Enough is enough with the redshirting!

[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.

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.

So you think parents should be able to send 4 year olds to kindergarten? I genuinely thought pretty much everyone was in agreement that 4 is too young for K and that you should at least 5. I thought this debate was about whether people should be able to send kids who are 6 and up to K but that the matter was fairly settled on the other end of the spectrum.

For the record I think 4 year olds in a K classroom makes no sense regardless of where you land on the 6+ kids. It's really young. 4 year olds should be in preschool. To me taking away that "choice" is akin to taking away the "choice" of whether to put your baby in a car seat or not -- it's universally the best thing for children and therefor not really up for debate IMO.

OMG Aug & Sep b-day kids ARE FOUR IN K. What is wrong with you?

Only because of a nonsensical 9/30 age cut off, which is why the cut off should be moved to coincide with the start of school so that there are not 4 year olds in K. That's the whole point of the post -- try to keep up.

It's also very weird to argue that it is "controlling" to dictate when parents start their kids in school because of course there are parameters on this. Do you think parents should be allowed to delay kindergarten until their kids are 10? Or send a two year old in diapers to K? Obviously the district is going to exert some kind of control over this choice. It's not a free for all and the vast majority of people prefer it that way.

What’s controlling is trying to dictate when kids are sent within those parameters. No single poster has a single
case where someone isn’t following the rules of their area, only complaints about following the rules differently than they did, even though the same choices were available to everyone. That’s super controlling.

Dude, people are arguing about what the rules should be. At some point the these rules were new. Was it "super controlling" to institute them? Or was it people doing their best to come up with a solution that made sense? The latter. So when people say "you know, I don't think these rules work so well anymore, I think we should consider changing them," that is also not super controlling.

Your logic is that if someone agrees with you, they are fair and chill and all good things. And if they disagree with you, they are stupid and unfair and "super controlling." That's not actually how it works.

No, they’re attacking parents who follow the rules (literally this entire thread is started by someone who is mad that kids followed the rules of a school they pay to attend….) attacking kids who start late, making up risks posed by fictional 20 year olds and freshman drivers, making bogus claims about puberty and suggesting parents be forced to have IEPs for their kids. Yes, that is super controlling because all of the people they’re attacking are fully compliant with the rules.

If this was a thread about when the dates should be it would be way calmer. Maybe start that one, but it’s not the one you’re on.

Yes some people on the thread are complaining about parents who redshirt.

Other people are talking about whether redshirting should be allowed.

My post pertained to the second thing, which was self-evident from the content of the post. I am not attacking parents who follow the rules but I do think the rules are bad because I think having a wide age range in early grades is a bad idea.

If you want to get mad at the people attacking parents who redshirt, feel free to go do that but that's not what my post was about.

[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.

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.

So you think parents should be able to send 4 year olds to kindergarten? I genuinely thought pretty much everyone was in agreement that 4 is too young for K and that you should at least 5. I thought this debate was about whether people should be able to send kids who are 6 and up to K but that the matter was fairly settled on the other end of the spectrum.

For the record I think 4 year olds in a K classroom makes no sense regardless of where you land on the 6+ kids. It's really young. 4 year olds should be in preschool. To me taking away that "choice" is akin to taking away the "choice" of whether to put your baby in a car seat or not -- it's universally the best thing for children and therefor not really up for debate IMO.

OMG Aug & Sep b-day kids ARE FOUR IN K. What is wrong with you?

Only because of a nonsensical 9/30 age cut off, which is why the cut off should be moved to coincide with the start of school so that there are not 4 year olds in K. That's the whole point of the post -- try to keep up.

It's also very weird to argue that it is "controlling" to dictate when parents start their kids in school because of course there are parameters on this. Do you think parents should be allowed to delay kindergarten until their kids are 10? Or send a two year old in diapers to K? Obviously the district is going to exert some kind of control over this choice. It's not a free for all and the vast majority of people prefer it that way.

They are 4 for a few weeks. No big deal.

If you say so. Send your four y/o. Mine will be in an appropriate setting.

Sending a child to school within the guidelines presented by the school system IS an appropriate setting. Obviously.

And the guidelines say I can send her a year late. So you’re welcome! I’m following all the rules and still not sending a four year old to kindergarten.

[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.

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.

So you think parents should be able to send 4 year olds to kindergarten? I genuinely thought pretty much everyone was in agreement that 4 is too young for K and that you should at least 5. I thought this debate was about whether people should be able to send kids who are 6 and up to K but that the matter was fairly settled on the other end of the spectrum.

For the record I think 4 year olds in a K classroom makes no sense regardless of where you land on the 6+ kids. It's really young. 4 year olds should be in preschool. To me taking away that "choice" is akin to taking away the "choice" of whether to put your baby in a car seat or not -- it's universally the best thing for children and therefor not really up for debate IMO.

OMG Aug & Sep b-day kids ARE FOUR IN K. What is wrong with you?

Only because of a nonsensical 9/30 age cut off, which is why the cut off should be moved to coincide with the start of school so that there are not 4 year olds in K. That's the whole point of the post -- try to keep up.

It's also very weird to argue that it is "controlling" to dictate when parents start their kids in school because of course there are parameters on this. Do you think parents should be allowed to delay kindergarten until their kids are 10? Or send a two year old in diapers to K? Obviously the district is going to exert some kind of control over this choice. It's not a free for all and the vast majority of people prefer it that way.

What’s controlling is trying to dictate when kids are sent within those parameters. No single poster has a single
case where someone isn’t following the rules of their area, only complaints about following the rules differently than they did, even though the same choices were available to everyone. That’s super controlling.

Dude, people are arguing about what the rules should be. At some point the these rules were new. Was it "super controlling" to institute them? Or was it people doing their best to come up with a solution that made sense? The latter. So when people say "you know, I don't think these rules work so well anymore, I think we should consider changing them," that is also not super controlling.

Your logic is that if someone agrees with you, they are fair and chill and all good things. And if they disagree with you, they are stupid and unfair and "super controlling." That's not actually how it works.

No, this is actually a really easy distinction to make.

Say I’m redshirting my four year old (in compliance with my local rules) and you vehemently disagree. You’re sending your Sept 30 birthday kid because you think kindergarten is a great place for four year olds.

That doesn’t make you unfair or controlling. You’re making a decision for your kid— which is your responsibility.

When you say that I should be forced to send my kid on a date of your choosing because you disagree with me? That’s super controlling. Disagree all you like, but stay in your lane, which is your kid, not mine.

[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.

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.

So you think parents should be able to send 4 year olds to kindergarten? I genuinely thought pretty much everyone was in agreement that 4 is too young for K and that you should at least 5. I thought this debate was about whether people should be able to send kids who are 6 and up to K but that the matter was fairly settled on the other end of the spectrum.

For the record I think 4 year olds in a K classroom makes no sense regardless of where you land on the 6+ kids. It's really young. 4 year olds should be in preschool. To me taking away that "choice" is akin to taking away the "choice" of whether to put your baby in a car seat or not -- it's universally the best thing for children and therefor not really up for debate IMO.

OMG Aug & Sep b-day kids ARE FOUR IN K. What is wrong with you?

Only because of a nonsensical 9/30 age cut off, which is why the cut off should be moved to coincide with the start of school so that there are not 4 year olds in K. That's the whole point of the post -- try to keep up.

It's also very weird to argue that it is "controlling" to dictate when parents start their kids in school because of course there are parameters on this. Do you think parents should be allowed to delay kindergarten until their kids are 10? Or send a two year old in diapers to K? Obviously the district is going to exert some kind of control over this choice. It's not a free for all and the vast majority of people prefer it that way.

What’s controlling is trying to dictate when kids are sent within those parameters. No single poster has a single
case where someone isn’t following the rules of their area, only complaints about following the rules differently than they did, even though the same choices were available to everyone. That’s super controlling.

Dude, people are arguing about what the rules should be. At some point the these rules were new. Was it "super controlling" to institute them? Or was it people doing their best to come up with a solution that made sense? The latter. So when people say "you know, I don't think these rules work so well anymore, I think we should consider changing them," that is also not super controlling.

Your logic is that if someone agrees with you, they are fair and chill and all good things. And if they disagree with you, they are stupid and unfair and "super controlling." That's not actually how it works.

No, this is actually a really easy distinction to make.

Say I’m redshirting my four year old (in compliance with my local rules) and you vehemently disagree. You’re sending your Sept 30 birthday kid because you think kindergarten is a great place for four year olds.

That doesn’t make you unfair or controlling. You’re making a decision for your kid— which is your responsibility.

When you say that I should be forced to send my kid on a date of your choosing because you disagree with me? That’s super controlling. Disagree all you like, but stay in your lane, which is your kid, not mine.

Oh good lord, my whole point is that I don't think 4 yr olds should be in kindergarten and I think cut offs should be changed so it's not even an option. So I would not care at all if you redshirted your 4 yr old and in fact I too would redshirt a 4 year old if they happened to be eligible for K under a dumb cut off.

And no, none of that is "super controlling." It's me having an opinion about education policy and believing 4 yr olds are too young for K, which actually most people agree with. If you want your 4 yr old in a classroom environment, send them to preschool, I don't care!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I am getting from this thread is that people who redshirt their children are VERY, VERY, VERY defensive and argumentative about it.

Yes though what is funny is that the loudest proponents will claim on here that they didn't redshirt their kids and are just disinterested observers who happen to OBSESSIVELY believe in the right of other parents to redshirt.

It is comical. Girl, we know you're mad because your kid is old for their grade and you don't like seeing people complain about this.

💯

I’m a non-redshirter who posts in these threads and I post because I dislike DCUM anti-redshirters. I dislike them because they’re generally crazy Tracy Flick types. It’s that simple. I don’t really care if you need to make up fantasies about my old, non-existent kids to make you feel better or not. That just shows who you are as a person, but we already knew that sad story anyhow, so 🤷‍♀️, more evidence for the pile I guess.

I'm not sure what this says about you other than you must have a pretty lonely existence if this is how you have fun.

NP (also without red shirted kids). This is how we ALL have fun. Do you honestly think posting your deep thoughts on this board are actually accomplishing something?

[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.

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.

So you think parents should be able to send 4 year olds to kindergarten? I genuinely thought pretty much everyone was in agreement that 4 is too young for K and that you should at least 5. I thought this debate was about whether people should be able to send kids who are 6 and up to K but that the matter was fairly settled on the other end of the spectrum.

For the record I think 4 year olds in a K classroom makes no sense regardless of where you land on the 6+ kids. It's really young. 4 year olds should be in preschool. To me taking away that "choice" is akin to taking away the "choice" of whether to put your baby in a car seat or not -- it's universally the best thing for children and therefor not really up for debate IMO.

OMG Aug & Sep b-day kids ARE FOUR IN K. What is wrong with you?

Only because of a nonsensical 9/30 age cut off, which is why the cut off should be moved to coincide with the start of school so that there are not 4 year olds in K. That's the whole point of the post -- try to keep up.

It's also very weird to argue that it is "controlling" to dictate when parents start their kids in school because of course there are parameters on this. Do you think parents should be allowed to delay kindergarten until their kids are 10? Or send a two year old in diapers to K? Obviously the district is going to exert some kind of control over this choice. It's not a free for all and the vast majority of people prefer it that way.

What’s controlling is trying to dictate when kids are sent within those parameters. No single poster has a single
case where someone isn’t following the rules of their area, only complaints about following the rules differently than they did, even though the same choices were available to everyone. That’s super controlling.

Dude, people are arguing about what the rules should be. At some point the these rules were new. Was it "super controlling" to institute them? Or was it people doing their best to come up with a solution that made sense? The latter. So when people say "you know, I don't think these rules work so well anymore, I think we should consider changing them," that is also not super controlling.

Your logic is that if someone agrees with you, they are fair and chill and all good things. And if they disagree with you, they are stupid and unfair and "super controlling." That's not actually how it works.

No, they’re attacking parents who follow the rules (literally this entire thread is started by someone who is mad that kids followed the rules of a school they pay to attend….) attacking kids who start late, making up risks posed by fictional 20 year olds and freshman drivers, making bogus claims about puberty and suggesting parents be forced to have IEPs for their kids. Yes, that is super controlling because all of the people they’re attacking are fully compliant with the rules.

If this was a thread about when the dates should be it would be way calmer. Maybe start that one, but it’s not the one you’re on.

Agree. And the absolute lack of self-awareness from the anti-redshirting posters would be almost funny if it wasn’t so sad. The anti-redshirt folks are going to be in a world of hurt when they encounter a real problem in life for the first time.

[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.

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.

So you think parents should be able to send 4 year olds to kindergarten? I genuinely thought pretty much everyone was in agreement that 4 is too young for K and that you should at least 5. I thought this debate was about whether people should be able to send kids who are 6 and up to K but that the matter was fairly settled on the other end of the spectrum.

For the record I think 4 year olds in a K classroom makes no sense regardless of where you land on the 6+ kids. It's really young. 4 year olds should be in preschool. To me taking away that "choice" is akin to taking away the "choice" of whether to put your baby in a car seat or not -- it's universally the best thing for children and therefor not really up for debate IMO.

OMG Aug & Sep b-day kids ARE FOUR IN K. What is wrong with you?

Only because of a nonsensical 9/30 age cut off, which is why the cut off should be moved to coincide with the start of school so that there are not 4 year olds in K. That's the whole point of the post -- try to keep up.

It's also very weird to argue that it is "controlling" to dictate when parents start their kids in school because of course there are parameters on this. Do you think parents should be allowed to delay kindergarten until their kids are 10? Or send a two year old in diapers to K? Obviously the district is going to exert some kind of control over this choice. It's not a free for all and the vast majority of people prefer it that way.

What’s controlling is trying to dictate when kids are sent within those parameters. No single poster has a single
case where someone isn’t following the rules of their area, only complaints about following the rules differently than they did, even though the same choices were available to everyone. That’s super controlling.

Dude, people are arguing about what the rules should be. At some point the these rules were new. Was it "super controlling" to institute them? Or was it people doing their best to come up with a solution that made sense? The latter. So when people say "you know, I don't think these rules work so well anymore, I think we should consider changing them," that is also not super controlling.

Your logic is that if someone agrees with you, they are fair and chill and all good things. And if they disagree with you, they are stupid and unfair and "super controlling." That's not actually how it works.

No, this is actually a really easy distinction to make.

Say I’m redshirting my four year old (in compliance with my local rules) and you vehemently disagree. You’re sending your Sept 30 birthday kid because you think kindergarten is a great place for four year olds.

That doesn’t make you unfair or controlling. You’re making a decision for your kid— which is your responsibility.

When you say that I should be forced to send my kid on a date of your choosing because you disagree with me? That’s super controlling. Disagree all you like, but stay in your lane, which is your kid, not mine.

Oh good lord, my whole point is that I don't think 4 yr olds should be in kindergarten and I think cut offs should be changed so it's not even an option. So I would not care at all if you redshirted your 4 yr old and in fact I too would redshirt a 4 year old if they happened to be eligible for K under a dumb cut off.

And no, none of that is "super controlling." It's me having an opinion about education policy and believing 4 yr olds are too young for K, which actually most people agree with. If you want your 4 yr old in a classroom environment, send them to preschool, I don't care!

Great. Now apply the same idea to all parents and realize that all parents have the same right to make a decision about their kids education (within the guidelines) and you will not be super controlling. You’re almost there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I am getting from this thread is that people who redshirt their children are VERY, VERY, VERY defensive and argumentative about it.

Yes though what is funny is that the loudest proponents will claim on here that they didn't redshirt their kids and are just disinterested observers who happen to OBSESSIVELY believe in the right of other parents to redshirt.

It is comical. Girl, we know you're mad because your kid is old for their grade and you don't like seeing people complain about this.

💯

I’m a non-redshirter who posts in these threads and I post because I dislike DCUM anti-redshirters. I dislike them because they’re generally crazy Tracy Flick types. It’s that simple. I don’t really care if you need to make up fantasies about my old, non-existent kids to make you feel better or not. That just shows who you are as a person, but we already knew that sad story anyhow, so 🤷‍♀️, more evidence for the pile I guess.

I'm not sure what this says about you other than you must have a pretty lonely existence if this is how you have fun.

NP (also without red shirted kids). This is how we ALL have fun. Do you honestly think posting your deep thoughts on this board are actually accomplishing something?

Tracy Flick up there thinks that by posting on DCUM she is controlling and influencing education policy across the US, unlike the rest of us plebes who read and post on DCUM for fun.

I read these threads and boy is it easy to decide which side I would rather have a drink with. 🥂

[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:

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.

So you think parents should be able to send 4 year olds to kindergarten? I genuinely thought pretty much everyone was in agreement that 4 is too young for K and that you should at least 5. I thought this debate was about whether people should be able to send kids who are 6 and up to K but that the matter was fairly settled on the other end of the spectrum.

For the record I think 4 year olds in a K classroom makes no sense regardless of where you land on the 6+ kids. It's really young. 4 year olds should be in preschool. To me taking away that "choice" is akin to taking away the "choice" of whether to put your baby in a car seat or not -- it's universally the best thing for children and therefor not really up for debate IMO.

OMG Aug & Sep b-day kids ARE FOUR IN K. What is wrong with you?

Only because of a nonsensical 9/30 age cut off, which is why the cut off should be moved to coincide with the start of school so that there are not 4 year olds in K. That's the whole point of the post -- try to keep up.

It's also very weird to argue that it is "controlling" to dictate when parents start their kids in school because of course there are parameters on this. Do you think parents should be allowed to delay kindergarten until their kids are 10? Or send a two year old in diapers to K? Obviously the district is going to exert some kind of control over this choice. It's not a free for all and the vast majority of people prefer it that way.

What’s controlling is trying to dictate when kids are sent within those parameters. No single poster has a single
case where someone isn’t following the rules of their area, only complaints about following the rules differently than they did, even though the same choices were available to everyone. That’s super controlling.

Dude, people are arguing about what the rules should be. At some point the these rules were new. Was it "super controlling" to institute them? Or was it people doing their best to come up with a solution that made sense? The latter. So when people say "you know, I don't think these rules work so well anymore, I think we should consider changing them," that is also not super controlling.

Your logic is that if someone agrees with you, they are fair and chill and all good things. And if they disagree with you, they are stupid and unfair and "super controlling." That's not actually how it works.

No, this is actually a really easy distinction to make.

Say I’m redshirting my four year old (in compliance with my local rules) and you vehemently disagree. You’re sending your Sept 30 birthday kid because you think kindergarten is a great place for four year olds.

That doesn’t make you unfair or controlling. You’re making a decision for your kid— which is your responsibility.

When you say that I should be forced to send my kid on a date of your choosing because you disagree with me? That’s super controlling. Disagree all you like, but stay in your lane, which is your kid, not mine.

Oh good lord, my whole point is that I don't think 4 yr olds should be in kindergarten and I think cut offs should be changed so it's not even an option. So I would not care at all if you redshirted your 4 yr old and in fact I too would redshirt a 4 year old if they happened to be eligible for K under a dumb cut off.

And no, none of that is "super controlling." It's me having an opinion about education policy and believing 4 yr olds are too young for K, which actually most people agree with. If you want your 4 yr old in a classroom environment, send them to preschool, I don't care!

Great. Now apply the same idea to all parents and realize that all parents have the same right to make a decision about their kids education (within the guidelines) and you will not be super controlling. You’re almost there.

Ok, I believe kids should start K at 10. I will enroll my kid in K at 10. I don't care how this impacts other kids in my child's class -- it's my kid and I get to decide. If you try to tell me that it would be inappropriate or detrimental to start my kid in K at 10, you are being super controlling. Anyone who argues that 10 year olds don't belong in K classrooms or that it makes more sense for a 10 year old to go to school with other 10 year olds is a deranged anti-redshirter who has no valid argument for why I shouldn't be allowed to do what I want with my own kid.

[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:

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.

So you think parents should be able to send 4 year olds to kindergarten? I genuinely thought pretty much everyone was in agreement that 4 is too young for K and that you should at least 5. I thought this debate was about whether people should be able to send kids who are 6 and up to K but that the matter was fairly settled on the other end of the spectrum.

For the record I think 4 year olds in a K classroom makes no sense regardless of where you land on the 6+ kids. It's really young. 4 year olds should be in preschool. To me taking away that "choice" is akin to taking away the "choice" of whether to put your baby in a car seat or not -- it's universally the best thing for children and therefor not really up for debate IMO.

OMG Aug & Sep b-day kids ARE FOUR IN K. What is wrong with you?

Only because of a nonsensical 9/30 age cut off, which is why the cut off should be moved to coincide with the start of school so that there are not 4 year olds in K. That's the whole point of the post -- try to keep up.

It's also very weird to argue that it is "controlling" to dictate when parents start their kids in school because of course there are parameters on this. Do you think parents should be allowed to delay kindergarten until their kids are 10? Or send a two year old in diapers to K? Obviously the district is going to exert some kind of control over this choice. It's not a free for all and the vast majority of people prefer it that way.

What’s controlling is trying to dictate when kids are sent within those parameters. No single poster has a single
case where someone isn’t following the rules of their area, only complaints about following the rules differently than they did, even though the same choices were available to everyone. That’s super controlling.

Dude, people are arguing about what the rules should be. At some point the these rules were new. Was it "super controlling" to institute them? Or was it people doing their best to come up with a solution that made sense? The latter. So when people say "you know, I don't think these rules work so well anymore, I think we should consider changing them," that is also not super controlling.

Your logic is that if someone agrees with you, they are fair and chill and all good things. And if they disagree with you, they are stupid and unfair and "super controlling." That's not actually how it works.

No, this is actually a really easy distinction to make.

Say I’m redshirting my four year old (in compliance with my local rules) and you vehemently disagree. You’re sending your Sept 30 birthday kid because you think kindergarten is a great place for four year olds.

That doesn’t make you unfair or controlling. You’re making a decision for your kid— which is your responsibility.

When you say that I should be forced to send my kid on a date of your choosing because you disagree with me? That’s super controlling. Disagree all you like, but stay in your lane, which is your kid, not mine.

Oh good lord, my whole point is that I don't think 4 yr olds should be in kindergarten and I think cut offs should be changed so it's not even an option. So I would not care at all if you redshirted your 4 yr old and in fact I too would redshirt a 4 year old if they happened to be eligible for K under a dumb cut off.

And no, none of that is "super controlling." It's me having an opinion about education policy and believing 4 yr olds are too young for K, which actually most people agree with. If you want your 4 yr old in a classroom environment, send them to preschool, I don't care!

Great. Now apply the same idea to all parents and realize that all parents have the same right to make a decision about their kids education (within the guidelines) and you will not be super controlling. You’re almost there.

Ok, I believe kids should start K at 10. I will enroll my kid in K at 10. I don't care how this impacts other kids in my child's class -- it's my kid and I get to decide. If you try to tell me that it would be inappropriate or detrimental to start my kid in K at 10, you are being super controlling. Anyone who argues that 10 year olds don't belong in K classrooms or that it makes more sense for a 10 year old to go to school with other 10 year olds is a deranged anti-redshirter who has no valid argument for why I shouldn't be allowed to do what I want with my own kid.

Okay drama queen, you go ahead and do that. Sounds good.

See, it’s easy to be normal. You should try it.

[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:

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.

So you think parents should be able to send 4 year olds to kindergarten? I genuinely thought pretty much everyone was in agreement that 4 is too young for K and that you should at least 5. I thought this debate was about whether people should be able to send kids who are 6 and up to K but that the matter was fairly settled on the other end of the spectrum.

For the record I think 4 year olds in a K classroom makes no sense regardless of where you land on the 6+ kids. It's really young. 4 year olds should be in preschool. To me taking away that "choice" is akin to taking away the "choice" of whether to put your baby in a car seat or not -- it's universally the best thing for children and therefor not really up for debate IMO.

OMG Aug & Sep b-day kids ARE FOUR IN K. What is wrong with you?

Only because of a nonsensical 9/30 age cut off, which is why the cut off should be moved to coincide with the start of school so that there are not 4 year olds in K. That's the whole point of the post -- try to keep up.

It's also very weird to argue that it is "controlling" to dictate when parents start their kids in school because of course there are parameters on this. Do you think parents should be allowed to delay kindergarten until their kids are 10? Or send a two year old in diapers to K? Obviously the district is going to exert some kind of control over this choice. It's not a free for all and the vast majority of people prefer it that way.

What’s controlling is trying to dictate when kids are sent within those parameters. No single poster has a single
case where someone isn’t following the rules of their area, only complaints about following the rules differently than they did, even though the same choices were available to everyone. That’s super controlling.

Dude, people are arguing about what the rules should be. At some point the these rules were new. Was it "super controlling" to institute them? Or was it people doing their best to come up with a solution that made sense? The latter. So when people say "you know, I don't think these rules work so well anymore, I think we should consider changing them," that is also not super controlling.

Your logic is that if someone agrees with you, they are fair and chill and all good things. And if they disagree with you, they are stupid and unfair and "super controlling." That's not actually how it works.

No, this is actually a really easy distinction to make.

Say I’m redshirting my four year old (in compliance with my local rules) and you vehemently disagree. You’re sending your Sept 30 birthday kid because you think kindergarten is a great place for four year olds.

That doesn’t make you unfair or controlling. You’re making a decision for your kid— which is your responsibility.

When you say that I should be forced to send my kid on a date of your choosing because you disagree with me? That’s super controlling. Disagree all you like, but stay in your lane, which is your kid, not mine.

Oh good lord, my whole point is that I don't think 4 yr olds should be in kindergarten and I think cut offs should be changed so it's not even an option. So I would not care at all if you redshirted your 4 yr old and in fact I too would redshirt a 4 year old if they happened to be eligible for K under a dumb cut off.

And no, none of that is "super controlling." It's me having an opinion about education policy and believing 4 yr olds are too young for K, which actually most people agree with. If you want your 4 yr old in a classroom environment, send them to preschool, I don't care!

Great. Now apply the same idea to all parents and realize that all parents have the same right to make a decision about their kids education (within the guidelines) and you will not be super controlling. You’re almost there.

Ok, I believe kids should start K at 10. I will enroll my kid in K at 10. I don't care how this impacts other kids in my child's class -- it's my kid and I get to decide. If you try to tell me that it would be inappropriate or detrimental to start my kid in K at 10, you are being super controlling. Anyone who argues that 10 year olds don't belong in K classrooms or that it makes more sense for a 10 year old to go to school with other 10 year olds is a deranged anti-redshirter who has no valid argument for why I shouldn't be allowed to do what I want with my own kid.

You missed the part of “within the guidelines” in the post you quoted and hastened to argue with.

If I send my kid at four and you send your kid at six neither of us has grounds to complain. I will not try to stop you even if I disagree with you because I am not invested in controlling other students and families who are following the rules. Inexplicably, the anti-redshirters are.

[Anonymous]

I agree with OP

10 year olds entering 3rd? Come on now.

In general, I agree with cutoffs being cutoffs, not polite suggestions. And I think redshirting to an extreme is lazy parenting.

Fortunately, I live in an area where this is not an issue but I agree that schools where this is happening should address it. If we aren’t putting kids in grades based on age, what’s the new plan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with OP

10 year olds entering 3rd? Come on now.

In general, I agree with cutoffs being cutoffs, not polite suggestions. And I think redshirting to an extreme is lazy parenting.

Fortunately, I live in an area where this is not an issue but I agree that schools where this is happening should address it. If we aren’t putting kids in grades based on age, what’s the new plan?

OP is in a private school. The kids who are “ten” are there because that is where the people she pays tuition to want them to be.

And “we” are putting kids in grades based on ages. Most area school systems have some scope for parental discretion, which seems to be what’s setting off the anti-redshirt crowd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid followed the cut offs and started 6th grade as a 10 yo this fall. There shouldn't be any 10 yos in 3rd grade.

That is also strange. Kids are turning 11 in 5th grade.

[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.

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.

So you think parents should be able to send 4 year olds to kindergarten? I genuinely thought pretty much everyone was in agreement that 4 is too young for K and that you should at least 5. I thought this debate was about whether people should be able to send kids who are 6 and up to K but that the matter was fairly settled on the other end of the spectrum.

For the record I think 4 year olds in a K classroom makes no sense regardless of where you land on the 6+ kids. It's really young. 4 year olds should be in preschool. To me taking away that "choice" is akin to taking away the "choice" of whether to put your baby in a car seat or not -- it's universally the best thing for children and therefor not really up for debate IMO.

OMG Aug & Sep b-day kids ARE FOUR IN K. What is wrong with you?

Only because of a nonsensical 9/30 age cut off, which is why the cut off should be moved to coincide with the start of school so that there are not 4 year olds in K. That's the whole point of the post -- try to keep up.

It's also very weird to argue that it is "controlling" to dictate when parents start their kids in school because of course there are parameters on this. Do you think parents should be allowed to delay kindergarten until their kids are 10? Or send a two year old in diapers to K? Obviously the district is going to exert some kind of control over this choice. It's not a free for all and the vast majority of people prefer it that way.

What’s controlling is trying to dictate when kids are sent within those parameters. No single poster has a single
case where someone isn’t following the rules of their area, only complaints about following the rules differently than they did, even though the same choices were available to everyone. That’s super controlling.

Dude, people are arguing about what the rules should be. At some point the these rules were new. Was it "super controlling" to institute them? Or was it people doing their best to come up with a solution that made sense? The latter. So when people say "you know, I don't think these rules work so well anymore, I think we should consider changing them," that is also not super controlling.

Your logic is that if someone agrees with you, they are fair and chill and all good things. And if they disagree with you, they are stupid and unfair and "super controlling." That's not actually how it works.

No, they’re attacking parents who follow the rules (literally this entire thread is started by someone who is mad that kids followed the rules of a school they pay to attend….) attacking kids who start late, making up risks posed by fictional 20 year olds and freshman drivers, making bogus claims about puberty and suggesting parents be forced to have IEPs for their kids. Yes, that is super controlling because all of the people they’re attacking are fully compliant with the rules.

If this was a thread about when the dates should be it would be way calmer. Maybe start that one, but it’s not the one you’re on.

Hey, I’m empathic to your situation. Your family struggles socially and you’re just trying to figure out some solution for your child to finally fit in. I do think that must be hard and I get that you’re just figuring out a way to make it easier on them and I applaud you for that. I think many of us don’t relate to them because our children have it easy and just naturally do well with peers and we aren’t in a place to judge someone that has a much harder time with something they comes easy for us.