The other kids' parents understood the cutoff standards, obviously. The standard is that you must be five by September 1. It isn't that you must attend if you are five by September 1. |
This is….objectively not better. Also (and, again.) if they’re graduating in May at 20 - or, in the vast majority of cases, at 19…it’s not redshirting, something else is going on |
| ^^^ The standard is that to enroll, the child must be five by September 1. It isn't that the child must attend if s/he is five by September 1. |
This is how I feel. No neurotypical child should be turning 7 during the K year. |
| Because the school is just don’t care. they have no incentive to do it. Older kids are easier for them. |
DP. The PPs post made perfect sense, but you just don’t like the fact that she pointed out the significant inconsistency in positions that anti-redshirters take on DCUM. OPs question needs to be considered in a framework: is it an advantage or not? Is there actual harm or not? The answer to how to manage it depends on that analysis. No school districts have followed NYCs lead, so they do not seem to believe there is an issue. The PP pointed out correctly that there is extreme inconsistency in the anti-redshirt position. That’s reasonable, but you just don’t like it. Speaking of positions, your position and OPs is apparently that you want redshirting to be limited to those families who have the ability and the education to see potential issues and pay for private assessments. You want it to be something primarily available to the children of the wealthy and educated, who have good insurance and a lot of time to start this process. I mean, I guess that’s a position you can take. It wouldn’t be mine, but you are free to advocate to practically limit the ability to redshirt to the wealthiest and most privileged kids. |
There will 100% be kids in my DD's class that turn 19 during their senior year. I'm not PP, but I also have a DD in 3rd and there are kids that are turning 10 this spring before the end of 3rd grade. Add 9 years to this scenario (12th grade - 3rd grade = 9 years) and they absolutely will turn 19 during their senior year. 10 years old + 9 years = 19 years old. Meanwhile my DD that I sent ON TIME will be 17 her entire senior year. I also know a 4th grader turning 11 in April... maybe it's just where we live, but it definitely happens. |
This is weird op. All of my kids classmates are turning 7 in first grade. Something is off maybe these kids were held back? |
I am not sure new rules should be made because your sister can’t be bothered to talk to or learn about her own school district, while other parents clearly did. |
|
Could someone please point me to the anti-redshirting coalition that apparently is a united front against all redshirting, that several PPs have referenced?
I thought there were just a variety of attitudes/perspectives about when people should send kids "on time" versus waiting. I was not aware there was apparently an organized group with talking points. |
This. I was going to go further and say that the schools actually prefer it. Publics can’t come right out and say that since it’s an equity issue (poor people can’t afford to keep their kids home an extra year or pay for more daycare) but privates say it all the time. At the top private in my city, they rarely allow boys who are the right age to start on time - they prefer them all older. Then they can dominate in competitions. Kids should always be compared against others in their birth year for college entry, sports, etc. |
At least in Maryland you have to file for an exemption https://casetext.com/regulation/maryland-administrative-code/title-13a-state-board-of-education/subtitle-08-students/chapter-13a0801-general-regulations/section-13a080102-2-exemptions-to-kindergarten-attendance-requirement#:~:text=(1)%20A%20child%20who%20resides,the%20child's%20level%20of%20maturity. |
No, this is a common thing -- parents won't redshirt with a first child but then will with a subsequent child because they "wise up." Often redshirting is not something a first time parent can understand because it's a sort of hidden nuance of the system. Redshirting is essentially a loophole that is mostly intended for kids "on the bubble" -- kids close to the cut off where they really aren't ready. Most parents intuitively understand that if their kid is close to the cutoff and was particularly immature for the age or had developmental issues, they'd probably hold them back from K, maybe checking with the school to make sure it's okay. But because age cutoffs are often framed to permit that kind of decision, sometimes people whose kids are not at all on the bubble -- they are of age well before the cut off and they have no maturity or developmental issues that would indicate that they need to wait -- exploit it because they think it will give their kid an advantage academically or, sometimes, athletically or socially. And that's what results in a K class with ages ranging from 5 to 7. OP is saying go ahead and keep redshirting as a concept for kids on the bubble, but close it as a loophole for kids who aren't on the bubble but have parents who want to try and garner every advantage. This would have no impact on most redshirting -- most kids who are redshirted fall in that on the bubble group where their birthdays are close to the cut off and they have some maturity or developmental issues. And kids who are older but have pronounced maturity/developmental issues could still redshirt, it would just need to be cleared. The only people who would be impacted by what OP is proposing is the people with developmentally normal kids who are well past the cut off but who want an age advantage for whatever reason. Well good, those are the people who give redshirting a bad name when it's actually a perfectly normal, acceptable practice. |
Another confirmation here. My daughter turned 5 in November of Kindergarten and there were 4 kids younger than her in class. They're very strict against red-shirting, I think I know of maybe 2 kids out of more than 100 in her grade who, because they moved from out of the city or whatever, are not born in 2015, my DD's birth year. |
This doesn't really makes sense because even if you could argue that older kindergarteners are easier due to emotional maturity or, I don't know, potty training (I would guess younger kids have more accidents), if you teach in middle or high school, you know that "older" does not always translate to more mature, and also that a lot of the behavioral problems are caused by hormonal changes happening before kids are ready. So sure, some K teachers might welcome a few 7 year olds if it means the kids can share more easily or maybe more of them start the year knowing how to read. But go talk to some 6th grade teachers about how eager they are to have a bunch of 12 year olds, turning 13, in class. No thank you! Older is NOT always better. Age cohorts exist for a reason and people who try to "jump" the cohort for advantage screw over everyone. The reason schools don't put up a fight is because the parents most likely to abuse this loophole also tend to be really hard to deal with and will threaten to sue over... anything. But no, teachers are not excited to have a bunch of older kids in class, good lord. |