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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I missed this gem. Definitely do this, OP, and report back!

The crazy always leaks out. Always.

[Anonymous]

The idea that you should need a doctors note to not send a four year old to all day kindergarten absolutely defies description.

When I was a child kindergarten was a half day for the first six months and I went home and ate lunch and napped. At five.

A good pediatrician would laugh you out of their office if you said that needed a “diagnosis” at four much less a neuropsychiatric work up. Are you even listening to yourself above the shrieking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I missed this gem. Definitely do this, OP, and report back!

The crazy always leaks out. Always.

The school is never going to do this. You don’t even know if these kids were redshirted. My nephew was held back in first grade with a March 10th birthday. So he turned 8 in March of his second year of first grade. And nobody cared. He graduated high school at 19 and is in his junior year of college now at almost 22. He was never advanced academically or bullying any other kids, if anything it was the opposite.

[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

You are still sending your kid on time if you redshirt one year. You are starting at six as required by law.

So calm down, you already have your wish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The idea that you should need a doctors note to not send a four year old to all day kindergarten absolutely defies description.

When I was a child kindergarten was a half day for the first six months and I went home and ate lunch and napped. At five.

A good pediatrician would laugh you out of their office if you said that needed a “diagnosis” at four much less a neuropsychiatric work up. Are you even listening to yourself above the shrieking?

Except literally no one is suggesting sending a 4 year old to all day kindergarten. This thread states up front that redshirting kids with birthdays close to the cutoff (which is how you wind up with 4 year olds who are technically eligible for kindergarten, because they have August or September birthdays and will turn 5 in the first month of school) should obviously be allowed to redshirt due to age.

This thread is exclusively about late redshirters -- kids with winter or spring birthdays, who are well over the age of 5 by the time K starts. And the suggestion is that for kids in this range (some of whom may indeed benefit from redshirting) there should be some kind of document reason for redshirting since it will result in some kids turning 7 during K (the scenario OP describes) and that could have a negative impact on other kids in class.

Not a single person in this thread has suggested that parents should have to explain why they don't want to start their 4 yr old in K. Not one. We are talking about parents who want to redshirt their 5.5 year old and have them start K at 6.5 instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that you should need a doctors note to not send a four year old to all day kindergarten absolutely defies description.

When I was a child kindergarten was a half day for the first six months and I went home and ate lunch and napped. At five.

A good pediatrician would laugh you out of their office if you said that needed a “diagnosis” at four much less a neuropsychiatric work up. Are you even listening to yourself above the shrieking?

Except literally no one is suggesting sending a 4 year old to all day kindergarten. This thread states up front that redshirting kids with birthdays close to the cutoff (which is how you wind up with 4 year olds who are technically eligible for kindergarten, because they have August or September birthdays and will turn 5 in the first month of school) should obviously be allowed to redshirt due to age.

This thread is exclusively about late redshirters -- kids with winter or spring birthdays, who are well over the age of 5 by the time K starts. And the suggestion is that for kids in this range (some of whom may indeed benefit from redshirting) there should be some kind of document reason for redshirting since it will result in some kids turning 7 during K (the scenario OP describes) and that could have a negative impact on other kids in class.

Not a single person in this thread has suggested that parents should have to explain why they don't want to start their 4 yr old in K. Not one. We are talking about parents who want to redshirt their 5.5 year old and have them start K at 6.5 instead.

Fine, their young five year old. It’s still insane and not remotely grounded in any sort of reality of how school systems or even childhood developmental psychology works.

It is psychotic to demand that school systems create an entirely new evaluation framework on top of already-heavy caseloads and when evaluations for IEPs are barely manageable for school districts as-is, just to assuage the deep neuroses of these anxiety-ridden moms. The entitlement of some of these posters is remarkable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I missed this gem. Definitely do this, OP, and report back!

The crazy always leaks out. Always.

The school is never going to do this. You don’t even know if these kids were redshirted. My nephew was held back in first grade with a March 10th birthday. So he turned 8 in March of his second year of first grade. And nobody cared. He graduated high school at 19 and is in his junior year of college now at almost 22. He was never advanced academically or bullying any other kids, if anything it was the opposite.

Yes, of course all the rational people know the school will laugh OP out of the room if she does what the PP suggests. But as established, the anti-redshirters are not rational people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I missed this gem. Definitely do this, OP, and report back!

The crazy always leaks out. Always.

The school is never going to do this. You don’t even know if these kids were redshirted. My nephew was held back in first grade with a March 10th birthday. So he turned 8 in March of his second year of first grade. And nobody cared. He graduated high school at 19 and is in his junior year of college now at almost 22. He was never advanced academically or bullying any other kids, if anything it was the opposite.

People noticed but no one is going to shame a child for their parent's choices. In 1st grade, my child was 6. That's a huge difference between 6 and 8.

[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.

Do you realize it's bad logic to hold back a struggling child without getting them evaluated and help? You think time will fix things, no. Being older may mask things but if your child is truly delayed and you are not doing something about it, you are doing far more harm than good to hold back your child. Its one thing to hold them back to do intensive therapies, but just to be bigger and older makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that you should need a doctors note to not send a four year old to all day kindergarten absolutely defies description.

When I was a child kindergarten was a half day for the first six months and I went home and ate lunch and napped. At five.

A good pediatrician would laugh you out of their office if you said that needed a “diagnosis” at four much less a neuropsychiatric work up. Are you even listening to yourself above the shrieking?

Except literally no one is suggesting sending a 4 year old to all day kindergarten. This thread states up front that redshirting kids with birthdays close to the cutoff (which is how you wind up with 4 year olds who are technically eligible for kindergarten, because they have August or September birthdays and will turn 5 in the first month of school) should obviously be allowed to redshirt due to age.

This thread is exclusively about late redshirters -- kids with winter or spring birthdays, who are well over the age of 5 by the time K starts. And the suggestion is that for kids in this range (some of whom may indeed benefit from redshirting) there should be some kind of document reason for redshirting since it will result in some kids turning 7 during K (the scenario OP describes) and that could have a negative impact on other kids in class.

Not a single person in this thread has suggested that parents should have to explain why they don't want to start their 4 yr old in K. Not one. We are talking about parents who want to redshirt their 5.5 year old and have them start K at 6.5 instead.

If this is such a problem, why haven't the schools taken any steps to address it? Why do they need competitive parents to point out this glaring issue?

[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.

Do you realize it's bad logic to hold back a struggling child without getting them evaluated and help? You think time will fix things, no. Being older may mask things but if your child is truly delayed and you are not doing something about it, you are doing far more harm than good to hold back your child. Its one thing to hold them back to do intensive therapies, but just to be bigger and older makes no sense.

Speaking of bad logic, let’s see all these studies that prove what you’ve said here. You keep repeating this nonsense with no support, no studies, and no evidence. So prove your point with hard evidence. Where are all the voluminous studies showing that redshirting kids does “far more harm than good”? You speak with such authority that surely you must have pages and pages of good, validated medical research to share with me! Can’t wait to read them all!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you realize it's bad logic to hold back a struggling child without getting them evaluated and help? You think time will fix things, no. Being older may mask things but if your child is truly delayed and you are not doing something about it, you are doing far more harm than good to hold back your child. Its one thing to hold them back to do intensive therapies, but just to be bigger and older makes no sense.

Speaking of bad logic, let’s see all these studies that prove what you’ve said here. You keep repeating this nonsense with no support, no studies, and no evidence. So prove your point with hard evidence. Where are all the voluminous studies showing that redshirting kids does “far more harm than good”? You speak with such authority that surely you must have pages and pages of good, validated medical research to share with me! Can’t wait to read them all!

Common sense should be all you need to know what the pp you are talking to is saying. But since you have no common sense…

[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.

Do you realize it's bad logic to hold back a struggling child without getting them evaluated and help? You think time will fix things, no. Being older may mask things but if your child is truly delayed and you are not doing something about it, you are doing far more harm than good to hold back your child. Its one thing to hold them back to do intensive therapies, but just to be bigger and older makes no sense.

By what authority do you make your sweeping proclamations? You act like we all don't know our own kids or can see other kids thriving around us directly refuting the garbage you spew. You have zero authority on this topic which is why nobody is listening to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you realize it's bad logic to hold back a struggling child without getting them evaluated and help? You think time will fix things, no. Being older may mask things but if your child is truly delayed and you are not doing something about it, you are doing far more harm than good to hold back your child. Its one thing to hold them back to do intensive therapies, but just to be bigger and older makes no sense.

By what authority do you make your sweeping proclamations? You act like we all don't know our own kids or can see other kids thriving around us directly refuting the garbage you spew. You have zero authority on this topic which is why nobody is listening to you.

Just like you have zero authority and no one is listening to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that you should need a doctors note to not send a four year old to all day kindergarten absolutely defies description.

When I was a child kindergarten was a half day for the first six months and I went home and ate lunch and napped. At five.

A good pediatrician would laugh you out of their office if you said that needed a “diagnosis” at four much less a neuropsychiatric work up. Are you even listening to yourself above the shrieking?

Except literally no one is suggesting sending a 4 year old to all day kindergarten. This thread states up front that redshirting kids with birthdays close to the cutoff (which is how you wind up with 4 year olds who are technically eligible for kindergarten, because they have August or September birthdays and will turn 5 in the first month of school) should obviously be allowed to redshirt due to age.

This thread is exclusively about late redshirters -- kids with winter or spring birthdays, who are well over the age of 5 by the time K starts. And the suggestion is that for kids in this range (some of whom may indeed benefit from redshirting) there should be some kind of document reason for redshirting since it will result in some kids turning 7 during K (the scenario OP describes) and that could have a negative impact on other kids in class.

Not a single person in this thread has suggested that parents should have to explain why they don't want to start their 4 yr old in K. Not one. We are talking about parents who want to redshirt their 5.5 year old and have them start K at 6.5 instead.

If this is such a problem, why haven't the schools taken any steps to address it? Why do they need competitive parents to point out this glaring issue?

There are plenty of school districts that have addressed this problem. Lots of schools simply do not allow you to redshirt a 5.5 year old absent documented evidence of a delay. DCPS is one.

The problem is that you do in fact need to have some kind of cut off, and any cut off will produce "youngest kids" in the grade. So yes, this is a problem in many districts that allow redshirting. It can be fine as long as everyone plays along and people mostly just redshirt summer birthdays. But then you get these parents of kids with May/June birthdays who are mad about the summer birthdays redshirting (because it makes their kid "the youngest" if enough people do it). So then more people with May/June kids redshirt, and then you get the same problem with March/April kids.

OP is obviously in a district where the "redshirting creep" has happened and now you've got multiple parents in a grade redshirting January or February birthdays. Which is crazy! But sometimes parents are crazy. That's why you end up having rules, and if parents are crazy enough, the rules will be way more restrictive than they should be (someone with a kid born close to the cut off SHOULD be able to redshirt if they feel it would be best for their kid) because otherwise people will abuse it.

It sucks.