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:

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?

If a child isn't ready to start school, then it's perfectly reasonable to have them evaluated for a suspected disability or delay. We already have that system in place via Child Find. Literally any parent can call and have their child evaluated. It's not unreasonable for a school to say that if you think your child has a delay such that they can't start school on time, they should be evaluated via Child Find

[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.

But there will always be a youngest in class. No matter how many people redshirt, someone's kid will be youngest. So what makes more sense, to play this circular game of "not it!" or to address the reasons why children get blamed for what are simply *normal* variations in maturity and behavior within a grade cohort?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If a child isn't ready to start school, then it's perfectly reasonable to have them evaluated for a suspected disability or delay. We already have that system in place via Child Find. Literally any parent can call and have their child evaluated. It's not unreasonable for a school to say that if you think your child has a delay such that they can't start school on time, they should be evaluated via Child Find

This. No one is talking about creating some brand new apparatus for making these determinations. It already exists. The issue is that some parents want to be able to override it with their own determination, which of course may be self-serving and biased.

Saying that outside a fairly broad window, parents need to have an outside evaluation to justify starting their child late is not some insane expectation. Especially when the goal is to ensure that grade cohorts make sense in terms of maturity so you don't have super broad ranges of maturity in the same cohort, something that can be bad for all kids in the cohort, not just the oldest or youngest.

[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.

But there will always be a youngest in class. No matter how many people redshirt, someone's kid will be youngest. So what makes more sense, to play this circular game of "not it!" or to address the reasons why children get blamed for what are simply *normal* variations in maturity and behavior within a grade cohort?

Some kids are highly precocious and beyond ready to start on time. Others are delayed or immature. Development isn't the same from kid to kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But there will always be a youngest in class. No matter how many people redshirt, someone's kid will be youngest. So what makes more sense, to play this circular game of "not it!" or to address the reasons why children get blamed for what are simply *normal* variations in maturity and behavior within a grade cohort?

Some kids are highly precocious and beyond ready to start on time. Others are delayed or immature. Development isn't the same from kid to kid.

All children are immature.

[Anonymous]

If a child was born Sept 4 they have to wait until they are 5 to start K by Sept 1. So they start kindergarten Sept 1 and a few days later they turn 6 years old. This is the child who is tupically the oldest in a K class, with the youngest just barely turning 5 years old on August 31/Sept 1

If someone redshirted a child born August 1, then they are 6 yrs, 1 month when they start kindergarten.... born in May they are 6 yrs, 4 months when they start kindergarten. So THEY are the oldest.

How in the heck did someone keep their child back an entire year so that by February they are 7 years old???? That's crazy and not in the intention of redshirting.

So, for you, OP, you can and should INSIST that those 7 year olds NOT be in your child's classroom in 1st grade. Tell them it's because they are bullies and too old for the room, and not working for your child. And tell them not to move OTHER 7 year olds into your child's 1st grade classroom (assuming you have multiple K classes in your school)

You have the right to request that. You can also work hard to change policy going forward, but all you can do now is try to keep your child from being in a room from now on with children who are nearly 2 years older than your child.

[Anonymous]

You can request whatever you want but the school is under no obligation to accommodate you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

If a child isn't ready to start school, then it's perfectly reasonable to have them evaluated for a suspected disability or delay. We already have that system in place via Child Find. Literally any parent can call and have their child evaluated. It's not unreasonable for a school to say that if you think your child has a delay such that they can't start school on time, they should be evaluated via Child Find

This. No one is talking about creating some brand new apparatus for making these determinations. It already exists. The issue is that some parents want to be able to override it with their own determination, which of course may be self-serving and biased.

Saying that outside a fairly broad window, parents need to have an outside evaluation to justify starting their child late is not some insane expectation. Especially when the goal is to ensure that grade cohorts make sense in terms of maturity so you don't have super broad ranges of maturity in the same cohort, something that can be bad for all kids in the cohort, not just the oldest or youngest.

Man, you are so clueless as to how school administration works. It’s a bit shocking and remarkably entitled. “Child Find can just do what I want because I want it” is a take one can have, I suppose, but it’s a terrible look for you.

[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.

Do you understand that not all children are exactly like yours?

I have a kid who is one of the younger ones in the class and I cannot imagine a world in which I’d ever write what you just did. It is insanely rigid and badly incorrect thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you understand that not all children are exactly like yours?

I have a kid who is one of the younger ones in the class and I cannot imagine a world in which I’d ever write what you just did. It is insanely rigid and badly incorrect thinking.

You obviously are profoundly naive.

[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.

But there will always be a youngest in class. No matter how many people redshirt, someone's kid will be youngest. So what makes more sense, to play this circular game of "not it!" or to address the reasons why children get blamed for what are simply *normal* variations in maturity and behavior within a grade cohort?

Not all parents want to redshirt. Furthermore, the relative age effect for ADHD occurs in countries where redshirting is extremely rare. In fact many anti-redshirting parents on DCUM talk ad nauseum about how they want their child to be the youngest, how they are ready, how awesome it is to be the youngest. Those folks can send their children to be younger, while people who believe their child would benefit by waiting can wait. But anti-redshirting parents who demand that other people send children whose parents have determined that the children would benefit by waiting are deeply unethical. You don’t get to demand other parents not make a decision that school districts both allow and support because you personally don’t like it, particularly where being youngest may send those children down a medicalized pathway. That’s profoundly selfish and unethical behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you understand that not all children are exactly like yours?

I have a kid who is one of the younger ones in the class and I cannot imagine a world in which I’d ever write what you just did. It is insanely rigid and badly incorrect thinking.

You obviously are profoundly naive.

No, I’m far more educated about child development than you are, that much is clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you understand that not all children are exactly like yours?

I have a kid who is one of the younger ones in the class and I cannot imagine a world in which I’d ever write what you just did. It is insanely rigid and badly incorrect thinking.

You obviously are profoundly naive.

You are the one stamping your feet and having a tantrum that you're not getting your way on this. You're not making any convincing arguments and just look like a fool.

[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.

This is demonstrably false.

If all kids who are redshirted need therapeutic intervention, and time won’t cure their pathology, why are so many redshirt kids thriving? Why do you not hear parents regretting their choices and saying, oh, no, if only I had let my late blooming child be the youngest in the class, and instead gotten therapeutic intervention?

Some kids are late bloomers, and some kids are early bloomers. If your kid is in an early bloomer, then they’re fine with being the youngest in the class, and many kids will thrive that way. If your kid is a late bloomer, then may be doing them a disservice by letting them be the youngest. And it seems absolutely batshit to me to put them through therapy when all they need is time.

My kid is in a private school that offered a strong recommendation that he do an extra year. You know what? They were absolutely right. Those 12 months were all he needed to go from being anxious and emotionally overwhelmed at the end of the day to happy and thriving. I will never be sorry that we went with the school recommendation.

Kids develop differently. If my late bloomer had not been born in the summer, he might’ve been fine with his school-year cohort. Or if he’d been born in the summer, but an early bloomer. But he wasn’t, so we made a choice. It’s worked out great. I can’t see that we should have sacrificed his well-being for your arbitrary desire to have a 12 month classroom span.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is demonstrably false.

If all kids who are redshirted need therapeutic intervention, and time won’t cure their pathology, why are so many redshirt kids thriving? Why do you not hear parents regretting their choices and saying, oh, no, if only I had let my late blooming child be the youngest in the class, and instead gotten therapeutic intervention?

Some kids are late bloomers, and some kids are early bloomers. If your kid is in an early bloomer, then they’re fine with being the youngest in the class, and many kids will thrive that way. If your kid is a late bloomer, then may be doing them a disservice by letting them be the youngest. And it seems absolutely batshit to me to put them through therapy when all they need is time.

My kid is in a private school that offered a strong recommendation that he do an extra year. You know what? They were absolutely right. Those 12 months were all he needed to go from being anxious and emotionally overwhelmed at the end of the day to happy and thriving. I will never be sorry that we went with the school recommendation.

Kids develop differently. If my late bloomer had not been born in the summer, he might’ve been fine with his school-year cohort. Or if he’d been born in the summer, but an early bloomer. But he wasn’t, so we made a choice. It’s worked out great. I can’t see that we should have sacrificed his well-being for your arbitrary desire to have a 12 month classroom span.

The issue though is that these 'late bloomers' are then being compared to kids much younger than them- so they likely could still have the same issues that really should have been addressed but they are artificially covered up because they're 1+ years older than kids in the same class. There's a huge difference between a 5 and 6 year old.