rules say you have to send by 6. That’s it. Those are the rules. I’m sorry you don’t like them, but the idea that people following the rules that exist for everyone are somehow hurting you is something you should work through in therapy not public policy.

The rules say send by 6, not start kindergarten at 6. A child isn’t required to attend kindergarten. A child can skip it and enter first grade at 6. If a child is entering school for the first time at 6.5, they probably should be evaluated to see if they’re better suited for kindergarten or 1st.

Again with the magical thinking about how someone should just do some “evaluation” because of your own issues that would be better addressed in therapy.

If a child is not ready to start school on time, it should be mandatory that they are evaluated and given services that year to catch them up.

Okay then, answer the practical questions: who will be trained to do this? On what criteria? Who is doing the evaluation as part of their job performance, and how are they compensated? How many evaluations of this sort should be performed? What critical services will you defund to pay for this? What budget will you allocate? What pedagogical and evidentiary basis do you have to justify the program, the costs, and to show it will be more important than the programs you defund to pay for these evaluations?

A developmental ped, psychologist, etc. At 6, they should be required to have a full neuropsych to figure out what is going on. Parents should pay if they choose to hold them back. If you are saying your kid. Has delays or maturity issues you are failing them by ignoring the issue and holding them back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In a world where being youngest in the class is strongly correlated with ADHD diagnosis and medication (something that generally holds true across the world, including places that strictly bar redshirting*), it strikes me as entirely unethical to demand families not redshirt. You don’t get to demand another child goes down a likely medical pathway because you are willing to take on that risk for your own child.

* The only place where the study results haven’t been replicated is the one country that allows parents a large two-year leeway in start time decisions.

My youngest has neither of those issues. If you hold back saying your kid has issues you should be required to get them help. Time does not cure those things and they need support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a world where being youngest in the class is strongly correlated with ADHD diagnosis and medication (something that generally holds true across the world, including places that strictly bar redshirting*), it strikes me as entirely unethical to demand families not redshirt. You don’t get to demand another child goes down a likely medical pathway because you are willing to take on that risk for your own child.

* The only place where the study results haven’t been replicated is the one country that allows parents a large two-year leeway in start time decisions.

My youngest has neither of those issues. If you hold back saying your kid has issues you should be required to get them help. Time does not cure those things and they need support.

Can you cite your source for your “facts”?