Why don’t schools have stronger policies about redshirting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids with selective mutism who are redshirted have parents who are working with EI and private therapists, not asking DCUM in August whether they should redshirt their kids. I’m sure they’re deeply worried that in the opinion of non-experts they’re doing the wrong thing.

Are you saying EI and private therapists are actually recommending this?

I only know two cases personally, but in both of those cases the professionals recommended delaying kindergarten while the kid continued to do a supportive PreK program and get more therapy than would have been available in a public kindergarten schedule. I have no idea if that’s the “standard” recommendation. But the idea that the parents are sitting by idly just waiting for their kid to get older is a DCUM fiction.

Was this for selective mutism? Genuinely curious.

Many parents with kids with selective mutism don't recognize it. We thought our kid was just shy. When we realized what it was we definitely considered switching preschools and we talked to the therapist and she explained what our kid needed was treatment and that would not help.

Many people believe kids will outgrow SM and many kids do (with potential mental health consequences if the SM went on for many years). The treatment for SM is hard to access (most therapists don't take insurance) and requires extensive participation from parents as well as supportive teachers. I hear that you know of two whole cases (of SM? Or something totally different?) but I have absolutely no doubt many families in this situation are acting without qualified support. They are in a really stressful situation and I have nothing but empathy for them but it's simply not true everyone is making these decisions because their therapist suggested it.

In the case I know better (family member) the PreK 3 referred for EI because they suspected ASD. It was ultimately diagnosed as SM— and kid is a thriving 8 y/o now— but the amount of intervention they recommended was not going to be available to the child in public kindergarten, and by a huge margin (think, the child would get 5+ hours per week in PreK and 1-2 hours in K).

The second child my total body of knowledge is that “Dr. ______ says we’re better off starting him in 2027” so I’m sorry no more data there.

But none of these parents are just lazily deciding to wait out SM and the implication that they don’t know what they’re doing is pretty rude.

I didn't say or imply this. Let me repeat since you are clearly just here to fight and bash people: I have nothing but empathy for parents in this situation.

I will also say it sounds like you actually know of zero cases of a child whose therapists recommended redshirting for SM.

Kindly please stop using other people's kids to advance your own agenda you POS

“Nothing but empathy” except you’re sure these people you don’t know and who didn’t ask you are acting without “qualified support”

Yup I’m the one with an agenda here…

Why do you keep implying you know so much about this and then when pressed it turns out nope?

The reason people don't have appropriate support is because that support is very difficult to get, not because I think those parents are lazy or don't care about their kids. Jfc

I have a child with a different SN. The number of people (on the internet and real life) willing to assume that they 100% know better than I do about the decisions we make for her you would not believe. It’s a very common experience, ask around on the SN board.

Oh they’re so “empathetic” because surely if I only knew about their essential oil/crystal healing/one doctor up in Philly who lost his license to practice medicine then I would absolutely make different decisions for my child than the one we made in consultation with our pediatrician and specialist.

So how about: assume every parent in this situation cares more about their kid than you do, cares more about getting them the right support and intervention than you do, and doesn’t need to be “saved”.

It's bizarre to put a word in quotes as though I used that word, when I said nothing of the sort. Wtaf is wrong with you?

I do want folks to be clear that nobody here has redshirted their kid for SM nor has a therapist recommended their kid be redshirted for SM. Selective mutism was cited as a reason for redshirting by someone who did not redshirt their kid and was not advised to do so, they are just "imagining" that they would have sympathy for parents who did. And that's fine, but I don't want folks searching this forum, many of whom may be on waiting lists to see a therapist trained in SM or simply not have access at all.

[Anonymous]

..to get the impression this is something standard for selective mutism. It isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a very heavy redshirt area. We moved from DC right before kinder. My son is June and his grade is very old. I just found out two more friends are now being held back. He’s incoming first. One has a Feb bday and the other March. Our cut off date is Sep1. They are struggling with reading but the gap is just becoming very large for the kids on time. This is a public school. Right now even with June he’s the youngest boy in the grade. When we started I actually asked admin these questions and they weren’t honest about it and said most went on time born in summer. Once we started I realized almost everyone from March on redshirted so he’s significantly younger. He’s doing fine but I wish the school was honest about it prior to starting as he’s made friends now so it would be a big transition to do it now.

Going back to MARCH?! I have never heard of such a thing barring a strong academic or social reason.

My second grader is a June, started on time, and has at least 4-5 classmates with summer birthdays.

Yes, it’s a thing in some places. I didn’t realize it until my early April birthday kids had classmates over a year older than them. The parents shared that it’s because they wanted their kids to be the oldest in the class for academic and athletic advantages.

I call BS on their sharing those reasons since those reasons are what DCUM lunatics always claim are the reasons. We redshirted our son since he was born 6 weeks early and we didn't believe elementary school is well suited for active boys. Our son will be a junior this year, no regrets with redshirting him. He does travel soccer, no advantage in sports and we've always supplented public school with tutors if/when needed - so no academic advantage with the redshirting.

Bottom line is they are cloaking all this unasked for advice under the guise of “do what’s best for me, not for you”. It’s very disingenuous. So long as their kid is not the youngest, regardless of readiness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids with selective mutism who are redshirted have parents who are working with EI and private therapists, not asking DCUM in August whether they should redshirt their kids. I’m sure they’re deeply worried that in the opinion of non-experts they’re doing the wrong thing.

Are you saying EI and private therapists are actually recommending this?

I only know two cases personally, but in both of those cases the professionals recommended delaying kindergarten while the kid continued to do a supportive PreK program and get more therapy than would have been available in a public kindergarten schedule. I have no idea if that’s the “standard” recommendation. But the idea that the parents are sitting by idly just waiting for their kid to get older is a DCUM fiction.

Was this for selective mutism? Genuinely curious.

Many parents with kids with selective mutism don't recognize it. We thought our kid was just shy. When we realized what it was we definitely considered switching preschools and we talked to the therapist and she explained what our kid needed was treatment and that would not help.

Many people believe kids will outgrow SM and many kids do (with potential mental health consequences if the SM went on for many years). The treatment for SM is hard to access (most therapists don't take insurance) and requires extensive participation from parents as well as supportive teachers. I hear that you know of two whole cases (of SM? Or something totally different?) but I have absolutely no doubt many families in this situation are acting without qualified support. They are in a really stressful situation and I have nothing but empathy for them but it's simply not true everyone is making these decisions because their therapist suggested it.

In the case I know better (family member) the PreK 3 referred for EI because they suspected ASD. It was ultimately diagnosed as SM— and kid is a thriving 8 y/o now— but the amount of intervention they recommended was not going to be available to the child in public kindergarten, and by a huge margin (think, the child would get 5+ hours per week in PreK and 1-2 hours in K).

The second child my total body of knowledge is that “Dr. ______ says we’re better off starting him in 2027” so I’m sorry no more data there.

But none of these parents are just lazily deciding to wait out SM and the implication that they don’t know what they’re doing is pretty rude.

I didn't say or imply this. Let me repeat since you are clearly just here to fight and bash people: I have nothing but empathy for parents in this situation.

I will also say it sounds like you actually know of zero cases of a child whose therapists recommended redshirting for SM.

Kindly please stop using other people's kids to advance your own agenda you POS

DP who didn’t redshirt and who has kids with an SN where redshirting is sometimes recommended. You are truly an awful person. This is a shocking post. Please back off. You are making SN parents look awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids with selective mutism who are redshirted have parents who are working with EI and private therapists, not asking DCUM in August whether they should redshirt their kids. I’m sure they’re deeply worried that in the opinion of non-experts they’re doing the wrong thing.

Are you saying EI and private therapists are actually recommending this?

I only know two cases personally, but in both of those cases the professionals recommended delaying kindergarten while the kid continued to do a supportive PreK program and get more therapy than would have been available in a public kindergarten schedule. I have no idea if that’s the “standard” recommendation. But the idea that the parents are sitting by idly just waiting for their kid to get older is a DCUM fiction.

Was this for selective mutism? Genuinely curious.

Many parents with kids with selective mutism don't recognize it. We thought our kid was just shy. When we realized what it was we definitely considered switching preschools and we talked to the therapist and she explained what our kid needed was treatment and that would not help.

Many people believe kids will outgrow SM and many kids do (with potential mental health consequences if the SM went on for many years). The treatment for SM is hard to access (most therapists don't take insurance) and requires extensive participation from parents as well as supportive teachers. I hear that you know of two whole cases (of SM? Or something totally different?) but I have absolutely no doubt many families in this situation are acting without qualified support. They are in a really stressful situation and I have nothing but empathy for them but it's simply not true everyone is making these decisions because their therapist suggested it.

In the case I know better (family member) the PreK 3 referred for EI because they suspected ASD. It was ultimately diagnosed as SM— and kid is a thriving 8 y/o now— but the amount of intervention they recommended was not going to be available to the child in public kindergarten, and by a huge margin (think, the child would get 5+ hours per week in PreK and 1-2 hours in K).

The second child my total body of knowledge is that “Dr. ______ says we’re better off starting him in 2027” so I’m sorry no more data there.

But none of these parents are just lazily deciding to wait out SM and the implication that they don’t know what they’re doing is pretty rude.

I didn't say or imply this. Let me repeat since you are clearly just here to fight and bash people: I have nothing but empathy for parents in this situation.

I will also say it sounds like you actually know of zero cases of a child whose therapists recommended redshirting for SM.

Kindly please stop using other people's kids to advance your own agenda you POS

DP who didn’t redshirt and who has kids with an SN where redshirting is sometimes recommended. You are truly an awful person. This is a shocking post. Please back off. You are making SN parents look awful.

No but you tell yourself that to justify misinforming people on here. This goes right up with with the folks who think it's ok to make deceptive statements about SN they don't know about because they think nobody with kids in that situation is reading this right now or making decisions based on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids with selective mutism who are redshirted have parents who are working with EI and private therapists, not asking DCUM in August whether they should redshirt their kids. I’m sure they’re deeply worried that in the opinion of non-experts they’re doing the wrong thing.

Are you saying EI and private therapists are actually recommending this?

I only know two cases personally, but in both of those cases the professionals recommended delaying kindergarten while the kid continued to do a supportive PreK program and get more therapy than would have been available in a public kindergarten schedule. I have no idea if that’s the “standard” recommendation. But the idea that the parents are sitting by idly just waiting for their kid to get older is a DCUM fiction.

Was this for selective mutism? Genuinely curious.

Many parents with kids with selective mutism don't recognize it. We thought our kid was just shy. When we realized what it was we definitely considered switching preschools and we talked to the therapist and she explained what our kid needed was treatment and that would not help.

Many people believe kids will outgrow SM and many kids do (with potential mental health consequences if the SM went on for many years). The treatment for SM is hard to access (most therapists don't take insurance) and requires extensive participation from parents as well as supportive teachers. I hear that you know of two whole cases (of SM? Or something totally different?) but I have absolutely no doubt many families in this situation are acting without qualified support. They are in a really stressful situation and I have nothing but empathy for them but it's simply not true everyone is making these decisions because their therapist suggested it.

In the case I know better (family member) the PreK 3 referred for EI because they suspected ASD. It was ultimately diagnosed as SM— and kid is a thriving 8 y/o now— but the amount of intervention they recommended was not going to be available to the child in public kindergarten, and by a huge margin (think, the child would get 5+ hours per week in PreK and 1-2 hours in K).

The second child my total body of knowledge is that “Dr. ______ says we’re better off starting him in 2027” so I’m sorry no more data there.

But none of these parents are just lazily deciding to wait out SM and the implication that they don’t know what they’re doing is pretty rude.

I didn't say or imply this. Let me repeat since you are clearly just here to fight and bash people: I have nothing but empathy for parents in this situation.

I will also say it sounds like you actually know of zero cases of a child whose therapists recommended redshirting for SM.

Kindly please stop using other people's kids to advance your own agenda you POS

DP who didn’t redshirt and who has kids with an SN where redshirting is sometimes recommended. You are truly an awful person. This is a shocking post. Please back off. You are making SN parents look awful.

No but you tell yourself that to justify misinforming people on here. This goes right up with with the folks who think it's ok to make deceptive statements about SN they don't know about because they think nobody with kids in that situation is reading this right now or making decisions based on it.

It’s equally (or greater) misinformation to tell people that public kindergarten will provide therapies and intervention to the degree needed for a SN child. That’s not universally true, and many parents need the flexibility of having their child treated in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids with selective mutism who are redshirted have parents who are working with EI and private therapists, not asking DCUM in August whether they should redshirt their kids. I’m sure they’re deeply worried that in the opinion of non-experts they’re doing the wrong thing.

Are you saying EI and private therapists are actually recommending this?

I only know two cases personally, but in both of those cases the professionals recommended delaying kindergarten while the kid continued to do a supportive PreK program and get more therapy than would have been available in a public kindergarten schedule. I have no idea if that’s the “standard” recommendation. But the idea that the parents are sitting by idly just waiting for their kid to get older is a DCUM fiction.

Was this for selective mutism? Genuinely curious.

Many parents with kids with selective mutism don't recognize it. We thought our kid was just shy. When we realized what it was we definitely considered switching preschools and we talked to the therapist and she explained what our kid needed was treatment and that would not help.

Many people believe kids will outgrow SM and many kids do (with potential mental health consequences if the SM went on for many years). The treatment for SM is hard to access (most therapists don't take insurance) and requires extensive participation from parents as well as supportive teachers. I hear that you know of two whole cases (of SM? Or something totally different?) but I have absolutely no doubt many families in this situation are acting without qualified support. They are in a really stressful situation and I have nothing but empathy for them but it's simply not true everyone is making these decisions because their therapist suggested it.

In the case I know better (family member) the PreK 3 referred for EI because they suspected ASD. It was ultimately diagnosed as SM— and kid is a thriving 8 y/o now— but the amount of intervention they recommended was not going to be available to the child in public kindergarten, and by a huge margin (think, the child would get 5+ hours per week in PreK and 1-2 hours in K).

The second child my total body of knowledge is that “Dr. ______ says we’re better off starting him in 2027” so I’m sorry no more data there.

But none of these parents are just lazily deciding to wait out SM and the implication that they don’t know what they’re doing is pretty rude.

I didn't say or imply this. Let me repeat since you are clearly just here to fight and bash people: I have nothing but empathy for parents in this situation.

I will also say it sounds like you actually know of zero cases of a child whose therapists recommended redshirting for SM.

Kindly please stop using other people's kids to advance your own agenda you POS

DP who didn’t redshirt and who has kids with an SN where redshirting is sometimes recommended. You are truly an awful person. This is a shocking post. Please back off. You are making SN parents look awful.

No but you tell yourself that to justify misinforming people on here. This goes right up with with the folks who think it's ok to make deceptive statements about SN they don't know about because they think nobody with kids in that situation is reading this right now or making decisions based on it.

It’s equally (or greater) misinformation to tell people that public kindergarten will provide therapies and intervention to the degree needed for a SN child. That’s not universally true, and many parents need the flexibility of having their child treated in school.

Agreed. It is situationally dependent.

This conversation was originally about whether schools should have stricter limits on redshirting, because OP is in a place where redshirting kids who have no delays and winter and spring birthdays is happening.

But somehow now people are being yelled at for suggesting that a child with a diagnosed SN *and* a summer or September birthdays might do better if redshirted.

That's nuts. Of course there are situations where a young for the grade child with SNs should be redshirted, or at least where it's an understandable choice. Saying otherwise makes you sound like you just hate redshirting no matter what. That's not a rational position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids with selective mutism who are redshirted have parents who are working with EI and private therapists, not asking DCUM in August whether they should redshirt their kids. I’m sure they’re deeply worried that in the opinion of non-experts they’re doing the wrong thing.

Are you saying EI and private therapists are actually recommending this?

I only know two cases personally, but in both of those cases the professionals recommended delaying kindergarten while the kid continued to do a supportive PreK program and get more therapy than would have been available in a public kindergarten schedule. I have no idea if that’s the “standard” recommendation. But the idea that the parents are sitting by idly just waiting for their kid to get older is a DCUM fiction.

Was this for selective mutism? Genuinely curious.

Many parents with kids with selective mutism don't recognize it. We thought our kid was just shy. When we realized what it was we definitely considered switching preschools and we talked to the therapist and she explained what our kid needed was treatment and that would not help.

Many people believe kids will outgrow SM and many kids do (with potential mental health consequences if the SM went on for many years). The treatment for SM is hard to access (most therapists don't take insurance) and requires extensive participation from parents as well as supportive teachers. I hear that you know of two whole cases (of SM? Or something totally different?) but I have absolutely no doubt many families in this situation are acting without qualified support. They are in a really stressful situation and I have nothing but empathy for them but it's simply not true everyone is making these decisions because their therapist suggested it.

In the case I know better (family member) the PreK 3 referred for EI because they suspected ASD. It was ultimately diagnosed as SM— and kid is a thriving 8 y/o now— but the amount of intervention they recommended was not going to be available to the child in public kindergarten, and by a huge margin (think, the child would get 5+ hours per week in PreK and 1-2 hours in K).

The second child my total body of knowledge is that “Dr. ______ says we’re better off starting him in 2027” so I’m sorry no more data there.

But none of these parents are just lazily deciding to wait out SM and the implication that they don’t know what they’re doing is pretty rude.

I didn't say or imply this. Let me repeat since you are clearly just here to fight and bash people: I have nothing but empathy for parents in this situation.

I will also say it sounds like you actually know of zero cases of a child whose therapists recommended redshirting for SM.

Kindly please stop using other people's kids to advance your own agenda you POS

DP who didn’t redshirt and who has kids with an SN where redshirting is sometimes recommended. You are truly an awful person. This is a shocking post. Please back off. You are making SN parents look awful.

No but you tell yourself that to justify misinforming people on here. This goes right up with with the folks who think it's ok to make deceptive statements about SN they don't know about because they think nobody with kids in that situation is reading this right now or making decisions based on it.

It’s equally (or greater) misinformation to tell people that public kindergarten will provide therapies and intervention to the degree needed for a SN child. That’s not universally true, and many parents need the flexibility of having their child treated in school.

Agreed. It is situationally dependent.

This conversation was originally about whether schools should have stricter limits on redshirting, because OP is in a place where redshirting kids who have no delays and winter and spring birthdays is happening.

But somehow now people are being yelled at for suggesting that a child with a diagnosed SN *and* a summer or September birthdays might do better if redshirted.

That's nuts. Of course there are situations where a young for the grade child with SNs should be redshirted, or at least where it's an understandable choice. Saying otherwise makes you sound like you just hate redshirting no matter what. That's not a rational position.

Exactly.

And? The opposite is also true— there are some circumstances where a September birthday kid with SN DESPERATELY needs to be in school! Again, kids need to go for all different reasons and not all of them are obvious to outsiders.

The bottom line is the parents need to make this choice. Not random angry people on the internet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a very heavy redshirt area. We moved from DC right before kinder. My son is June and his grade is very old. I just found out two more friends are now being held back. He’s incoming first. One has a Feb bday and the other March. Our cut off date is Sep1. They are struggling with reading but the gap is just becoming very large for the kids on time. This is a public school. Right now even with June he’s the youngest boy in the grade. When we started I actually asked admin these questions and they weren’t honest about it and said most went on time born in summer. Once we started I realized almost everyone from March on redshirted so he’s significantly younger. He’s doing fine but I wish the school was honest about it prior to starting as he’s made friends now so it would be a big transition to do it now.

Going back to MARCH?! I have never heard of such a thing barring a strong academic or social reason.

My second grader is a June, started on time, and has at least 4-5 classmates with summer birthdays.

Yes, it’s a thing in some places. I didn’t realize it until my early April birthday kids had classmates over a year older than them. The parents shared that it’s because they wanted their kids to be the oldest in the class for academic and athletic advantages.

I call BS on their sharing those reasons since those reasons are what DCUM lunatics always claim are the reasons. We redshirted our son since he was born 6 weeks early and we didn't believe elementary school is well suited for active boys. Our son will be a junior this year, no regrets with redshirting him. He does travel soccer, no advantage in sports and we've always supplented public school with tutors if/when needed - so no academic advantage with the redshirting.

Bottom line is they are cloaking all this unasked for advice under the guise of “do what’s best for me, not for you”. It’s very disingenuous. So long as their kid is not the youngest, regardless of readiness.

It’s bizzare to say elementary school is not suited for boys. Of course it is and most kids are active.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids with selective mutism who are redshirted have parents who are working with EI and private therapists, not asking DCUM in August whether they should redshirt their kids. I’m sure they’re deeply worried that in the opinion of non-experts they’re doing the wrong thing.

Are you saying EI and private therapists are actually recommending this?

I only know two cases personally, but in both of those cases the professionals recommended delaying kindergarten while the kid continued to do a supportive PreK program and get more therapy than would have been available in a public kindergarten schedule. I have no idea if that’s the “standard” recommendation. But the idea that the parents are sitting by idly just waiting for their kid to get older is a DCUM fiction.

Was this for selective mutism? Genuinely curious.

Many parents with kids with selective mutism don't recognize it. We thought our kid was just shy. When we realized what it was we definitely considered switching preschools and we talked to the therapist and she explained what our kid needed was treatment and that would not help.

Many people believe kids will outgrow SM and many kids do (with potential mental health consequences if the SM went on for many years). The treatment for SM is hard to access (most therapists don't take insurance) and requires extensive participation from parents as well as supportive teachers. I hear that you know of two whole cases (of SM? Or something totally different?) but I have absolutely no doubt many families in this situation are acting without qualified support. They are in a really stressful situation and I have nothing but empathy for them but it's simply not true everyone is making these decisions because their therapist suggested it.

In the case I know better (family member) the PreK 3 referred for EI because they suspected ASD. It was ultimately diagnosed as SM— and kid is a thriving 8 y/o now— but the amount of intervention they recommended was not going to be available to the child in public kindergarten, and by a huge margin (think, the child would get 5+ hours per week in PreK and 1-2 hours in K).

The second child my total body of knowledge is that “Dr. ______ says we’re better off starting him in 2027” so I’m sorry no more data there.

But none of these parents are just lazily deciding to wait out SM and the implication that they don’t know what they’re doing is pretty rude.

I didn't say or imply this. Let me repeat since you are clearly just here to fight and bash people: I have nothing but empathy for parents in this situation.

I will also say it sounds like you actually know of zero cases of a child whose therapists recommended redshirting for SM.

Kindly please stop using other people's kids to advance your own agenda you POS

DP who didn’t redshirt and who has kids with an SN where redshirting is sometimes recommended. You are truly an awful person. This is a shocking post. Please back off. You are making SN parents look awful.

No but you tell yourself that to justify misinforming people on here. This goes right up with with the folks who think it's ok to make deceptive statements about SN they don't know about because they think nobody with kids in that situation is reading this right now or making decisions based on it.

It’s equally (or greater) misinformation to tell people that public kindergarten will provide therapies and intervention to the degree needed for a SN child. That’s not universally true, and many parents need the flexibility of having their child treated in school.

Agreed. It is situationally dependent.

This conversation was originally about whether schools should have stricter limits on redshirting, because OP is in a place where redshirting kids who have no delays and winter and spring birthdays is happening.

But somehow now people are being yelled at for suggesting that a child with a diagnosed SN *and* a summer or September birthdays might do better if redshirted.

That's nuts. Of course there are situations where a young for the grade child with SNs should be redshirted, or at least where it's an understandable choice. Saying otherwise makes you sound like you just hate redshirting no matter what. That's not a rational position.

Exactly.

And? The opposite is also true— there are some circumstances where a September birthday kid with SN DESPERATELY needs to be in school! Again, kids need to go for all different reasons and not all of them are obvious to outsiders.

The bottom line is the parents need to make this choice. Not random angry people on the internet.

Your choices impact others. 5 year olds in k with 6-7 year olds creates inappropriate expectations as expectations are set for older kids when it should be set for a five year old. It’s not healthy for any of the kids to be with a huge age range.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids with selective mutism who are redshirted have parents who are working with EI and private therapists, not asking DCUM in August whether they should redshirt their kids. I’m sure they’re deeply worried that in the opinion of non-experts they’re doing the wrong thing.

Are you saying EI and private therapists are actually recommending this?

I only know two cases personally, but in both of those cases the professionals recommended delaying kindergarten while the kid continued to do a supportive PreK program and get more therapy than would have been available in a public kindergarten schedule. I have no idea if that’s the “standard” recommendation. But the idea that the parents are sitting by idly just waiting for their kid to get older is a DCUM fiction.

Was this for selective mutism? Genuinely curious.

Many parents with kids with selective mutism don't recognize it. We thought our kid was just shy. When we realized what it was we definitely considered switching preschools and we talked to the therapist and she explained what our kid needed was treatment and that would not help.

Many people believe kids will outgrow SM and many kids do (with potential mental health consequences if the SM went on for many years). The treatment for SM is hard to access (most therapists don't take insurance) and requires extensive participation from parents as well as supportive teachers. I hear that you know of two whole cases (of SM? Or something totally different?) but I have absolutely no doubt many families in this situation are acting without qualified support. They are in a really stressful situation and I have nothing but empathy for them but it's simply not true everyone is making these decisions because their therapist suggested it.

In the case I know better (family member) the PreK 3 referred for EI because they suspected ASD. It was ultimately diagnosed as SM— and kid is a thriving 8 y/o now— but the amount of intervention they recommended was not going to be available to the child in public kindergarten, and by a huge margin (think, the child would get 5+ hours per week in PreK and 1-2 hours in K).

The second child my total body of knowledge is that “Dr. ______ says we’re better off starting him in 2027” so I’m sorry no more data there.

But none of these parents are just lazily deciding to wait out SM and the implication that they don’t know what they’re doing is pretty rude.

I didn't say or imply this. Let me repeat since you are clearly just here to fight and bash people: I have nothing but empathy for parents in this situation.

I will also say it sounds like you actually know of zero cases of a child whose therapists recommended redshirting for SM.

Kindly please stop using other people's kids to advance your own agenda you POS

DP who didn’t redshirt and who has kids with an SN where redshirting is sometimes recommended. You are truly an awful person. This is a shocking post. Please back off. You are making SN parents look awful.

No but you tell yourself that to justify misinforming people on here. This goes right up with with the folks who think it's ok to make deceptive statements about SN they don't know about because they think nobody with kids in that situation is reading this right now or making decisions based on it.

It’s equally (or greater) misinformation to tell people that public kindergarten will provide therapies and intervention to the degree needed for a SN child. That’s not universally true, and many parents need the flexibility of having their child treated in school.

Agreed. It is situationally dependent.

This conversation was originally about whether schools should have stricter limits on redshirting, because OP is in a place where redshirting kids who have no delays and winter and spring birthdays is happening.

But somehow now people are being yelled at for suggesting that a child with a diagnosed SN *and* a summer or September birthdays might do better if redshirted.

That's nuts. Of course there are situations where a young for the grade child with SNs should be redshirted, or at least where it's an understandable choice. Saying otherwise makes you sound like you just hate redshirting no matter what. That's not a rational position.

As a parent with a child with an August birthday and sn, it was better to sen on time for the structure and academics. I have an older child and no regrets. Instead of delaying things we got intense help from age two through elementary privately and worked at home. We also choose a more structured preschool to prepare them for holding back would not fix it as it took many years to resolve. If I held back I would have had a ten year old starting k.

[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:Kids with selective mutism who are redshirted have parents who are working with EI and private therapists, not asking DCUM in August whether they should redshirt their kids. I’m sure they’re deeply worried that in the opinion of non-experts they’re doing the wrong thing.

Are you saying EI and private therapists are actually recommending this?

I only know two cases personally, but in both of those cases the professionals recommended delaying kindergarten while the kid continued to do a supportive PreK program and get more therapy than would have been available in a public kindergarten schedule. I have no idea if that’s the “standard” recommendation. But the idea that the parents are sitting by idly just waiting for their kid to get older is a DCUM fiction.

Was this for selective mutism? Genuinely curious.

Many parents with kids with selective mutism don't recognize it. We thought our kid was just shy. When we realized what it was we definitely considered switching preschools and we talked to the therapist and she explained what our kid needed was treatment and that would not help.

Many people believe kids will outgrow SM and many kids do (with potential mental health consequences if the SM went on for many years). The treatment for SM is hard to access (most therapists don't take insurance) and requires extensive participation from parents as well as supportive teachers. I hear that you know of two whole cases (of SM? Or something totally different?) but I have absolutely no doubt many families in this situation are acting without qualified support. They are in a really stressful situation and I have nothing but empathy for them but it's simply not true everyone is making these decisions because their therapist suggested it.

In the case I know better (family member) the PreK 3 referred for EI because they suspected ASD. It was ultimately diagnosed as SM— and kid is a thriving 8 y/o now— but the amount of intervention they recommended was not going to be available to the child in public kindergarten, and by a huge margin (think, the child would get 5+ hours per week in PreK and 1-2 hours in K).

The second child my total body of knowledge is that “Dr. ______ says we’re better off starting him in 2027” so I’m sorry no more data there.

But none of these parents are just lazily deciding to wait out SM and the implication that they don’t know what they’re doing is pretty rude.

I didn't say or imply this. Let me repeat since you are clearly just here to fight and bash people: I have nothing but empathy for parents in this situation.

I will also say it sounds like you actually know of zero cases of a child whose therapists recommended redshirting for SM.

Kindly please stop using other people's kids to advance your own agenda you POS

DP who didn’t redshirt and who has kids with an SN where redshirting is sometimes recommended. You are truly an awful person. This is a shocking post. Please back off. You are making SN parents look awful.

No but you tell yourself that to justify misinforming people on here. This goes right up with with the folks who think it's ok to make deceptive statements about SN they don't know about because they think nobody with kids in that situation is reading this right now or making decisions based on it.

It’s equally (or greater) misinformation to tell people that public kindergarten will provide therapies and intervention to the degree needed for a SN child. That’s not universally true, and many parents need the flexibility of having their child treated in school.

Agreed. It is situationally dependent.

This conversation was originally about whether schools should have stricter limits on redshirting, because OP is in a place where redshirting kids who have no delays and winter and spring birthdays is happening.

But somehow now people are being yelled at for suggesting that a child with a diagnosed SN *and* a summer or September birthdays might do better if redshirted.

That's nuts. Of course there are situations where a young for the grade child with SNs should be redshirted, or at least where it's an understandable choice. Saying otherwise makes you sound like you just hate redshirting no matter what. That's not a rational position.

Exactly.

And? The opposite is also true— there are some circumstances where a September birthday kid with SN DESPERATELY needs to be in school! Again, kids need to go for all different reasons and not all of them are obvious to outsiders.

The bottom line is the parents need to make this choice. Not random angry people on the internet.

Your choices impact others. 5 year olds in k with 6-7 year olds creates inappropriate expectations as expectations are set for older kids when it should be set for a five year old. It’s not healthy for any of the kids to be with a huge age range.

No new 5 yr olds are in k with 7 yr olds. If they are they are maybe 14 months apart. Big whoop.

[Anonymous]

I am honestly shocked to see how heated this thread has become. We redshirted our late summer neurotypical child because we moved cross country in the summer DC turned 5. With both parents working long hours w/t the option of work from home, we needed to put DC in before and after school care. Moving into a new state means we were late to sign up for SACC. Redshirting DC bought us time to get into the program. On the contrary to what some said that redshirting is a strategy for privileged parents, we needed to stay double income the decision helped us to both remain employed full time.

DC does seem slightly more mature than the on-time classmates but DC isn’t in any particular sport (we don’t really push for that) and academic wise, DC is thriving in a way that DC enjoys school. We never regret redshirting DC, and at the same time, I am surprised by all the controversy surrounding this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am honestly shocked to see how heated this thread has become. We redshirted our late summer neurotypical child because we moved cross country in the summer DC turned 5. With both parents working long hours w/t the option of work from home, we needed to put DC in before and after school care. Moving into a new state means we were late to sign up for SACC. Redshirting DC bought us time to get into the program. On the contrary to what some said that redshirting is a strategy for privileged parents, we needed to stay double income the decision helped us to both remain employed full time.

DC does seem slightly more mature than the on-time classmates but DC isn’t in any particular sport (we don’t really push for that) and academic wise, DC is thriving in a way that DC enjoys school. We never regret redshirting DC, and at the same time, I am surprised by all the controversy surrounding this.

People here talk out of both sides of their mouth. On the one hand it’s such a great privilege for their child to be the youngest up and against older kids, running circles around them, but on the other hand it’s totally unfair cheating if other parents redshirt for personal reasons.

[Anonymous]

Many people who are redshirting their 5 yos today have no idea what kind of trouble lies ahead 3-4 years from now when their kids are completely bored and understimulated in class. Good luck trying to get a grade skip unless you jump through a million hoops.