Enough is enough with the redshirting!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Citation needed.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0024.htm#:~:text=This%20initial%20advantage%20persisted%20during%20the%20first,than%20younger%20students%20in%20the%20same%20class.

https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/content/other/508JCOP_technical_appendix.pdf

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.

Where do you come up with this non-sense. Younger kids are age/grade appropiate. An older child who is in a grade or two below is not age/grade or developmentally appropiate. If my kid was ok, yours will be too. If anything it really depends on IQ, which cannot be changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In your imagination, maybe? The bubble is the DCUM’s weird anti-redshirters.

I am literally telling you that redshirting was deemed such a problem in the school district where I live that they adopted a new enrollment policy to effectively ban it. You would consider us "anti-redshirters" but there are thousands of us and our objections changed policy in our district. Even people who were proponents of redshirting before the new policy now argue that it's better since it went into effect -- better for kids and better for families.

I feel for the people in the DC area trying to make common sense arguments about this issue and facing people like you who refuse to even listen to the arguments against.

So one district is equivalent to the entire US in your mind? Babes, I don’t think I’m the one in a bubble.

It's not just one district. There are a number of districts that adopted similar policies in the 2010s for the same reason. I know because when our district was debating it, the experiences of other districts were discussed. I liked above to a discussion of narrowing age ranges for early grades in CT around the same time. I know there are also districts in California and Tennessee that did this.

If there weren't a lot of people who have issues with the negative effects of redshirting, these threads wouldn't be so contentious or go on so long. Every time redshirting comes up on this website, it becomes a knock down drag out fight. I know you think that's because there's like one person who wants to argue with redshirting proponents but it's not. It's because a lot of people oppose redshirting and there are plenty of districts that don't allow it. Public schools in DC itself don't allow it as posted upthread.

You argue as though you are the overwhelming majority when it's actually an open issue with a lot of people on both sides. Redshirting is viewed as problematic all over the place.

lol at you thinking Mt Lebanon is representative of the country. Okay, bubble lady.

Not sure where My Lebanon is but if they banned redshirting, sounds like that's yet another school district that has decided to address this problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The issue isn't the cut off. Its people not following the cut offs and holding their kids back so they are a year or two older. Schools should force those kids in the appropiate grade and put them in special education as they are delayed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Citation needed.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0024.htm#:~:text=This%20initial%20advantage%20persisted%20during%20the%20first,than%20younger%20students%20in%20the%20same%20class.

https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/content/other/508JCOP_technical_appendix.pdf

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.

Let’s review the history of DCUM anti-redshirt posters, shall we?

There have been anti-redshirting people on these threads who have talked about volunteering in the classroom specifically so they can see who is the oldest and then gossiping about their classroom observations with their own kids.

There was one poster who took surreptitious photos of the class birthday chart and then made a spreadsheet to match age to what she perceived as child smartness and child behavior. She saw nothing creepy about that behavior at all when people asked wtf, either.

OP is someone who probably threw a temper tantrum on DCUM a few years ago because her private kindergarten had rides at the private school carnival that were too big for her snowflake and she blamed the redshirted kids — also kindergarteners — for the fact that her child was too small for a carnival ride. Or, perhaps more horrifyingly, there is another poster out there as entitled as OP.

There have been anti-redshirt posters who openly brag about how their kids mock older students.

There have been anti-redshirt posters who make up creepy and bizarrely detailed fantasies involving children and adult men in high school.

There is natural law anti-redshirter who I think must be clinically insane.

You’re judged by the company you keep, and on DCUM, that company is creepy, nasty, and mean. If you don’t like that, maybe reconsider your position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Citation needed.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0024.htm#:~:text=This%20initial%20advantage%20persisted%20during%20the%20first,than%20younger%20students%20in%20the%20same%20class.

https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/content/other/508JCOP_technical_appendix.pdf

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.

Let’s review the history of DCUM anti-redshirt posters, shall we?

There have been anti-redshirting people on these threads who have talked about volunteering in the classroom specifically so they can see who is the oldest and then gossiping about their classroom observations with their own kids.

There was one poster who took surreptitious photos of the class birthday chart and then made a spreadsheet to match age to what she perceived as child smartness and child behavior. She saw nothing creepy about that behavior at all when people asked wtf, either.

OP is someone who probably threw a temper tantrum on DCUM a few years ago because her private kindergarten had rides at the private school carnival that were too big for her snowflake and she blamed the redshirted kids — also kindergarteners — for the fact that her child was too small for a carnival ride. Or, perhaps more horrifyingly, there is another poster out there as entitled as OP.

There have been anti-redshirt posters who openly brag about how their kids mock older students.

There have been anti-redshirt posters who make up creepy and bizarrely detailed fantasies involving children and adult men in high school.

There is natural law anti-redshirter who I think must be clinically insane.

You’re judged by the company you keep, and on DCUM, that company is creepy, nasty, and mean. If you don’t like that, maybe reconsider your position.

DP here with zero skin in this game.

You sound completely batsh!t

Take a look in the mirror lady

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Citation needed.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0024.htm#:~:text=This%20initial%20advantage%20persisted%20during%20the%20first,than%20younger%20students%20in%20the%20same%20class.

https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/content/other/508JCOP_technical_appendix.pdf

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.

Let’s review the history of DCUM anti-redshirt posters, shall we?

There have been anti-redshirting people on these threads who have talked about volunteering in the classroom specifically so they can see who is the oldest and then gossiping about their classroom observations with their own kids.

There was one poster who took surreptitious photos of the class birthday chart and then made a spreadsheet to match age to what she perceived as child smartness and child behavior. She saw nothing creepy about that behavior at all when people asked wtf, either.

OP is someone who probably threw a temper tantrum on DCUM a few years ago because her private kindergarten had rides at the private school carnival that were too big for her snowflake and she blamed the redshirted kids — also kindergarteners — for the fact that her child was too small for a carnival ride. Or, perhaps more horrifyingly, there is another poster out there as entitled as OP.

There have been anti-redshirt posters who openly brag about how their kids mock older students.

There have been anti-redshirt posters who make up creepy and bizarrely detailed fantasies involving children and adult men in high school.

There is natural law anti-redshirter who I think must be clinically insane.

You’re judged by the company you keep, and on DCUM, that company is creepy, nasty, and mean. If you don’t like that, maybe reconsider your position.

DP here with zero skin in this game.

You sound completely batsh!t

Take a look in the mirror lady

Shrug. There are threads on all of this. Go find them. I don’t care. I’m tired of your bad behavior and am not going to pretend you people are anything other than insane nasty crazies.

You don’t see posts like any of the above from posters who redshirted by the way. That nastiness is one way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Citation needed.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0024.htm#:~:text=This%20initial%20advantage%20persisted%20during%20the%20first,than%20younger%20students%20in%20the%20same%20class.

https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/content/other/508JCOP_technical_appendix.pdf

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.

Let’s review the history of DCUM anti-redshirt posters, shall we?

There have been anti-redshirting people on these threads who have talked about volunteering in the classroom specifically so they can see who is the oldest and then gossiping about their classroom observations with their own kids.

There was one poster who took surreptitious photos of the class birthday chart and then made a spreadsheet to match age to what she perceived as child smartness and child behavior. She saw nothing creepy about that behavior at all when people asked wtf, either.

OP is someone who probably threw a temper tantrum on DCUM a few years ago because her private kindergarten had rides at the private school carnival that were too big for her snowflake and she blamed the redshirted kids — also kindergarteners — for the fact that her child was too small for a carnival ride. Or, perhaps more horrifyingly, there is another poster out there as entitled as OP.

There have been anti-redshirt posters who openly brag about how their kids mock older students.

There have been anti-redshirt posters who make up creepy and bizarrely detailed fantasies involving children and adult men in high school.

There is natural law anti-redshirter who I think must be clinically insane.

You’re judged by the company you keep, and on DCUM, that company is creepy, nasty, and mean. If you don’t like that, maybe reconsider your position.

DP here with zero skin in this game.

You sound completely batsh!t

Take a look in the mirror lady

I don’t think it’s batshit to observe threads that have happened. Anyone who reads these threads for more than a few weeks recognized natural law anti-redshirter at a minimum. She is DCUM famous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Citation needed.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0024.htm#:~:text=This%20initial%20advantage%20persisted%20during%20the%20first,than%20younger%20students%20in%20the%20same%20class.

https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/content/other/508JCOP_technical_appendix.pdf

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.

Let’s review the history of DCUM anti-redshirt posters, shall we?

There have been anti-redshirting people on these threads who have talked about volunteering in the classroom specifically so they can see who is the oldest and then gossiping about their classroom observations with their own kids.

There was one poster who took surreptitious photos of the class birthday chart and then made a spreadsheet to match age to what she perceived as child smartness and child behavior. She saw nothing creepy about that behavior at all when people asked wtf, either.

OP is someone who probably threw a temper tantrum on DCUM a few years ago because her private kindergarten had rides at the private school carnival that were too big for her snowflake and she blamed the redshirted kids — also kindergarteners — for the fact that her child was too small for a carnival ride. Or, perhaps more horrifyingly, there is another poster out there as entitled as OP.

There have been anti-redshirt posters who openly brag about how their kids mock older students.

There have been anti-redshirt posters who make up creepy and bizarrely detailed fantasies involving children and adult men in high school.

There is natural law anti-redshirter who I think must be clinically insane.

You’re judged by the company you keep, and on DCUM, that company is creepy, nasty, and mean. If you don’t like that, maybe reconsider your position.

DP here with zero skin in this game.

You sound completely batsh!t

Take a look in the mirror lady

I don’t think it’s batshit to observe threads that have happened. Anyone who reads these threads for more than a few weeks recognized natural law anti-redshirter at a minimum. She is DCUM famous.

You seriously need to step tf away from DCUM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The issue isn't the cut off. Its people not following the cut offs and holding their kids back so they are a year or two older. Schools should force those kids in the appropiate grade and put them in special education as they are delayed.

In FCPS, with Sept 30 cutoff, you have the option to enroll a year later. That is following the rules. There’s nothing to “force” the parents are doing what they’re entitled to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Thanks for your suggestion!

However, the reason I am not “lobbying to change it” is because I think parental choice is beneficial. No one cares more about a kid than their parent does, and literally no one in k-12 is as invested in the outcome as the parent is. Lobbying to take away choice isn’t popular for a reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Citation needed.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0024.htm#:~:text=This%20initial%20advantage%20persisted%20during%20the%20first,than%20younger%20students%20in%20the%20same%20class.

https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/content/other/508JCOP_technical_appendix.pdf

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.

Let’s review the history of DCUM anti-redshirt posters, shall we?

There have been anti-redshirting people on these threads who have talked about volunteering in the classroom specifically so they can see who is the oldest and then gossiping about their classroom observations with their own kids.

There was one poster who took surreptitious photos of the class birthday chart and then made a spreadsheet to match age to what she perceived as child smartness and child behavior. She saw nothing creepy about that behavior at all when people asked wtf, either.

OP is someone who probably threw a temper tantrum on DCUM a few years ago because her private kindergarten had rides at the private school carnival that were too big for her snowflake and she blamed the redshirted kids — also kindergarteners — for the fact that her child was too small for a carnival ride. Or, perhaps more horrifyingly, there is another poster out there as entitled as OP.

There have been anti-redshirt posters who openly brag about how their kids mock older students.

There have been anti-redshirt posters who make up creepy and bizarrely detailed fantasies involving children and adult men in high school.

There is natural law anti-redshirter who I think must be clinically insane.

You’re judged by the company you keep, and on DCUM, that company is creepy, nasty, and mean. If you don’t like that, maybe reconsider your position.

DP here with zero skin in this game.

You sound completely batsh!t

Take a look in the mirror lady

I don’t think it’s batshit to observe threads that have happened. Anyone who reads these threads for more than a few weeks recognized natural law anti-redshirter at a minimum. She is DCUM famous.

You seriously need to step tf away from DCUM

Meh. People read here for years. It’s entertainment. There are regular threads about DCUM famous weirdos like delicious fruit lady and bobcat girl. Natural law anti-redshirter is a DCUM character like that, sorry. Of course people recognize her and joke about it.

You can get hysterical about that if you like. That seems to be your pattern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Citation needed.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0024.htm#:~:text=This%20initial%20advantage%20persisted%20during%20the%20first,than%20younger%20students%20in%20the%20same%20class.

https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/content/other/508JCOP_technical_appendix.pdf

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.

Let’s review the history of DCUM anti-redshirt posters, shall we?

There have been anti-redshirting people on these threads who have talked about volunteering in the classroom specifically so they can see who is the oldest and then gossiping about their classroom observations with their own kids.

There was one poster who took surreptitious photos of the class birthday chart and then made a spreadsheet to match age to what she perceived as child smartness and child behavior. She saw nothing creepy about that behavior at all when people asked wtf, either.

OP is someone who probably threw a temper tantrum on DCUM a few years ago because her private kindergarten had rides at the private school carnival that were too big for her snowflake and she blamed the redshirted kids — also kindergarteners — for the fact that her child was too small for a carnival ride. Or, perhaps more horrifyingly, there is another poster out there as entitled as OP.

There have been anti-redshirt posters who openly brag about how their kids mock older students.

There have been anti-redshirt posters who make up creepy and bizarrely detailed fantasies involving children and adult men in high school.

There is natural law anti-redshirter who I think must be clinically insane.

You’re judged by the company you keep, and on DCUM, that company is creepy, nasty, and mean. If you don’t like that, maybe reconsider your position.

DP here with zero skin in this game.

You sound completely batsh!t

Take a look in the mirror lady

I don’t think it’s batshit to observe threads that have happened. Anyone who reads these threads for more than a few weeks recognized natural law anti-redshirter at a minimum. She is DCUM famous.

You seriously need to step tf away from DCUM

Meh. People read here for years. It’s entertainment. There are regular threads about DCUM famous weirdos like delicious fruit lady and bobcat girl. Natural law anti-redshirter is a DCUM character like that, sorry. Of course people recognize her and joke about it.

You can get hysterical about that if you like. That seems to be your pattern.

Do you not see how unhinged you sound?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Citation needed.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0024.htm#:~:text=This%20initial%20advantage%20persisted%20during%20the%20first,than%20younger%20students%20in%20the%20same%20class.

https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/content/other/508JCOP_technical_appendix.pdf

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.

Where do you come up with this non-sense. Younger kids are age/grade appropiate. An older child who is in a grade or two below is not age/grade or developmentally appropiate. If my kid was ok, yours will be too. If anything it really depends on IQ, which cannot be changed.

Your only concern is your kid. My kid is my business. You think these kids will flop anyway, so stop concern trolling. There hasn't been one convincing argument in here other than sour grapes and pettiness that someone has a kid younger than others but the kid is doing well. Still not clear what the issue is and "appropriateness" is an opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Citation needed.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0024.htm#:~:text=This%20initial%20advantage%20persisted%20during%20the%20first,than%20younger%20students%20in%20the%20same%20class.

https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/content/other/508JCOP_technical_appendix.pdf

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.

Let’s review the history of DCUM anti-redshirt posters, shall we?

There have been anti-redshirting people on these threads who have talked about volunteering in the classroom specifically so they can see who is the oldest and then gossiping about their classroom observations with their own kids.

There was one poster who took surreptitious photos of the class birthday chart and then made a spreadsheet to match age to what she perceived as child smartness and child behavior. She saw nothing creepy about that behavior at all when people asked wtf, either.

OP is someone who probably threw a temper tantrum on DCUM a few years ago because her private kindergarten had rides at the private school carnival that were too big for her snowflake and she blamed the redshirted kids — also kindergarteners — for the fact that her child was too small for a carnival ride. Or, perhaps more horrifyingly, there is another poster out there as entitled as OP.

There have been anti-redshirt posters who openly brag about how their kids mock older students.

There have been anti-redshirt posters who make up creepy and bizarrely detailed fantasies involving children and adult men in high school.

There is natural law anti-redshirter who I think must be clinically insane.

You’re judged by the company you keep, and on DCUM, that company is creepy, nasty, and mean. If you don’t like that, maybe reconsider your position.

DP here with zero skin in this game.

You sound completely batsh!t

Take a look in the mirror lady

I don’t think it’s batshit to observe threads that have happened. Anyone who reads these threads for more than a few weeks recognized natural law anti-redshirter at a minimum. She is DCUM famous.

You seriously need to step tf away from DCUM

Meh. People read here for years. It’s entertainment. There are regular threads about DCUM famous weirdos like delicious fruit lady and bobcat girl. Natural law anti-redshirter is a DCUM character like that, sorry. Of course people recognize her and joke about it.

You can get hysterical about that if you like. That seems to be your pattern.

Do you not see how unhinged you sound?

You take yourself way too seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Citation needed.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0024.htm#:~:text=This%20initial%20advantage%20persisted%20during%20the%20first,than%20younger%20students%20in%20the%20same%20class.

https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/content/other/508JCOP_technical_appendix.pdf

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.

Let’s review the history of DCUM anti-redshirt posters, shall we?

There have been anti-redshirting people on these threads who have talked about volunteering in the classroom specifically so they can see who is the oldest and then gossiping about their classroom observations with their own kids.

There was one poster who took surreptitious photos of the class birthday chart and then made a spreadsheet to match age to what she perceived as child smartness and child behavior. She saw nothing creepy about that behavior at all when people asked wtf, either.

OP is someone who probably threw a temper tantrum on DCUM a few years ago because her private kindergarten had rides at the private school carnival that were too big for her snowflake and she blamed the redshirted kids — also kindergarteners — for the fact that her child was too small for a carnival ride. Or, perhaps more horrifyingly, there is another poster out there as entitled as OP.

There have been anti-redshirt posters who openly brag about how their kids mock older students.

There have been anti-redshirt posters who make up creepy and bizarrely detailed fantasies involving children and adult men in high school.

There is natural law anti-redshirter who I think must be clinically insane.

You’re judged by the company you keep, and on DCUM, that company is creepy, nasty, and mean. If you don’t like that, maybe reconsider your position.

Okay, I will not pretend to have an encyclopedic knowledge of every resorting thread this site has ever seen. I will simply take your word for it that the posters you describe exist and have posted here. Now I'm going to review what you've written here, as someone who occasionally dips in on these threads, thinks redshirting is (on balance) not hugely productive, and has been on DCUM a few years.

Ok so there have been some posters who have been obsessive about older kids in their kids classes. I believe it. But also: so? I, as someone who broadly opposes redshirting of anyone except 4 year olds, have never spied on my kid's classroom to identify and out the older kids. I've certainly never ostracized a redshirted child. In fact, my DD's closest friend at school was redshirted and is 16 months older than her. I privately think this child would have been better off attending school on time but am also selfishly grateful she wasn't because I like her and her parents and am glad they are in our life. My judgment there is akin to privately thinking "gosh I would not put my kid in travel sports at 7, it's too early" -- a minor parenting quibble I have the good manners to keep to myself and that doesn't actually challenge my ability to like and hang out with a family who differs from me on that point. So it turns out there's a broad range of "anti-redshirters" and perhaps it's not fair to extrapolate that the extreme behavior of a handful of anonymous posters is representative of everyone who has this view.

Then you assume OP is "probably" another OP of a thread from several years ago that you apparently remember with minute detail. This is frankly crazy. It is not normal that you catalog these threads in you brain so aggressively, and it's weird to assume anyone who might come on here to vent about the broad issue of how redshirting might impact a child's classroom or school experience is the same person. Assuming OP is "probably" that other poster is a logic leap that you can't support and makes you look incredibly obsessed.

Anyone who brags about their kid mocking other kids for any reason is not to be taken seriously.

Since redshirting directly concerns how comfortable parents are with having their kids in classrooms with older kids, I think it's unfair to paint someone talking about what they view as the perceived dangers of having a 19 or 20 year old in a high school class as a "fantasy." I personally don't view that as the main issue with redshirting but having seen people talk about it, these posters seem genuinely concerned about the age gap for high school students, not engaged in some perverse fantasy. I think your insistence on describing it this way, instead of simply refuting the argument in a more reasonable way (like by pointing out that biologically there is limited difference between a 16 year old and a 19 year old, in fact this gap is far less significant than the difference between your average 5 and 7 year old, or your average 9 and 11 year old), reflects incoherent thinking on this topic.

I know a number of people IRL who are proponents of redshirting. In addition to the family I already mentioned, I have a friend who works at a preschool who essentially thinks all children with birthdays after Jan/Feb should be redshirted. I think this is an extreme and incorrect view, but I don't think my friend is crazy. Whereas I do think you are crazy. So I disagree with you that "you are the company you keep" on this redshirting issue. Reasonable people can disagree. You, however, are unreasonable. You have a lot more in common with the posters you purport to hate, as you all seem completely obsessed with redshirting for some reason. I think you also have an internet addiction.