Anonymous wrote:Public schools aren’t retaining anyone because that costs $$$. I’ve only heard of retention being offered when a kid missed a lot of a grade due to something like a serious medical issue, or at the end of the Covid school years - 2019-20 or 2020-21 - if a kid didn’t progress during the closures. My neighbor had a young for grade 1st grader in 20-21 and FCPS did offer to let her repeat 1st in person.
But let this thread be a heads up to everyone: redshirting is common, perhaps even expected, in private schools, especially for the younger for grade kids. So plan accordingly.
+1, and I would say it’s increasingly common in public school among parents who read the data on developmentally appropriate settings for 4-5. So, assume if you send a four year old they’ll be youngest by a year+, and an early five year old by a year. None of this is secret, or unavailable information to you.
Since most public schools do an age cut off around September 1st, the number of kids attending K at age 4 is very small (and even people who complain about excessive redshirting don't complain about redshirting a kid who would be 4 during the "normal" cut off). In NY (which is the only place with a midyear cut off that results in a lot of 4 year olds being eligible for K) it's common for people to redshirt those kids and no one complains about it.
The only redshirting people complain about is when people start redshirting kids who would be well over 5 when starting K but they hold them back anyway. Yes, in some privates that's common place, but the school generally encourages it and everyone has a chance to do it -- they like having an older class of K students and often they will strongly encourage redshirting summer or late spring birthdays. Some schools even offer a transitional year for young K students before taking the regular K class, so you still wind up with a fairly age-homogenous class.
But in public that's not the case, and when some parents start deciding their April or May birthday kid needs another year, it can leave other parents stuck with the consequences of those actions without warning. No one is going to get mad that a parent redshirted so their kid could start K at 5, but when you see kids starting K at 6 and a half, it becomes an issue.
Please yell at me now and tell me I'm a "crazy anti-redshirter" for agreeing this specific issue is a problem.
As someone with a young for grade kid, I think it is absolutely insane to consider this a problem whatsoever, and really makes you sound like someone who has no experience with any real problems in life.
My kid with an August birthday who I sent on time (she started K at 5 but was among the youngest in her grade) was viciously bullied by a redshirted child in 1st grade. My kid was 6 years old for the entirety of 1st grade. The bullying child turned 8 in September and was signficantly bigger and taller. Redshirting played a major role in the bullying because while this one child was the leader, there were many older kids in the classroom due to redshirting and when the bully would attack/provoke my kid, she'd cry, and then all the older kids would round on her and call her a baby and tease her for being small and young (she is average height for her age).
I had no idea how prevalent redshirting was when I enrolled my kid in K. She was academically and socially ready for a K classroom full of 5 and 6 year old children. In fact she continues to be at the top of her grade academically and she is well liked by teachers for being a good listener who follows directions and is helpful and kind in the classroom (something that apparently the extra years of preschool or staying home did not help instill in these redshirted kids who are merely bigger and older, not more mature).
I absolutely resent that my child's classroom environment has been dominated by older children who I think should have spent their 5/6 year in K learning out to function in elementary school, but instead spent it elsewhere and arrived at elementary school with their own ideas about how school should work. I resent how common bullying and relational aggression are at the school because of these older-but-less-mature kids.
Call me a crazy anti-redshirted if you want. I think redshirting sucks. Kids should start school at the same age so that they learn the same skills and are generally at the same developmental level. Kids with developmental delays can/should be held back to accommodate their delays, but it shouldn't be at the parents' discretion.
We will be moving school districts before these older kids hit puberty in 3rd grade and we have to deal with that.
As a parent who doesn't care about redshirting one way or another (and has both middle-of-age-for grade and young-for-grade kids, none old-for-grade): the bullying isn't because your kid is small. Bullies will find literally anything to gang up on kids about. One of my kids was bulled for not watching Spongebob Squarepants in a late elementary grade. Does that make sense as a thing to mock a kid over? No. But my kid was a prickly and kind of hard-to-get-to-know kid, so of course they were a target. The actual thing to make fun of was incidental to the act of piling on.
And it's possible (probable?) this older kid is lashing out because:
- they do have delays and you have no idea and the delays are social
- they feel embarassed about your kid doing as well when they are so much older.
PP here. Of course bullying can happen for a whole variety of reasons.
But at my kid's specific school, in specific classrooms where there are a large percent of redshirted kids including one that was significantly older, the bullying was closely related to having a cohort of older, bigger, unsocialized kids. My DD was not the only child targeted, but all the children who were bullied were "on time" kids who were on the younger end of normal for the grade. All the bullies were the oldest kids in class.
Also, it's not just about the age difference. It's also that these redshirted kids were not socialized into elementary school when they were young enough for it help. They arrived at K too old and less malleable. In my child's 1st grade class, those older kids RAN the classroom. This year my kid is in 2nd and due to the bullying issues last year, my kid and others who were targeted are in a classroom without any of the much older kids. The classroom is significantly better, with less conflict and fewer behavioral issues.
I don't have any issue with moderate redshirting for kids with summer birthdays. I don't think you should be allowed to redshirt a kid with a birthday during the school year unless there is a clear reason why delaying kindergarten will help. And I actually think a lot of developmental delays might be made worse by redshirting unless you can show the kids are going to get services to improve the situation. Perhaps some of these delays would be best addressed by having the kid in a classroom with other kids and receiving services through the school.
I honestly do not understand why you continue to keep your child in a school where your DC experiences significant bullying and you believe the classroom activities and level are so wildly inappropriate. It seems weird to me.
You seem very ignorant of the reality that most parents experience. Most parents can’t just switch schools out of the blue.
Right. Which leads parents to make careful decisions about when their kids start school. For example— not sending a kid who may struggle to kindergarten too early.
Unless they don’t know about how prevalent it is because the schools don’t say anything and the other moms apparently don’t volunteer the info. Nice.
What information do you feel is lacking? If you ask your local elementary school they will likely tell you the average kindergarten age. You presumably know your child’s age. Do some research into peer reviewed studies about optimal environments for the child’s age you have and see whether your local or chosen kindergarten matches with that. I’m truly confused what you think someone needs to tell you to make this choice?
We arrived back in the US after mostly raising kids on military bases abroad and we arrived in August. Honestly I didn’t even know red shirting was a thing until I saw some really big kindergarten kids on my son’s first day of school. So no I did t put my five year old on a waitlist for preschool, had never heard of “junior kindergarten” at preschool, etc.
That’s really not an excuse for not researching, talking to others, asking around.
Sweetheart, those are all excuses for "I want my child to have an advantage over yours" and we all know it.
I’m a DP, and leaving aside your tone, it’s not an advantage over your student. Your student has exactly the same right to delay a year as anyone else. Nothing is being taken away from you or your child you just made a different choice. Lose your victim mentality around this.
That PP is just mad they didn't know what they were doing.
I really hate the "savvy parents know to redshirt, it's your fault if you don't" argument, because we're talking about kids.
Of course there are going to be parents who, fir whatever reason, don't know the *unspoken* customs if redshirting in a district, and their kid will wind up at a disadvantage. You can criticize the parents for this but it's the kid who suffers.
Which is why there should be NO UNSPOKEN REDSHIRTING CUSTOMS. This should not be gameable. And relishing the idea that some kids struggle in school because their parents naively thought the published age cutoffs were when you are actually supposed to send your kids, and not just a vague suggestion and all the "smart" parents postpone K a year, is a weird flex.
Have a cut off. Enforce a cut off. Make sure the school work makes sense for kids who meet the cut off. This isn't hard. These are kids. We should all want them ALL to succeed.
Sir. OP has her child in a private school. Do you understand even the tiniest facts about private school admissions?
Number one rule: Private schools admit who they want, when they want. That is literally how it works.
Honestly, you people are just ridiculous.
Ma'am. I wasn't talking about OP or private schools, I was specifically addressing the argument made several times on this thread about public schools that parents should figure out how prevalent redshirting is before enrolling their kid and if they don't then it's all their fault if their kid winds up in a classroom with kids 18 months older. I think this is a ridiculous expectation because many parents are simply not in a position to do that -- they just moved to the district, or this is their first child and they don't know anyone with kids in the schools, or English isn't their first language, or they have other issues that prevent them from being more savvy about school enrollment.
Private schools can do what they want. My argument is that public schools should create clear cut offs and enforce them and there shouldn't be this unofficial system that the most in-the-know parents can game to the benefit of their children, because at the end of the day it's the kids who live with these choices. No child should be punished for having a parent who naively thought that since kindergarten is traditionally for 5 year olds turning 6, and since the district's published guidance indicates it's for 5 year old's turning 6, that kindergarten is for 5 year olds turning 6. That kid shouldn't have to navigate a classroom full of 7 year olds just because his parents are friends with the "right" people who would have warned them.
But do tell me that *I* am ridiculous, since after all without your ad hominem attacks, you'd have to rely on logic and actual argument, areas in which you are lacking.
These are already in place. Someone already posted MCPS, FCPS is on the website that you have the option to delay enrollment for a year, how much more clear do you want them to be?
A grace period of a year is too long. That's not a cut off at all. And it's not clear because a parent who wants their kid to be generally in the same age cohort of most kids in their class literally has to do reconnaissance to figure out what other parents are going to do. Parents don't want their kids to be outliers age-wise. That's normal and should be accommodated.
I would advocate for either a firm cut off, no exceptions unless indicated by a medically documented delay or special need OR a September cut off with a grace period for kids with summer birthdays.
I do not think allowing parents to redshirt children with fall/winter/spring birthdays makes sense and have seen the negative impacts of this policy in the classroom.
So then go to your school board and see how far you get, and stop whining on DCUM.
Also, I simply don’t believe you about the negative impacts. Or maybe I could say the opposite, at the school board meeting: I’ve seen the negative impacts when kids who should have been redshirted are put in classrooms, and think a rigid deadline does a disservice to all children and to the educational environment as a whole. I prefer classrooms where kids whose parents think they needed more time get that time.
See, we can both come up with our anecdotes.
They need to bring back special ed classrooms and put these held back kids in them so they can catch up. No kids should be held back. Let’s call it what it is. Redshirting isn’t about social or academics it’s about sports.
A child with ADHD for example may have a developmental delay but absolutely does not need to be placed in a special ed classroom. Being held back a year absolutely helps because the executive functioning is more on par with the younger peers. And newsflash, it’s not uncommon for a child with adhd to be diagnosed closer to middle school even if the symptoms are visible to prek teachers and parents earlier, and even if he has tested negative in younger years, because of coping mechanisms and masking. Putting a hyperactive and inattentive child in a year later benefits not only that child but the classmates who would have been exposed to disruptive behaviors.
Yes, ADHD needs structural supports and iep assists and sometimes medication. But time absolutely helps as well.
Anonymous wrote:Babes, redshirting is viewed by many to be a problem and having a broader range of ages in school is considered a negative by many, including educational experts. Some of you need to step outside your bubble.
Our school district (not in the DC area) adopted a policy in 2011 specifically to address the rampant redshirting that was happening. A lot of it was for athletic reasons -- zealous parents redshirting kids, especially boys, to improve their odds of making high school varsity teams and to give them school cohorts where they would be the oldest/biggest/most developed. But it spread to other people who just started viewing redshirting as a way to give your kid an edge -- academically, socially, you name it. People just wanted their kids to be the oldest. And the thing about redshirting is that when it takes hold among a small group of parents, it spreads. That's why you now see people redshirting May, April, March birthdays. And the occasional winter birthday as well. Parents discover their May birthday is the youngest kid in the grade because all the summer birthdays redshirted, freak out, and then say "oh I should have redshirted Timmy. But you can see how this is just a dog chasing its own tail.
Anyway, our school district's enrollment policy explicitly says, "[we have] determined that an entrance age policy is warranted due to the educational benefits that result from narrowing the range of ages of students in the early grades." The policy makes no allowance for red shirting and says that children become eligible for kindergarten in the year in which they will be 5 by the first day of school. This ensures that the cut off never accidentally makes a 4 year old eligible for K. And the policy further says that your child becomes eligible for 1st grade the year that they turn 6 before the 1st day of school. So if a parent redshirts for K, they are SOL because their kid will be enrolled in 1st the next year if they are 6 on the first day of school.
Also our district has half-day K and the program is genuinely intended to be a nurturing transition year to introduce kids to elementary school, provide some academics but not focus on it, build independence and socio-emotional skills, and bridge the gap between preschool/daycare/home care and elementary. It's age appropriate for 5 year olds. 1st grade is more focused and academic but kids are ready for it.
Some people were bothered by the policy when it happened but I think ultimately it was a source of relief. Because once parents could no longer game the system, there was no longer pressure to game the system. Instead of fighting with each other over whose kids "had" to be youngest in the grade, people just accept that this is the policy and work with schools to ensure that the needs of younger students are met. I think the policy also allows kids to be young and to mature at their own rate instead of feeling pressure to mature because they are in classrooms with significantly older kids. It preserves childhood.
Anyway, please continue with your nasty, petty bickering. It's not productive but it is entertaining. So glad I live where I live and people are sane.
What do you mean “accidentally”?
FCPS starts school in mid August. Their cutoff is Sept 30. August is the highest birth rate month in the calendar. Half of August birthdays and all of September birthdays are four when they start kindergarten if they go “on time”.
Why do you think this is an accident?
In our district, it was determined that it is better for kids to start K at 5 instead of at 4. Making the cut off date "the first day of school" ensures that a 4 year old is never eligible for K, which is counter to the intent of the policy. I use the word "accident" because no one actually thought 4 year olds in K was a great idea, it's just that when cut offs don't match start dates, kids born in the gap get included with the cohort even though they are a younger age than the "typical" kid.
The situation in your district doesn't make sense to me. Why would you choose September 30th as a cut off date when school generally starts in August? It's almost like they want to induce demand for redshirting. I don't get why you would do this. It genuinely does feel like a policy accident because I can't think of a good reason to do this on purpose. If there's one thing the literature is clear on, it's that kids who start K at 5 instead of 4 tend to do better academically and are less likely to be held back later. So why create a situation that would lead to a bunch of 4 year olds in K unless the goal is to encourage their parents to redshirt them? And if the goal is redshirting, why not just move the cut off date. It's all nonsensical.
I have no idea why they did this, but they have. And I agree with you four year olds do not belong in kindergarten. But the fact that “on time” in one of the countries largest school districts is four years old for August and September birthdays is one of the reasons that parents need to do their research, and make good choices for their kids about when to start them, because obviously the school district is not making these decisions based on age-appropriateness.
Anonymous wrote:Babes, redshirting is viewed by many to be a problem and having a broader range of ages in school is considered a negative by many, including educational experts. Some of you need to step outside your bubble.
Our school district (not in the DC area) adopted a policy in 2011 specifically to address the rampant redshirting that was happening. A lot of it was for athletic reasons -- zealous parents redshirting kids, especially boys, to improve their odds of making high school varsity teams and to give them school cohorts where they would be the oldest/biggest/most developed. But it spread to other people who just started viewing redshirting as a way to give your kid an edge -- academically, socially, you name it. People just wanted their kids to be the oldest. And the thing about redshirting is that when it takes hold among a small group of parents, it spreads. That's why you now see people redshirting May, April, March birthdays. And the occasional winter birthday as well. Parents discover their May birthday is the youngest kid in the grade because all the summer birthdays redshirted, freak out, and then say "oh I should have redshirted Timmy. But you can see how this is just a dog chasing its own tail.
Anyway, our school district's enrollment policy explicitly says, "[we have] determined that an entrance age policy is warranted due to the educational benefits that result from narrowing the range of ages of students in the early grades." The policy makes no allowance for red shirting and says that children become eligible for kindergarten in the year in which they will be 5 by the first day of school. This ensures that the cut off never accidentally makes a 4 year old eligible for K. And the policy further says that your child becomes eligible for 1st grade the year that they turn 6 before the 1st day of school. So if a parent redshirts for K, they are SOL because their kid will be enrolled in 1st the next year if they are 6 on the first day of school.
Also our district has half-day K and the program is genuinely intended to be a nurturing transition year to introduce kids to elementary school, provide some academics but not focus on it, build independence and socio-emotional skills, and bridge the gap between preschool/daycare/home care and elementary. It's age appropriate for 5 year olds. 1st grade is more focused and academic but kids are ready for it.
Some people were bothered by the policy when it happened but I think ultimately it was a source of relief. Because once parents could no longer game the system, there was no longer pressure to game the system. Instead of fighting with each other over whose kids "had" to be youngest in the grade, people just accept that this is the policy and work with schools to ensure that the needs of younger students are met. I think the policy also allows kids to be young and to mature at their own rate instead of feeling pressure to mature because they are in classrooms with significantly older kids. It preserves childhood.
Anyway, please continue with your nasty, petty bickering. It's not productive but it is entertaining. So glad I live where I live and people are sane.
More evidence that you can’t actually read. Maybe start with district websites before trying something above your comprehension level.
What exactly is the thing you are taking issue with? You asked for evidence that there are many people out there (and not just a handful of "crazy anti-redshirters" on DCUM) who think narrowing the range of ages in early grades is a good idea. There are a couple links to animated discussions in which people advocate for narrowing the range. Including citations to studies.
But I see you just want to sit back and criticize without proffering arguments because if you actually asserted an argument, it would get ripped apart. Neat trick, kind of like starting your kid in K at 6.5 and then crowing about how advanced he is for the next 12 years.
If older kids do much better academically, that's an argument for increasing the kindergarten age, not artificially lowering it and setting kids up for failure in the name of equity.
Is it really surprising that 10 yos are scoring better on 3rd grade assessments than 8 yos? That isn't an argument to start kids later, but to age norm all assessments (e.g., MAP and DIEBELS) so kids are being compared to their actual peers. My guess is that a 10 yo in 3rd grade is pretty far behind their peers.
Anonymous wrote:Babes, redshirting is viewed by many to be a problem and having a broader range of ages in school is considered a negative by many, including educational experts. Some of you need to step outside your bubble.
Our school district (not in the DC area) adopted a policy in 2011 specifically to address the rampant redshirting that was happening. A lot of it was for athletic reasons -- zealous parents redshirting kids, especially boys, to improve their odds of making high school varsity teams and to give them school cohorts where they would be the oldest/biggest/most developed. But it spread to other people who just started viewing redshirting as a way to give your kid an edge -- academically, socially, you name it. People just wanted their kids to be the oldest. And the thing about redshirting is that when it takes hold among a small group of parents, it spreads. That's why you now see people redshirting May, April, March birthdays. And the occasional winter birthday as well. Parents discover their May birthday is the youngest kid in the grade because all the summer birthdays redshirted, freak out, and then say "oh I should have redshirted Timmy. But you can see how this is just a dog chasing its own tail.
Anyway, our school district's enrollment policy explicitly says, "[we have] determined that an entrance age policy is warranted due to the educational benefits that result from narrowing the range of ages of students in the early grades." The policy makes no allowance for red shirting and says that children become eligible for kindergarten in the year in which they will be 5 by the first day of school. This ensures that the cut off never accidentally makes a 4 year old eligible for K. And the policy further says that your child becomes eligible for 1st grade the year that they turn 6 before the 1st day of school. So if a parent redshirts for K, they are SOL because their kid will be enrolled in 1st the next year if they are 6 on the first day of school.
Also our district has half-day K and the program is genuinely intended to be a nurturing transition year to introduce kids to elementary school, provide some academics but not focus on it, build independence and socio-emotional skills, and bridge the gap between preschool/daycare/home care and elementary. It's age appropriate for 5 year olds. 1st grade is more focused and academic but kids are ready for it.
Some people were bothered by the policy when it happened but I think ultimately it was a source of relief. Because once parents could no longer game the system, there was no longer pressure to game the system. Instead of fighting with each other over whose kids "had" to be youngest in the grade, people just accept that this is the policy and work with schools to ensure that the needs of younger students are met. I think the policy also allows kids to be young and to mature at their own rate instead of feeling pressure to mature because they are in classrooms with significantly older kids. It preserves childhood.
Anyway, please continue with your nasty, petty bickering. It's not productive but it is entertaining. So glad I live where I live and people are sane.
What do you mean “accidentally”?
FCPS starts school in mid August. Their cutoff is Sept 30. August is the highest birth rate month in the calendar. Half of August birthdays and all of September birthdays are four when they start kindergarten if they go “on time”.
Why do you think this is an accident?
In our district, it was determined that it is better for kids to start K at 5 instead of at 4. Making the cut off date "the first day of school" ensures that a 4 year old is never eligible for K, which is counter to the intent of the policy. I use the word "accident" because no one actually thought 4 year olds in K was a great idea, it's just that when cut offs don't match start dates, kids born in the gap get included with the cohort even though they are a younger age than the "typical" kid.
The situation in your district doesn't make sense to me. Why would you choose September 30th as a cut off date when school generally starts in August? It's almost like they want to induce demand for redshirting. I don't get why you would do this. It genuinely does feel like a policy accident because I can't think of a good reason to do this on purpose. If there's one thing the literature is clear on, it's that kids who start K at 5 instead of 4 tend to do better academically and are less likely to be held back later. So why create a situation that would lead to a bunch of 4 year olds in K unless the goal is to encourage their parents to redshirt them? And if the goal is redshirting, why not just move the cut off date. It's all nonsensical.
I have no idea why they did this, but they have. And I agree with you four year olds do not belong in kindergarten. But the fact that “on time” in one of the countries largest school districts is four years old for August and September birthdays is one of the reasons that parents need to do their research, and make good choices for their kids about when to start them, because obviously the school district is not making these decisions based on age-appropriateness.
Yes, in many areas of the country, the school cut off is 9/30 which means that very newly 5 year olds and 4 turning 5 year olds are starting K. This goes back many, many years to when K was half day, if it was even offered at all. Then K and early elementary was still academic, but there were basically no screens apart from maybe film strips, and no standardized tests. So all grades of ES were probably more age appropriate for all elementary schoolers. I doubt anyone looked into whether the young for grade kids suffered socially, in terms of behavior, academically or any other way, but with comparatively few kids going to college or even, in some cases, graduating from high school, that was probably not on anyone’s radar at the time.
There are some districts, especially those that now start in early to mid August and are out on or before Memorial Day, that have moved their school cutoffs to 7/31. So no one is still 4 on the first day of K. You’d have to find one of these districts and ask around on, like, a FB moms group or Nextdoor to see what people did with their June and July kids in terms of starting K. I’d suspect you’d see some redshirting, but not nearly as much as everyone would already be 5 on the first day of K.
Anonymous wrote:Babes, redshirting is viewed by many to be a problem and having a broader range of ages in school is considered a negative by many, including educational experts. Some of you need to step outside your bubble.
Our school district (not in the DC area) adopted a policy in 2011 specifically to address the rampant redshirting that was happening. A lot of it was for athletic reasons -- zealous parents redshirting kids, especially boys, to improve their odds of making high school varsity teams and to give them school cohorts where they would be the oldest/biggest/most developed. But it spread to other people who just started viewing redshirting as a way to give your kid an edge -- academically, socially, you name it. People just wanted their kids to be the oldest. And the thing about redshirting is that when it takes hold among a small group of parents, it spreads. That's why you now see people redshirting May, April, March birthdays. And the occasional winter birthday as well. Parents discover their May birthday is the youngest kid in the grade because all the summer birthdays redshirted, freak out, and then say "oh I should have redshirted Timmy. But you can see how this is just a dog chasing its own tail.
Anyway, our school district's enrollment policy explicitly says, "[we have] determined that an entrance age policy is warranted due to the educational benefits that result from narrowing the range of ages of students in the early grades." The policy makes no allowance for red shirting and says that children become eligible for kindergarten in the year in which they will be 5 by the first day of school. This ensures that the cut off never accidentally makes a 4 year old eligible for K. And the policy further says that your child becomes eligible for 1st grade the year that they turn 6 before the 1st day of school. So if a parent redshirts for K, they are SOL because their kid will be enrolled in 1st the next year if they are 6 on the first day of school.
Also our district has half-day K and the program is genuinely intended to be a nurturing transition year to introduce kids to elementary school, provide some academics but not focus on it, build independence and socio-emotional skills, and bridge the gap between preschool/daycare/home care and elementary. It's age appropriate for 5 year olds. 1st grade is more focused and academic but kids are ready for it.
Some people were bothered by the policy when it happened but I think ultimately it was a source of relief. Because once parents could no longer game the system, there was no longer pressure to game the system. Instead of fighting with each other over whose kids "had" to be youngest in the grade, people just accept that this is the policy and work with schools to ensure that the needs of younger students are met. I think the policy also allows kids to be young and to mature at their own rate instead of feeling pressure to mature because they are in classrooms with significantly older kids. It preserves childhood.
Anyway, please continue with your nasty, petty bickering. It's not productive but it is entertaining. So glad I live where I live and people are sane.
More evidence that you can’t actually read. Maybe start with district websites before trying something above your comprehension level.
What exactly is the thing you are taking issue with? You asked for evidence that there are many people out there (and not just a handful of "crazy anti-redshirters" on DCUM) who think narrowing the range of ages in early grades is a good idea. There are a couple links to animated discussions in which people advocate for narrowing the range. Including citations to studies.
But I see you just want to sit back and criticize without proffering arguments because if you actually asserted an argument, it would get ripped apart. Neat trick, kind of like starting your kid in K at 6.5 and then crowing about how advanced he is for the next 12 years.
If older kids do much better academically, that's an argument for increasing the kindergarten age, not artificially lowering it and setting kids up for failure in the name of equity.
Older kids don't do better. Smart kid do better and kids with involved parents who get the supports they need. K has always started at 5.
Anonymous wrote:Babes, redshirting is viewed by many to be a problem and having a broader range of ages in school is considered a negative by many, including educational experts. Some of you need to step outside your bubble.
Our school district (not in the DC area) adopted a policy in 2011 specifically to address the rampant redshirting that was happening. A lot of it was for athletic reasons -- zealous parents redshirting kids, especially boys, to improve their odds of making high school varsity teams and to give them school cohorts where they would be the oldest/biggest/most developed. But it spread to other people who just started viewing redshirting as a way to give your kid an edge -- academically, socially, you name it. People just wanted their kids to be the oldest. And the thing about redshirting is that when it takes hold among a small group of parents, it spreads. That's why you now see people redshirting May, April, March birthdays. And the occasional winter birthday as well. Parents discover their May birthday is the youngest kid in the grade because all the summer birthdays redshirted, freak out, and then say "oh I should have redshirted Timmy. But you can see how this is just a dog chasing its own tail.
Anyway, our school district's enrollment policy explicitly says, "[we have] determined that an entrance age policy is warranted due to the educational benefits that result from narrowing the range of ages of students in the early grades." The policy makes no allowance for red shirting and says that children become eligible for kindergarten in the year in which they will be 5 by the first day of school. This ensures that the cut off never accidentally makes a 4 year old eligible for K. And the policy further says that your child becomes eligible for 1st grade the year that they turn 6 before the 1st day of school. So if a parent redshirts for K, they are SOL because their kid will be enrolled in 1st the next year if they are 6 on the first day of school.
Also our district has half-day K and the program is genuinely intended to be a nurturing transition year to introduce kids to elementary school, provide some academics but not focus on it, build independence and socio-emotional skills, and bridge the gap between preschool/daycare/home care and elementary. It's age appropriate for 5 year olds. 1st grade is more focused and academic but kids are ready for it.
Some people were bothered by the policy when it happened but I think ultimately it was a source of relief. Because once parents could no longer game the system, there was no longer pressure to game the system. Instead of fighting with each other over whose kids "had" to be youngest in the grade, people just accept that this is the policy and work with schools to ensure that the needs of younger students are met. I think the policy also allows kids to be young and to mature at their own rate instead of feeling pressure to mature because they are in classrooms with significantly older kids. It preserves childhood.
Anyway, please continue with your nasty, petty bickering. It's not productive but it is entertaining. So glad I live where I live and people are sane.
What do you mean “accidentally”?
FCPS starts school in mid August. Their cutoff is Sept 30. August is the highest birth rate month in the calendar. Half of August birthdays and all of September birthdays are four when they start kindergarten if they go “on time”.
Why do you think this is an accident?
In our district, it was determined that it is better for kids to start K at 5 instead of at 4. Making the cut off date "the first day of school" ensures that a 4 year old is never eligible for K, which is counter to the intent of the policy. I use the word "accident" because no one actually thought 4 year olds in K was a great idea, it's just that when cut offs don't match start dates, kids born in the gap get included with the cohort even though they are a younger age than the "typical" kid.
The situation in your district doesn't make sense to me. Why would you choose September 30th as a cut off date when school generally starts in August? It's almost like they want to induce demand for redshirting. I don't get why you would do this. It genuinely does feel like a policy accident because I can't think of a good reason to do this on purpose. If there's one thing the literature is clear on, it's that kids who start K at 5 instead of 4 tend to do better academically and are less likely to be held back later. So why create a situation that would lead to a bunch of 4 year olds in K unless the goal is to encourage their parents to redshirt them? And if the goal is redshirting, why not just move the cut off date. It's all nonsensical.
I have no idea why they did this, but they have. And I agree with you four year olds do not belong in kindergarten. But the fact that “on time” in one of the countries largest school districts is four years old for August and September birthdays is one of the reasons that parents need to do their research, and make good choices for their kids about when to start them, because obviously the school district is not making these decisions based on age-appropriateness.
Yes, in many areas of the country, the school cut off is 9/30 which means that very newly 5 year olds and 4 turning 5 year olds are starting K. This goes back many, many years to when K was half day, if it was even offered at all. Then K and early elementary was still academic, but there were basically no screens apart from maybe film strips, and no standardized tests. So all grades of ES were probably more age appropriate for all elementary schoolers. I doubt anyone looked into whether the young for grade kids suffered socially, in terms of behavior, academically or any other way, but with comparatively few kids going to college or even, in some cases, graduating from high school, that was probably not on anyone’s radar at the time.
There are some districts, especially those that now start in early to mid August and are out on or before Memorial Day, that have moved their school cutoffs to 7/31. So no one is still 4 on the first day of K. You’d have to find one of these districts and ask around on, like, a FB moms group or Nextdoor to see what people did with their June and July kids in terms of starting K. I’d suspect you’d see some redshirting, but not nearly as much as everyone would already be 5 on the first day of K.
If anything the schools have dumbed down the curriculum due to complaining parents. 5 is normal to start. My kid was 4 the start of K.
Anonymous wrote:Babes, redshirting is viewed by many to be a problem and having a broader range of ages in school is considered a negative by many, including educational experts. Some of you need to step outside your bubble.
Our school district (not in the DC area) adopted a policy in 2011 specifically to address the rampant redshirting that was happening. A lot of it was for athletic reasons -- zealous parents redshirting kids, especially boys, to improve their odds of making high school varsity teams and to give them school cohorts where they would be the oldest/biggest/most developed. But it spread to other people who just started viewing redshirting as a way to give your kid an edge -- academically, socially, you name it. People just wanted their kids to be the oldest. And the thing about redshirting is that when it takes hold among a small group of parents, it spreads. That's why you now see people redshirting May, April, March birthdays. And the occasional winter birthday as well. Parents discover their May birthday is the youngest kid in the grade because all the summer birthdays redshirted, freak out, and then say "oh I should have redshirted Timmy. But you can see how this is just a dog chasing its own tail.
Anyway, our school district's enrollment policy explicitly says, "[we have] determined that an entrance age policy is warranted due to the educational benefits that result from narrowing the range of ages of students in the early grades." The policy makes no allowance for red shirting and says that children become eligible for kindergarten in the year in which they will be 5 by the first day of school. This ensures that the cut off never accidentally makes a 4 year old eligible for K. And the policy further says that your child becomes eligible for 1st grade the year that they turn 6 before the 1st day of school. So if a parent redshirts for K, they are SOL because their kid will be enrolled in 1st the next year if they are 6 on the first day of school.
Also our district has half-day K and the program is genuinely intended to be a nurturing transition year to introduce kids to elementary school, provide some academics but not focus on it, build independence and socio-emotional skills, and bridge the gap between preschool/daycare/home care and elementary. It's age appropriate for 5 year olds. 1st grade is more focused and academic but kids are ready for it.
Some people were bothered by the policy when it happened but I think ultimately it was a source of relief. Because once parents could no longer game the system, there was no longer pressure to game the system. Instead of fighting with each other over whose kids "had" to be youngest in the grade, people just accept that this is the policy and work with schools to ensure that the needs of younger students are met. I think the policy also allows kids to be young and to mature at their own rate instead of feeling pressure to mature because they are in classrooms with significantly older kids. It preserves childhood.
Anyway, please continue with your nasty, petty bickering. It's not productive but it is entertaining. So glad I live where I live and people are sane.
What do you mean “accidentally”?
FCPS starts school in mid August. Their cutoff is Sept 30. August is the highest birth rate month in the calendar. Half of August birthdays and all of September birthdays are four when they start kindergarten if they go “on time”.
Why do you think this is an accident?
In our district, it was determined that it is better for kids to start K at 5 instead of at 4. Making the cut off date "the first day of school" ensures that a 4 year old is never eligible for K, which is counter to the intent of the policy. I use the word "accident" because no one actually thought 4 year olds in K was a great idea, it's just that when cut offs don't match start dates, kids born in the gap get included with the cohort even though they are a younger age than the "typical" kid.
The situation in your district doesn't make sense to me. Why would you choose September 30th as a cut off date when school generally starts in August? It's almost like they want to induce demand for redshirting. I don't get why you would do this. It genuinely does feel like a policy accident because I can't think of a good reason to do this on purpose. If there's one thing the literature is clear on, it's that kids who start K at 5 instead of 4 tend to do better academically and are less likely to be held back later. So why create a situation that would lead to a bunch of 4 year olds in K unless the goal is to encourage their parents to redshirt them? And if the goal is redshirting, why not just move the cut off date. It's all nonsensical.
I have no idea why they did this, but they have. And I agree with you four year olds do not belong in kindergarten. But the fact that “on time” in one of the countries largest school districts is four years old for August and September birthdays is one of the reasons that parents need to do their research, and make good choices for their kids about when to start them, because obviously the school district is not making these decisions based on age-appropriateness.
Yes, in many areas of the country, the school cut off is 9/30 which means that very newly 5 year olds and 4 turning 5 year olds are starting K. This goes back many, many years to when K was half day, if it was even offered at all. Then K and early elementary was still academic, but there were basically no screens apart from maybe film strips, and no standardized tests. So all grades of ES were probably more age appropriate for all elementary schoolers. I doubt anyone looked into whether the young for grade kids suffered socially, in terms of behavior, academically or any other way, but with comparatively few kids going to college or even, in some cases, graduating from high school, that was probably not on anyone’s radar at the time.
There are some districts, especially those that now start in early to mid August and are out on or before Memorial Day, that have moved their school cutoffs to 7/31. So no one is still 4 on the first day of K. You’d have to find one of these districts and ask around on, like, a FB moms group or Nextdoor to see what people did with their June and July kids in terms of starting K. I’d suspect you’d see some redshirting, but not nearly as much as everyone would already be 5 on the first day of K.
If anything the schools have dumbed down the curriculum due to complaining parents. 5 is normal to start. My kid was 4 the start of K.
Nobody has “dumbed down the curriculum due to complaining parents.” The expectations are higher than ever. In places where a more remedial curriculum is needed, it’s because you have a whole grade of kids in poverty and/or limited English ability. Not because anyone “complained.”
Anonymous wrote:Babes, redshirting is viewed by many to be a problem and having a broader range of ages in school is considered a negative by many, including educational experts. Some of you need to step outside your bubble.
Our school district (not in the DC area) adopted a policy in 2011 specifically to address the rampant redshirting that was happening. A lot of it was for athletic reasons -- zealous parents redshirting kids, especially boys, to improve their odds of making high school varsity teams and to give them school cohorts where they would be the oldest/biggest/most developed. But it spread to other people who just started viewing redshirting as a way to give your kid an edge -- academically, socially, you name it. People just wanted their kids to be the oldest. And the thing about redshirting is that when it takes hold among a small group of parents, it spreads. That's why you now see people redshirting May, April, March birthdays. And the occasional winter birthday as well. Parents discover their May birthday is the youngest kid in the grade because all the summer birthdays redshirted, freak out, and then say "oh I should have redshirted Timmy. But you can see how this is just a dog chasing its own tail.
Anyway, our school district's enrollment policy explicitly says, "[we have] determined that an entrance age policy is warranted due to the educational benefits that result from narrowing the range of ages of students in the early grades." The policy makes no allowance for red shirting and says that children become eligible for kindergarten in the year in which they will be 5 by the first day of school. This ensures that the cut off never accidentally makes a 4 year old eligible for K. And the policy further says that your child becomes eligible for 1st grade the year that they turn 6 before the 1st day of school. So if a parent redshirts for K, they are SOL because their kid will be enrolled in 1st the next year if they are 6 on the first day of school.
Also our district has half-day K and the program is genuinely intended to be a nurturing transition year to introduce kids to elementary school, provide some academics but not focus on it, build independence and socio-emotional skills, and bridge the gap between preschool/daycare/home care and elementary. It's age appropriate for 5 year olds. 1st grade is more focused and academic but kids are ready for it.
Some people were bothered by the policy when it happened but I think ultimately it was a source of relief. Because once parents could no longer game the system, there was no longer pressure to game the system. Instead of fighting with each other over whose kids "had" to be youngest in the grade, people just accept that this is the policy and work with schools to ensure that the needs of younger students are met. I think the policy also allows kids to be young and to mature at their own rate instead of feeling pressure to mature because they are in classrooms with significantly older kids. It preserves childhood.
Anyway, please continue with your nasty, petty bickering. It's not productive but it is entertaining. So glad I live where I live and people are sane.
More evidence that you can’t actually read. Maybe start with district websites before trying something above your comprehension level.
What exactly is the thing you are taking issue with? You asked for evidence that there are many people out there (and not just a handful of "crazy anti-redshirters" on DCUM) who think narrowing the range of ages in early grades is a good idea. There are a couple links to animated discussions in which people advocate for narrowing the range. Including citations to studies.
But I see you just want to sit back and criticize without proffering arguments because if you actually asserted an argument, it would get ripped apart. Neat trick, kind of like starting your kid in K at 6.5 and then crowing about how advanced he is for the next 12 years.
If older kids do much better academically, that's an argument for increasing the kindergarten age, not artificially lowering it and setting kids up for failure in the name of equity.
Is it really surprising that 10 yos are scoring better on 3rd grade assessments than 8 yos? That isn't an argument to start kids later, but to age norm all assessments (e.g., MAP and DIEBELS) so kids are being compared to their actual peers. My guess is that a 10 yo in 3rd grade is pretty far behind their peers.
Why? They have been exposed to the same curriculum? Again, if younger kids have a harder time grasping it, it may be inappropriate.
Anonymous wrote:Babes, redshirting is viewed by many to be a problem and having a broader range of ages in school is considered a negative by many, including educational experts. Some of you need to step outside your bubble.
Our school district (not in the DC area) adopted a policy in 2011 specifically to address the rampant redshirting that was happening. A lot of it was for athletic reasons -- zealous parents redshirting kids, especially boys, to improve their odds of making high school varsity teams and to give them school cohorts where they would be the oldest/biggest/most developed. But it spread to other people who just started viewing redshirting as a way to give your kid an edge -- academically, socially, you name it. People just wanted their kids to be the oldest. And the thing about redshirting is that when it takes hold among a small group of parents, it spreads. That's why you now see people redshirting May, April, March birthdays. And the occasional winter birthday as well. Parents discover their May birthday is the youngest kid in the grade because all the summer birthdays redshirted, freak out, and then say "oh I should have redshirted Timmy. But you can see how this is just a dog chasing its own tail.
Anyway, our school district's enrollment policy explicitly says, "[we have] determined that an entrance age policy is warranted due to the educational benefits that result from narrowing the range of ages of students in the early grades." The policy makes no allowance for red shirting and says that children become eligible for kindergarten in the year in which they will be 5 by the first day of school. This ensures that the cut off never accidentally makes a 4 year old eligible for K. And the policy further says that your child becomes eligible for 1st grade the year that they turn 6 before the 1st day of school. So if a parent redshirts for K, they are SOL because their kid will be enrolled in 1st the next year if they are 6 on the first day of school.
Also our district has half-day K and the program is genuinely intended to be a nurturing transition year to introduce kids to elementary school, provide some academics but not focus on it, build independence and socio-emotional skills, and bridge the gap between preschool/daycare/home care and elementary. It's age appropriate for 5 year olds. 1st grade is more focused and academic but kids are ready for it.
Some people were bothered by the policy when it happened but I think ultimately it was a source of relief. Because once parents could no longer game the system, there was no longer pressure to game the system. Instead of fighting with each other over whose kids "had" to be youngest in the grade, people just accept that this is the policy and work with schools to ensure that the needs of younger students are met. I think the policy also allows kids to be young and to mature at their own rate instead of feeling pressure to mature because they are in classrooms with significantly older kids. It preserves childhood.
Anyway, please continue with your nasty, petty bickering. It's not productive but it is entertaining. So glad I live where I live and people are sane.
More evidence that you can’t actually read. Maybe start with district websites before trying something above your comprehension level.
What exactly is the thing you are taking issue with? You asked for evidence that there are many people out there (and not just a handful of "crazy anti-redshirters" on DCUM) who think narrowing the range of ages in early grades is a good idea. There are a couple links to animated discussions in which people advocate for narrowing the range. Including citations to studies.
But I see you just want to sit back and criticize without proffering arguments because if you actually asserted an argument, it would get ripped apart. Neat trick, kind of like starting your kid in K at 6.5 and then crowing about how advanced he is for the next 12 years.
If older kids do much better academically, that's an argument for increasing the kindergarten age, not artificially lowering it and setting kids up for failure in the name of equity.
Older kids don't do better. Smart kid do better and kids with involved parents who get the supports they need. K has always started at 5.
If they don't do better tell us again why you care so much? The reasons keep evolving.
Anonymous wrote:Babes, redshirting is viewed by many to be a problem and having a broader range of ages in school is considered a negative by many, including educational experts. Some of you need to step outside your bubble.
Our school district (not in the DC area) adopted a policy in 2011 specifically to address the rampant redshirting that was happening. A lot of it was for athletic reasons -- zealous parents redshirting kids, especially boys, to improve their odds of making high school varsity teams and to give them school cohorts where they would be the oldest/biggest/most developed. But it spread to other people who just started viewing redshirting as a way to give your kid an edge -- academically, socially, you name it. People just wanted their kids to be the oldest. And the thing about redshirting is that when it takes hold among a small group of parents, it spreads. That's why you now see people redshirting May, April, March birthdays. And the occasional winter birthday as well. Parents discover their May birthday is the youngest kid in the grade because all the summer birthdays redshirted, freak out, and then say "oh I should have redshirted Timmy. But you can see how this is just a dog chasing its own tail.
Anyway, our school district's enrollment policy explicitly says, "[we have] determined that an entrance age policy is warranted due to the educational benefits that result from narrowing the range of ages of students in the early grades." The policy makes no allowance for red shirting and says that children become eligible for kindergarten in the year in which they will be 5 by the first day of school. This ensures that the cut off never accidentally makes a 4 year old eligible for K. And the policy further says that your child becomes eligible for 1st grade the year that they turn 6 before the 1st day of school. So if a parent redshirts for K, they are SOL because their kid will be enrolled in 1st the next year if they are 6 on the first day of school.
Also our district has half-day K and the program is genuinely intended to be a nurturing transition year to introduce kids to elementary school, provide some academics but not focus on it, build independence and socio-emotional skills, and bridge the gap between preschool/daycare/home care and elementary. It's age appropriate for 5 year olds. 1st grade is more focused and academic but kids are ready for it.
Some people were bothered by the policy when it happened but I think ultimately it was a source of relief. Because once parents could no longer game the system, there was no longer pressure to game the system. Instead of fighting with each other over whose kids "had" to be youngest in the grade, people just accept that this is the policy and work with schools to ensure that the needs of younger students are met. I think the policy also allows kids to be young and to mature at their own rate instead of feeling pressure to mature because they are in classrooms with significantly older kids. It preserves childhood.
Anyway, please continue with your nasty, petty bickering. It's not productive but it is entertaining. So glad I live where I live and people are sane.
More evidence that you can’t actually read. Maybe start with district websites before trying something above your comprehension level.
What exactly is the thing you are taking issue with? You asked for evidence that there are many people out there (and not just a handful of "crazy anti-redshirters" on DCUM) who think narrowing the range of ages in early grades is a good idea. There are a couple links to animated discussions in which people advocate for narrowing the range. Including citations to studies.
But I see you just want to sit back and criticize without proffering arguments because if you actually asserted an argument, it would get ripped apart. Neat trick, kind of like starting your kid in K at 6.5 and then crowing about how advanced he is for the next 12 years.
If older kids do much better academically, that's an argument for increasing the kindergarten age, not artificially lowering it and setting kids up for failure in the name of equity.
Is it really surprising that 10 yos are scoring better on 3rd grade assessments than 8 yos? That isn't an argument to start kids later, but to age norm all assessments (e.g., MAP and DIEBELS) so kids are being compared to their actual peers. My guess is that a 10 yo in 3rd grade is pretty far behind their peers.
Why? They have been exposed to the same curriculum? Again, if younger kids have a harder time grasping it, it may be inappropriate.
Anonymous wrote:Babes, redshirting is viewed by many to be a problem and having a broader range of ages in school is considered a negative by many, including educational experts. Some of you need to step outside your bubble.
Our school district (not in the DC area) adopted a policy in 2011 specifically to address the rampant redshirting that was happening. A lot of it was for athletic reasons -- zealous parents redshirting kids, especially boys, to improve their odds of making high school varsity teams and to give them school cohorts where they would be the oldest/biggest/most developed. But it spread to other people who just started viewing redshirting as a way to give your kid an edge -- academically, socially, you name it. People just wanted their kids to be the oldest. And the thing about redshirting is that when it takes hold among a small group of parents, it spreads. That's why you now see people redshirting May, April, March birthdays. And the occasional winter birthday as well. Parents discover their May birthday is the youngest kid in the grade because all the summer birthdays redshirted, freak out, and then say "oh I should have redshirted Timmy. But you can see how this is just a dog chasing its own tail.
Anyway, our school district's enrollment policy explicitly says, "[we have] determined that an entrance age policy is warranted due to the educational benefits that result from narrowing the range of ages of students in the early grades." The policy makes no allowance for red shirting and says that children become eligible for kindergarten in the year in which they will be 5 by the first day of school. This ensures that the cut off never accidentally makes a 4 year old eligible for K. And the policy further says that your child becomes eligible for 1st grade the year that they turn 6 before the 1st day of school. So if a parent redshirts for K, they are SOL because their kid will be enrolled in 1st the next year if they are 6 on the first day of school.
Also our district has half-day K and the program is genuinely intended to be a nurturing transition year to introduce kids to elementary school, provide some academics but not focus on it, build independence and socio-emotional skills, and bridge the gap between preschool/daycare/home care and elementary. It's age appropriate for 5 year olds. 1st grade is more focused and academic but kids are ready for it.
Some people were bothered by the policy when it happened but I think ultimately it was a source of relief. Because once parents could no longer game the system, there was no longer pressure to game the system. Instead of fighting with each other over whose kids "had" to be youngest in the grade, people just accept that this is the policy and work with schools to ensure that the needs of younger students are met. I think the policy also allows kids to be young and to mature at their own rate instead of feeling pressure to mature because they are in classrooms with significantly older kids. It preserves childhood.
Anyway, please continue with your nasty, petty bickering. It's not productive but it is entertaining. So glad I live where I live and people are sane.
More evidence that you can’t actually read. Maybe start with district websites before trying something above your comprehension level.
What exactly is the thing you are taking issue with? You asked for evidence that there are many people out there (and not just a handful of "crazy anti-redshirters" on DCUM) who think narrowing the range of ages in early grades is a good idea. There are a couple links to animated discussions in which people advocate for narrowing the range. Including citations to studies.
But I see you just want to sit back and criticize without proffering arguments because if you actually asserted an argument, it would get ripped apart. Neat trick, kind of like starting your kid in K at 6.5 and then crowing about how advanced he is for the next 12 years.
If older kids do much better academically, that's an argument for increasing the kindergarten age, not artificially lowering it and setting kids up for failure in the name of equity.
Is it really surprising that 10 yos are scoring better on 3rd grade assessments than 8 yos? That isn't an argument to start kids later, but to age norm all assessments (e.g., MAP and DIEBELS) so kids are being compared to their actual peers. My guess is that a 10 yo in 3rd grade is pretty far behind their peers.
Why? They have been exposed to the same curriculum? Again, if younger kids have a harder time grasping it, it may be inappropriate.
Absolutely ridiculous.
Ok. Send your 4yr old to kindergarten. But don’t be surprised when they are the youngest.
Anonymous wrote:Babes, redshirting is viewed by many to be a problem and having a broader range of ages in school is considered a negative by many, including educational experts. Some of you need to step outside your bubble.
Our school district (not in the DC area) adopted a policy in 2011 specifically to address the rampant redshirting that was happening. A lot of it was for athletic reasons -- zealous parents redshirting kids, especially boys, to improve their odds of making high school varsity teams and to give them school cohorts where they would be the oldest/biggest/most developed. But it spread to other people who just started viewing redshirting as a way to give your kid an edge -- academically, socially, you name it. People just wanted their kids to be the oldest. And the thing about redshirting is that when it takes hold among a small group of parents, it spreads. That's why you now see people redshirting May, April, March birthdays. And the occasional winter birthday as well. Parents discover their May birthday is the youngest kid in the grade because all the summer birthdays redshirted, freak out, and then say "oh I should have redshirted Timmy. But you can see how this is just a dog chasing its own tail.
Anyway, our school district's enrollment policy explicitly says, "[we have] determined that an entrance age policy is warranted due to the educational benefits that result from narrowing the range of ages of students in the early grades." The policy makes no allowance for red shirting and says that children become eligible for kindergarten in the year in which they will be 5 by the first day of school. This ensures that the cut off never accidentally makes a 4 year old eligible for K. And the policy further says that your child becomes eligible for 1st grade the year that they turn 6 before the 1st day of school. So if a parent redshirts for K, they are SOL because their kid will be enrolled in 1st the next year if they are 6 on the first day of school.
Also our district has half-day K and the program is genuinely intended to be a nurturing transition year to introduce kids to elementary school, provide some academics but not focus on it, build independence and socio-emotional skills, and bridge the gap between preschool/daycare/home care and elementary. It's age appropriate for 5 year olds. 1st grade is more focused and academic but kids are ready for it.
Some people were bothered by the policy when it happened but I think ultimately it was a source of relief. Because once parents could no longer game the system, there was no longer pressure to game the system. Instead of fighting with each other over whose kids "had" to be youngest in the grade, people just accept that this is the policy and work with schools to ensure that the needs of younger students are met. I think the policy also allows kids to be young and to mature at their own rate instead of feeling pressure to mature because they are in classrooms with significantly older kids. It preserves childhood.
Anyway, please continue with your nasty, petty bickering. It's not productive but it is entertaining. So glad I live where I live and people are sane.
More evidence that you can’t actually read. Maybe start with district websites before trying something above your comprehension level.
What exactly is the thing you are taking issue with? You asked for evidence that there are many people out there (and not just a handful of "crazy anti-redshirters" on DCUM) who think narrowing the range of ages in early grades is a good idea. There are a couple links to animated discussions in which people advocate for narrowing the range. Including citations to studies.
But I see you just want to sit back and criticize without proffering arguments because if you actually asserted an argument, it would get ripped apart. Neat trick, kind of like starting your kid in K at 6.5 and then crowing about how advanced he is for the next 12 years.
If older kids do much better academically, that's an argument for increasing the kindergarten age, not artificially lowering it and setting kids up for failure in the name of equity.
Older kids don't do better. Smart kid do better and kids with involved parents who get the supports they need. K has always started at 5.
If they don't do better tell us again why you care so much? The reasons keep evolving.
We should ask for a sticky to keep track of all the evolving panics about this. I think my favorite so far is the freshman with a drivers license.
Anonymous wrote:Babes, redshirting is viewed by many to be a problem and having a broader range of ages in school is considered a negative by many, including educational experts. Some of you need to step outside your bubble.
Our school district (not in the DC area) adopted a policy in 2011 specifically to address the rampant redshirting that was happening. A lot of it was for athletic reasons -- zealous parents redshirting kids, especially boys, to improve their odds of making high school varsity teams and to give them school cohorts where they would be the oldest/biggest/most developed. But it spread to other people who just started viewing redshirting as a way to give your kid an edge -- academically, socially, you name it. People just wanted their kids to be the oldest. And the thing about redshirting is that when it takes hold among a small group of parents, it spreads. That's why you now see people redshirting May, April, March birthdays. And the occasional winter birthday as well. Parents discover their May birthday is the youngest kid in the grade because all the summer birthdays redshirted, freak out, and then say "oh I should have redshirted Timmy. But you can see how this is just a dog chasing its own tail.
Anyway, our school district's enrollment policy explicitly says, "[we have] determined that an entrance age policy is warranted due to the educational benefits that result from narrowing the range of ages of students in the early grades." The policy makes no allowance for red shirting and says that children become eligible for kindergarten in the year in which they will be 5 by the first day of school. This ensures that the cut off never accidentally makes a 4 year old eligible for K. And the policy further says that your child becomes eligible for 1st grade the year that they turn 6 before the 1st day of school. So if a parent redshirts for K, they are SOL because their kid will be enrolled in 1st the next year if they are 6 on the first day of school.
Also our district has half-day K and the program is genuinely intended to be a nurturing transition year to introduce kids to elementary school, provide some academics but not focus on it, build independence and socio-emotional skills, and bridge the gap between preschool/daycare/home care and elementary. It's age appropriate for 5 year olds. 1st grade is more focused and academic but kids are ready for it.
Some people were bothered by the policy when it happened but I think ultimately it was a source of relief. Because once parents could no longer game the system, there was no longer pressure to game the system. Instead of fighting with each other over whose kids "had" to be youngest in the grade, people just accept that this is the policy and work with schools to ensure that the needs of younger students are met. I think the policy also allows kids to be young and to mature at their own rate instead of feeling pressure to mature because they are in classrooms with significantly older kids. It preserves childhood.
Anyway, please continue with your nasty, petty bickering. It's not productive but it is entertaining. So glad I live where I live and people are sane.
More evidence that you can’t actually read. Maybe start with district websites before trying something above your comprehension level.
What exactly is the thing you are taking issue with? You asked for evidence that there are many people out there (and not just a handful of "crazy anti-redshirters" on DCUM) who think narrowing the range of ages in early grades is a good idea. There are a couple links to animated discussions in which people advocate for narrowing the range. Including citations to studies.
But I see you just want to sit back and criticize without proffering arguments because if you actually asserted an argument, it would get ripped apart. Neat trick, kind of like starting your kid in K at 6.5 and then crowing about how advanced he is for the next 12 years.
Honestly, after years of reading these threads, my own experiences with my own non-redshirted kids (now much older), and my own deep dive (as someone trained to do so) into the paltry literature out there in the topic, I take issue with pretty much every supposed argument raised by anti-redshirters. In the years I’ve been on DCUM, I’ve seen anti-redshirters justify the most appalling and entitled behaviors. I’ve seen them justify bullying kids as adults, seen them justify creepy behavior, seen them throw outrageous temper tantrums. They never have any solid science backing their claims (because the studies that exist are so weak and the data is so flawed). So yes, I don’t like people like you outright. I think you are mean, controlling bullies. I think you pick on vulnerable parents who are struggling, I think you are the kind of people who should not be allowed in classrooms because of your danger to other kids, and I generally have lost patience entirely with your selfish nonsense.
Does that help you understand? Was I clear enough?
No, that's not clarifying at all. You sound crazy. Bullying adults? Sorry but what you are describing bears no resemblance to this thread, any other thread I've read, or any conversation I've ever had about redshirting. You sound like someone with a weird bone to pick.
Anonymous wrote:Public schools aren’t retaining anyone because that costs $$$. I’ve only heard of retention being offered when a kid missed a lot of a grade due to something like a serious medical issue, or at the end of the Covid school years - 2019-20 or 2020-21 - if a kid didn’t progress during the closures. My neighbor had a young for grade 1st grader in 20-21 and FCPS did offer to let her repeat 1st in person.
But let this thread be a heads up to everyone: redshirting is common, perhaps even expected, in private schools, especially for the younger for grade kids. So plan accordingly.
+1, and I would say it’s increasingly common in public school among parents who read the data on developmentally appropriate settings for 4-5. So, assume if you send a four year old they’ll be youngest by a year+, and an early five year old by a year. None of this is secret, or unavailable information to you.
Since most public schools do an age cut off around September 1st, the number of kids attending K at age 4 is very small (and even people who complain about excessive redshirting don't complain about redshirting a kid who would be 4 during the "normal" cut off). In NY (which is the only place with a midyear cut off that results in a lot of 4 year olds being eligible for K) it's common for people to redshirt those kids and no one complains about it.
The only redshirting people complain about is when people start redshirting kids who would be well over 5 when starting K but they hold them back anyway. Yes, in some privates that's common place, but the school generally encourages it and everyone has a chance to do it -- they like having an older class of K students and often they will strongly encourage redshirting summer or late spring birthdays. Some schools even offer a transitional year for young K students before taking the regular K class, so you still wind up with a fairly age-homogenous class.
But in public that's not the case, and when some parents start deciding their April or May birthday kid needs another year, it can leave other parents stuck with the consequences of those actions without warning. No one is going to get mad that a parent redshirted so their kid could start K at 5, but when you see kids starting K at 6 and a half, it becomes an issue.
Please yell at me now and tell me I'm a "crazy anti-redshirter" for agreeing this specific issue is a problem.
As someone with a young for grade kid, I think it is absolutely insane to consider this a problem whatsoever, and really makes you sound like someone who has no experience with any real problems in life.
My kid with an August birthday who I sent on time (she started K at 5 but was among the youngest in her grade) was viciously bullied by a redshirted child in 1st grade. My kid was 6 years old for the entirety of 1st grade. The bullying child turned 8 in September and was signficantly bigger and taller. Redshirting played a major role in the bullying because while this one child was the leader, there were many older kids in the classroom due to redshirting and when the bully would attack/provoke my kid, she'd cry, and then all the older kids would round on her and call her a baby and tease her for being small and young (she is average height for her age).
I had no idea how prevalent redshirting was when I enrolled my kid in K. She was academically and socially ready for a K classroom full of 5 and 6 year old children. In fact she continues to be at the top of her grade academically and she is well liked by teachers for being a good listener who follows directions and is helpful and kind in the classroom (something that apparently the extra years of preschool or staying home did not help instill in these redshirted kids who are merely bigger and older, not more mature).
I absolutely resent that my child's classroom environment has been dominated by older children who I think should have spent their 5/6 year in K learning out to function in elementary school, but instead spent it elsewhere and arrived at elementary school with their own ideas about how school should work. I resent how common bullying and relational aggression are at the school because of these older-but-less-mature kids.
Call me a crazy anti-redshirted if you want. I think redshirting sucks. Kids should start school at the same age so that they learn the same skills and are generally at the same developmental level. Kids with developmental delays can/should be held back to accommodate their delays, but it shouldn't be at the parents' discretion.
We will be moving school districts before these older kids hit puberty in 3rd grade and we have to deal with that.
As a parent who doesn't care about redshirting one way or another (and has both middle-of-age-for grade and young-for-grade kids, none old-for-grade): the bullying isn't because your kid is small. Bullies will find literally anything to gang up on kids about. One of my kids was bulled for not watching Spongebob Squarepants in a late elementary grade. Does that make sense as a thing to mock a kid over? No. But my kid was a prickly and kind of hard-to-get-to-know kid, so of course they were a target. The actual thing to make fun of was incidental to the act of piling on.
And it's possible (probable?) this older kid is lashing out because:
- they do have delays and you have no idea and the delays are social
- they feel embarassed about your kid doing as well when they are so much older.
PP here. Of course bullying can happen for a whole variety of reasons.
But at my kid's specific school, in specific classrooms where there are a large percent of redshirted kids including one that was significantly older, the bullying was closely related to having a cohort of older, bigger, unsocialized kids. My DD was not the only child targeted, but all the children who were bullied were "on time" kids who were on the younger end of normal for the grade. All the bullies were the oldest kids in class.
Also, it's not just about the age difference. It's also that these redshirted kids were not socialized into elementary school when they were young enough for it help. They arrived at K too old and less malleable. In my child's 1st grade class, those older kids RAN the classroom. This year my kid is in 2nd and due to the bullying issues last year, my kid and others who were targeted are in a classroom without any of the much older kids. The classroom is significantly better, with less conflict and fewer behavioral issues.
I don't have any issue with moderate redshirting for kids with summer birthdays. I don't think you should be allowed to redshirt a kid with a birthday during the school year unless there is a clear reason why delaying kindergarten will help. And I actually think a lot of developmental delays might be made worse by redshirting unless you can show the kids are going to get services to improve the situation. Perhaps some of these delays would be best addressed by having the kid in a classroom with other kids and receiving services through the school.
I honestly do not understand why you continue to keep your child in a school where your DC experiences significant bullying and you believe the classroom activities and level are so wildly inappropriate. It seems weird to me.
You seem very ignorant of the reality that most parents experience. Most parents can’t just switch schools out of the blue.
Right. Which leads parents to make careful decisions about when their kids start school. For example— not sending a kid who may struggle to kindergarten too early.
Unless they don’t know about how prevalent it is because the schools don’t say anything and the other moms apparently don’t volunteer the info. Nice.
What information do you feel is lacking? If you ask your local elementary school they will likely tell you the average kindergarten age. You presumably know your child’s age. Do some research into peer reviewed studies about optimal environments for the child’s age you have and see whether your local or chosen kindergarten matches with that. I’m truly confused what you think someone needs to tell you to make this choice?
We arrived back in the US after mostly raising kids on military bases abroad and we arrived in August. Honestly I didn’t even know red shirting was a thing until I saw some really big kindergarten kids on my son’s first day of school. So no I did t put my five year old on a waitlist for preschool, had never heard of “junior kindergarten” at preschool, etc.
That’s really not an excuse for not researching, talking to others, asking around.
Sweetheart, those are all excuses for "I want my child to have an advantage over yours" and we all know it.
I’m a DP, and leaving aside your tone, it’s not an advantage over your student. Your student has exactly the same right to delay a year as anyone else. Nothing is being taken away from you or your child you just made a different choice. Lose your victim mentality around this.
That PP is just mad they didn't know what they were doing.
I really hate the "savvy parents know to redshirt, it's your fault if you don't" argument, because we're talking about kids.
Of course there are going to be parents who, fir whatever reason, don't know the *unspoken* customs if redshirting in a district, and their kid will wind up at a disadvantage. You can criticize the parents for this but it's the kid who suffers.
Which is why there should be NO UNSPOKEN REDSHIRTING CUSTOMS. This should not be gameable. And relishing the idea that some kids struggle in school because their parents naively thought the published age cutoffs were when you are actually supposed to send your kids, and not just a vague suggestion and all the "smart" parents postpone K a year, is a weird flex.
Have a cut off. Enforce a cut off. Make sure the school work makes sense for kids who meet the cut off. This isn't hard. These are kids. We should all want them ALL to succeed.
Sir. OP has her child in a private school. Do you understand even the tiniest facts about private school admissions?
Number one rule: Private schools admit who they want, when they want. That is literally how it works.
Honestly, you people are just ridiculous.
Ma'am. I wasn't talking about OP or private schools, I was specifically addressing the argument made several times on this thread about public schools that parents should figure out how prevalent redshirting is before enrolling their kid and if they don't then it's all their fault if their kid winds up in a classroom with kids 18 months older. I think this is a ridiculous expectation because many parents are simply not in a position to do that -- they just moved to the district, or this is their first child and they don't know anyone with kids in the schools, or English isn't their first language, or they have other issues that prevent them from being more savvy about school enrollment.
Private schools can do what they want. My argument is that public schools should create clear cut offs and enforce them and there shouldn't be this unofficial system that the most in-the-know parents can game to the benefit of their children, because at the end of the day it's the kids who live with these choices. No child should be punished for having a parent who naively thought that since kindergarten is traditionally for 5 year olds turning 6, and since the district's published guidance indicates it's for 5 year old's turning 6, that kindergarten is for 5 year olds turning 6. That kid shouldn't have to navigate a classroom full of 7 year olds just because his parents are friends with the "right" people who would have warned them.
But do tell me that *I* am ridiculous, since after all without your ad hominem attacks, you'd have to rely on logic and actual argument, areas in which you are lacking.
These are already in place. Someone already posted MCPS, FCPS is on the website that you have the option to delay enrollment for a year, how much more clear do you want them to be?
A grace period of a year is too long. That's not a cut off at all. And it's not clear because a parent who wants their kid to be generally in the same age cohort of most kids in their class literally has to do reconnaissance to figure out what other parents are going to do. Parents don't want their kids to be outliers age-wise. That's normal and should be accommodated.
I would advocate for either a firm cut off, no exceptions unless indicated by a medically documented delay or special need OR a September cut off with a grace period for kids with summer birthdays.
I do not think allowing parents to redshirt children with fall/winter/spring birthdays makes sense and have seen the negative impacts of this policy in the classroom.
So then go to your school board and see how far you get, and stop whining on DCUM.
Also, I simply don’t believe you about the negative impacts. Or maybe I could say the opposite, at the school board meeting: I’ve seen the negative impacts when kids who should have been redshirted are put in classrooms, and think a rigid deadline does a disservice to all children and to the educational environment as a whole. I prefer classrooms where kids whose parents think they needed more time get that time.
See, we can both come up with our anecdotes.
They need to bring back special ed classrooms and put these held back kids in them so they can catch up. No kids should be held back. Let’s call it what it is. Redshirting isn’t about social or academics it’s about sports.
A child with ADHD for example may have a developmental delay but absolutely does not need to be placed in a special ed classroom. Being held back a year absolutely helps because the executive functioning is more on par with the younger peers. And newsflash, it’s not uncommon for a child with adhd to be diagnosed closer to middle school even if the symptoms are visible to prek teachers and parents earlier, and even if he has tested negative in younger years, because of coping mechanisms and masking. Putting a hyperactive and inattentive child in a year later benefits not only that child but the classmates who would have been exposed to disruptive behaviors.
Yes, ADHD needs structural supports and iep assists and sometimes medication. But time absolutely helps as well.
Kids younger are NOT peers. You are contridicting yourself. If they are having behavioral problems they may need to be in a special classrom for that. Holding back isn't going ot teach execuitive funciting. Getting them a good iep, outside supports and medication will. It doesn't benefit any kids by holding them back. It benefits everyone by getting them the help. Regardless of the grade they will have the same issues.
Anonymous wrote:Babes, redshirting is viewed by many to be a problem and having a broader range of ages in school is considered a negative by many, including educational experts. Some of you need to step outside your bubble.
Our school district (not in the DC area) adopted a policy in 2011 specifically to address the rampant redshirting that was happening. A lot of it was for athletic reasons -- zealous parents redshirting kids, especially boys, to improve their odds of making high school varsity teams and to give them school cohorts where they would be the oldest/biggest/most developed. But it spread to other people who just started viewing redshirting as a way to give your kid an edge -- academically, socially, you name it. People just wanted their kids to be the oldest. And the thing about redshirting is that when it takes hold among a small group of parents, it spreads. That's why you now see people redshirting May, April, March birthdays. And the occasional winter birthday as well. Parents discover their May birthday is the youngest kid in the grade because all the summer birthdays redshirted, freak out, and then say "oh I should have redshirted Timmy. But you can see how this is just a dog chasing its own tail.
Anyway, our school district's enrollment policy explicitly says, "[we have] determined that an entrance age policy is warranted due to the educational benefits that result from narrowing the range of ages of students in the early grades." The policy makes no allowance for red shirting and says that children become eligible for kindergarten in the year in which they will be 5 by the first day of school. This ensures that the cut off never accidentally makes a 4 year old eligible for K. And the policy further says that your child becomes eligible for 1st grade the year that they turn 6 before the 1st day of school. So if a parent redshirts for K, they are SOL because their kid will be enrolled in 1st the next year if they are 6 on the first day of school.
Also our district has half-day K and the program is genuinely intended to be a nurturing transition year to introduce kids to elementary school, provide some academics but not focus on it, build independence and socio-emotional skills, and bridge the gap between preschool/daycare/home care and elementary. It's age appropriate for 5 year olds. 1st grade is more focused and academic but kids are ready for it.
Some people were bothered by the policy when it happened but I think ultimately it was a source of relief. Because once parents could no longer game the system, there was no longer pressure to game the system. Instead of fighting with each other over whose kids "had" to be youngest in the grade, people just accept that this is the policy and work with schools to ensure that the needs of younger students are met. I think the policy also allows kids to be young and to mature at their own rate instead of feeling pressure to mature because they are in classrooms with significantly older kids. It preserves childhood.
Anyway, please continue with your nasty, petty bickering. It's not productive but it is entertaining. So glad I live where I live and people are sane.
What do you mean “accidentally”?
FCPS starts school in mid August. Their cutoff is Sept 30. August is the highest birth rate month in the calendar. Half of August birthdays and all of September birthdays are four when they start kindergarten if they go “on time”.
Why do you think this is an accident?
In our district, it was determined that it is better for kids to start K at 5 instead of at 4. Making the cut off date "the first day of school" ensures that a 4 year old is never eligible for K, which is counter to the intent of the policy. I use the word "accident" because no one actually thought 4 year olds in K was a great idea, it's just that when cut offs don't match start dates, kids born in the gap get included with the cohort even though they are a younger age than the "typical" kid.
The situation in your district doesn't make sense to me. Why would you choose September 30th as a cut off date when school generally starts in August? It's almost like they want to induce demand for redshirting. I don't get why you would do this. It genuinely does feel like a policy accident because I can't think of a good reason to do this on purpose. If there's one thing the literature is clear on, it's that kids who start K at 5 instead of 4 tend to do better academically and are less likely to be held back later. So why create a situation that would lead to a bunch of 4 year olds in K unless the goal is to encourage their parents to redshirt them? And if the goal is redshirting, why not just move the cut off date. It's all nonsensical.
I have no idea why they did this, but they have. And I agree with you four year olds do not belong in kindergarten. But the fact that “on time” in one of the countries largest school districts is four years old for August and September birthdays is one of the reasons that parents need to do their research, and make good choices for their kids about when to start them, because obviously the school district is not making these decisions based on age-appropriateness.
Well is seems obvious to me that if your district has a 9/30 cut off, you should lobby to change it because... it's dumb? Like just don't do that.
Why not just make the cut off "8/15 or the first day of school, whichever comes first" and then require kids be 5 before K? Do you really think the solution should be "parents better do lots of research before enrolling their kids in school" and not just fixing what is obviously bad policy? Wtf?
Forum Index
»
Elementary School-Aged Kids
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}