mad - kid in kindergarten has late birthday

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I only think this should be an option for summer birthdays. There should be a sliding scale where June - August can be held back or sent forward. September should always be held back IMO.

That's just changing the cutoff date, which means parents would start holding back kids even earlier in the year. If the question is whether the standards are too high for a kid just turning 5 in kindergarten, that's a different question. Some kids do great and are more than ready, other kids really struggle and could benefit from less academic kindergarten or another year of preschool. But that's an educational policy question, not a redshirting question.

[Anonymous]

OP, welcome to the rest of your kids' time in school. Learn to deal with it now. Then let it go.

The boy across the street is in 8th grade. My DS is in 9th grade. My DS is younger and he went on time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of my kids are young for their grades, my oldest didn’t turn 5 until 6 weeks into K, but they’re all fine. And I don’t care how old other kids are as long as they are nice enough kids.

+1

My kids were all sent on time and range from younger-older in grade, as far as birthdays go. I don’t care what other parents do or when they send their kids- just hope all are reasonably nice.

Agree but usually if parents become aware of a redshirted kid in class, it's because of outlier behaviors, some of which are "not so nice."

When we've learned of redshirted kids, it's been because there were classroom issues with that kid and then we'd note "oh that kid is really big" and then we'd find out well of course they are big -- they are 18 months older than our kid. It's happened twice.

There were probably redshirted kids in these classrooms who were totally fine, and the reason we aren't even aware of them is that there were never any issues. Probably those kids were redshirted for being on the young side combined with maybe some development issues.

Whereas the kids who became problems were, I think, redshirted due to behavior issues, not just developmental delays. This really shows the difference between a kid who is redshirted because he potty trained late and is still working on some motor skills that most K kids have mastered, versus a kid who has all the physical and mental development on time but has some negative classroom behaviors.

I don't think holding back kids with behavioral issues works and it's kind of nuts to me that it still happens. Likely these are kids who need IEPs and additional therapy/social skills training. They are actually more likely to get that in elementary than in preschool! Redshirting a child like that just kicks the can down the road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it op. My late-August birthday girl was called a baby and told she belonged in pre-k because she was still 5 in the late spring of her kindergarten year, by the 7 year olds in the class. Blatant red-shirting skews the dynamics.

You sent a 4 year old to kindergarten?

In VA, as long as they are 5 by the end of September, yes you send 4 year olds to Kindergarten.

This is only an issue when parents hold back their kids for ridiculous reasons and then you have that kid next to a 7 year old.

So the rules are good when they allow 4 year olds but not 6 year olds to start? Who makes the rules, not you, correct?

You’re a fool or are being purposely obtuse. The rules are good when they ensure that (absent a legitimately documented intellectual need- which is unfortunately far too easy for the well off to fabricate) children attend the actual grade which the state/school district has deemed appropriate for their age range so that young children are in classes with and evaluated against their actual peers.

The rules are bad when they allow (usually wealthy and entitled) parents to enroll their neurotypical child in a class 1-2 years below the grade level the state has designated appropriate for their age so that they can have an unfair academic/athletic /social advantage hence throwing off the classroom dynamic, average performance level and unfairly penalizing all of the children whose parents actually follow the recommended guidelines.

So what are you doing to change the rules at your school if they are sooo bad? Arguing here is pointless. I'm not the fool whining online about a problem I'm not even trying to solve.

I’m not whining or trying to change the flawed system- my kids are doing just fine. I’m just pointing out that no one is buying pp’s claim that sending a 7 year old to kindergarten is objectively/morally neutral or the same as sending a 4 year old turning 5 in September (which is actually the appropriate designated age age) and no one is impressed by their inappropriately aged kindergarten child out performing children 1+ years younger than them.

the kid isn't even 7. It's a 6 year old. By my calendar it's only October, not April.

I meant a kid that will be turning 7 in kindergarten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it op. My late-August birthday girl was called a baby and told she belonged in pre-k because she was still 5 in the late spring of her kindergarten year, by the 7 year olds in the class. Blatant red-shirting skews the dynamics.

You sent a 4 year old to kindergarten?

In VA, as long as they are 5 by the end of September, yes you send 4 year olds to Kindergarten.

This is only an issue when parents hold back their kids for ridiculous reasons and then you have that kid next to a 7 year old.

So the rules are good when they allow 4 year olds but not 6 year olds to start? Who makes the rules, not you, correct?

You’re a fool or are being purposely obtuse. The rules are good when they ensure that (absent a legitimately documented intellectual need- which is unfortunately far too easy for the well off to fabricate) children attend the actual grade which the state/school district has deemed appropriate for their age range so that young children are in classes with and evaluated against their actual peers.

The rules are bad when they allow (usually wealthy and entitled) parents to enroll their neurotypical child in a class 1-2 years below the grade level the state has designated appropriate for their age so that they can have an unfair academic/athletic /social advantage hence throwing off the classroom dynamic, average performance level and unfairly penalizing all of the children whose parents actually follow the recommended guidelines.

So what are you doing to change the rules at your school if they are sooo bad? Arguing here is pointless. I'm not the fool whining online about a problem I'm not even trying to solve.

I’m not whining or trying to change the flawed system- my kids are doing just fine. I’m just pointing out that no one is buying pp’s claim that sending a 7 year old to kindergarten is objectively/morally neutral or the same as sending a 4 year old turning 5 in September (which is actually the appropriate designated age age) and no one is impressed by their inappropriately aged kindergarten child out performing children 1+ years younger than them.

What does it even mean to “outperform” other Kindergartners? Or to be “impressed” with a Kindergartner? I mean… Seriously? How is that even a thing? LOL. I sent my kids on time, and they developed different “skills” at different rates. Wide range of normal.

[Anonymous]

I have never met a 7yr old kindergartener who should actually be in 1st grade. I have known a few families who chose to repeat or delay kindergarten for a variety of reasons that were not an August/September birthday and in every case it was an excruciating decision that they weighed carefully.

5 years into public school with 2 kids. I have one boy who is young for his grade - he turned 7 just before 2nd grade. I have another boy who will turn 7 in a few weeks, at the beginning of 1st grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, a LOT of people redshirted young kids during Covid and I don’t blame anyone for doing what they thought was best for their kid. Others make their choice for a variety of other reasons.

Current kindergarteners were toddlers during COVID, school COVID closures have nothing to do with those redshirting choices.

That said, it's even odds that he got held back for developmental/behavioral/medical reasons, and not just parent choice. No way to know unless the parents have told you, so seems premature to be angry over it.

Not necessarily, a lot of those toddlers missed out on normal preschool or day care experiences and haven't had the social opportunities that the kids before them had. I'm not mad about it.

That's ridiculous, public schools in the DMV have been back in person for over 2 years, private schools and daycares/preschools for even longer. A 6.5 year old could have had started public pre-K4 at 4.5 and done a year before kindergarten, more if you're talking about private. That's no different than many, many kids that started kindergarten before COVID.

Well I guess you have it all figured out and won't be seeing any redshirted kids. Just offering reasons why, but feel free to reject them and be shocked at the reality.

We're in DC where redshirting is almost non-existent and parents are happy for their two free years of public pre-K. And my kids are past kindergarten at this point. They are the ages where they had to do the critical foundational years virtually, and we'll be seeing the impacts of COVID closures for the rest of their educational careers. PP is absolutely correct that it benefits the individual child and the entire grade cohort to deal with post-COVID issues together. Since COVID, teachers modify classroom expectations and schools throw additional resources at grades that need unique academic and/or socioemotional supports. Unless a family stuck with full COVID isolation for years, their kids are not in a different position than every other kid entering school that year. Maybe it's different in the suburbs, but 4-6 year olds got back to "normal" post-COVID life as soon as the restrictions lifted. Out of current elementary schoolers, it's the 7-10 year olds that missed key emotional development windows and early academics and are still struggling to catch up.

I don't understand your point. People are redshirting their kids. You don't have to agree with, understand, or appreciate the reasons. It's just a fact.

Sure, people make stupid decisions all of the time. Redshirting a child that did 1-2 years of preschool due to COVID is one of those stupid decisions, particularly if it means keeping them from even more age appropriate socialization. But if you say people are still using COVID as their rationale for redshirting kindergarteners, I'll take your word for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thee is a boy in my son's class who should be in first grade. He will be 7 in April. 7 year olds should be in first grade. Ridiculous.

Have some Compassion, he probably has some learning disabilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I only think this should be an option for summer birthdays. There should be a sliding scale where June - August can be held back or sent forward. September should always be held back IMO.

That's just changing the cutoff date, which means parents would start holding back kids even earlier in the year. If the question is whether the standards are too high for a kid just turning 5 in kindergarten, that's a different question. Some kids do great and are more than ready, other kids really struggle and could benefit from less academic kindergarten or another year of preschool. But that's an educational policy question, not a redshirting question.

Standards are rock bottom for Kindergarten.

No I think it should be a sliding scale. I've heard of late fall birthdays (turning 5 in October/November) trying to get into K early so they don't have to pay for another year of PreK. Some kids are ready. I think most boys would do better with another year in Pre-K. Play based is best and then it gets them ready for 13 years of sitting still.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it op. My late-August birthday girl was called a baby and told she belonged in pre-k because she was still 5 in the late spring of her kindergarten year, by the 7 year olds in the class. Blatant red-shirting skews the dynamics.

You sent a 4 year old to kindergarten?

In VA, as long as they are 5 by the end of September, yes you send 4 year olds to Kindergarten.

This is only an issue when parents hold back their kids for ridiculous reasons and then you have that kid next to a 7 year old.

So the rules are good when they allow 4 year olds but not 6 year olds to start? Who makes the rules, not you, correct?

You’re a fool or are being purposely obtuse. The rules are good when they ensure that (absent a legitimately documented intellectual need- which is unfortunately far too easy for the well off to fabricate) children attend the actual grade which the state/school district has deemed appropriate for their age range so that young children are in classes with and evaluated against their actual peers.

The rules are bad when they allow (usually wealthy and entitled) parents to enroll their neurotypical child in a class 1-2 years below the grade level the state has designated appropriate for their age so that they can have an unfair academic/athletic /social advantage hence throwing off the classroom dynamic, average performance level and unfairly penalizing all of the children whose parents actually follow the recommended guidelines.

So what are you doing to change the rules at your school if they are sooo bad? Arguing here is pointless. I'm not the fool whining online about a problem I'm not even trying to solve.

I’m not whining or trying to change the flawed system- my kids are doing just fine. I’m just pointing out that no one is buying pp’s claim that sending a 7 year old to kindergarten is objectively/morally neutral or the same as sending a 4 year old turning 5 in September (which is actually the appropriate designated age age) and no one is impressed by their inappropriately aged kindergarten child out performing children 1+ years younger than them.

What does it even mean to “outperform” other Kindergartners? Or to be “impressed” with a Kindergartner? I mean… Seriously? How is that even a thing? LOL. I sent my kids on time, and they developed different “skills” at different rates. Wide range of normal.

This, and this is part of the issue with redshirting -- parents struggle to accept the there is a wide range of normal and that their kid may be on the later-developing side of that range.

The redshirting debate always feels like a dog chasing its own tail. Parents redshirt because they don't want their kid being the youngest, the smallest, the latest reader, the one having the hardest time following directions. But... someone has to be all those things. It doesn't mean that kid is bad or wrong or outside the realm of normal. There's a bell curve, and someone has to fill out both tail ends. A lot of redshirting occurs because parents want to move their kids from the low end to the high end.

I might understand that sympathetically as a fellow parent, but from a policy perspective, it doesn't make sense. It's like jumping out of line to go to the back. That's fine, but the line will keep moving, What if everyone keeps jumping out and running to the back? At some point we need to move forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I only think this should be an option for summer birthdays. There should be a sliding scale where June - August can be held back or sent forward. September should always be held back IMO.

That's just changing the cutoff date, which means parents would start holding back kids even earlier in the year. If the question is whether the standards are too high for a kid just turning 5 in kindergarten, that's a different question. Some kids do great and are more than ready, other kids really struggle and could benefit from less academic kindergarten or another year of preschool. But that's an educational policy question, not a redshirting question.

Standards are rock bottom for Kindergarten.

No I think it should be a sliding scale. I've heard of late fall birthdays (turning 5 in October/November) trying to get into K early so they don't have to pay for another year of PreK. Some kids are ready. I think most boys would do better with another year in Pre-K. Play based is best and then it gets them ready for 13 years of sitting still.

I agree. There's a theory that boys should start K a year later than girls. Academic standards may be low; though I think that's debatable, at least based on our experiences in K; but a lot of kids (particularly boys) struggle to meet the behavioral standards of a K school day. And doesn't redshirting show that it's sort of a sliding scale already?

[Anonymous]

Increasingly this makes me wish we'd done Montessori with multi-grade classrooms, which I think can help resolve some of these issues. I don't love other aspects of Montessori, but the age groupings I think make more intuitive sense because it really reduces this issue of maturity and behavioral expectations. I also sense the Montessori model is less competition based than traditional education models, which might reduce this intensity parents seem to have regarding getting their kids "ahead" or making sure they aren't "behind." It's probably unproductive to think of school in such a linear way, and it's definitely unhealthy to mentally rank kids in this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thee is a boy in my son's class who should be in first grade. He will be 7 in April. 7 year olds should be in first grade. Ridiculous.

Don’t you have anything else going on in your life?

[Anonymous]

Another day, another "my kid should be protected from the redshirts" thread.

Your kid is going to have to be in a classroom with older kids, younger kids, smarter kids, dumber kids, meaner kids, athletic kids, nerdy kids, disruptive kids, smelly kids, kids whose parents have different rules than you, kids whose parents provide them extra tutoring, and the list goes on. Your kid will be fine. Education is not a zero sum game. The schools aren't going to outlaw this perceived moral outrage because it's not a moral outrage. It is a parent deciding for whatever reason that this was the best choice for their kid. They aren’t making parenting decisions for you and you don’t get to make parenting decisions for them. You can judge that all you want on an anonymous forum but if you try to make your case to the schools, they will nod politely and explain the rules to you, and perhaps write a note in the file so other teachers know what to expect from you. You have no substantive grounds for being appalled by this. Plenty of educators think it is developmentally appropriate in many instances for many different reasons. The K enrollment rules are structured to allow this, and there is no evidence-based reason why this should change.

To sum up: you are ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Increasingly this makes me wish we'd done Montessori with multi-grade classrooms, which I think can help resolve some of these issues. I don't love other aspects of Montessori, but the age groupings I think make more intuitive sense because it really reduces this issue of maturity and behavioral expectations. I also sense the Montessori model is less competition based than traditional education models, which might reduce this intensity parents seem to have regarding getting their kids "ahead" or making sure they aren't "behind." It's probably unproductive to think of school in such a linear way, and it's definitely unhealthy to mentally rank kids in this way.

Honestly, my kids have middle of the year birthdays and this kind of debate never enters my mind. I can see why it would be an issue for parents of kids at the young or old end of the spectrum, but for most kids, there are classmates with birthdays before and after them. And plenty of Montessori families worry about their kids lagging in certain subject areas. You see a lot of middle and late elementary kids switching out of Montessori due to that. I think the best thing you can do, aside from ensuring your already existing kids have the right birthday, is pick a school community with relaxed parents and strong differentiation on both ends of the spectrum.