Redshirting consequences at Lafayette

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the DCPS parents here who support the K enrollment policies and want to see them better enforced, have you found a productive way outside DCUM to voice your concerns?

It’s only one crazy parent and she’s not even in DCPS. Her story changes depending on the forum she’s posting on.

Honestly it’s just a paranoid idiot at this point.

What on earth are you talking about?

It’s not a bunch of parents complaining about redshirting, it’s just one crazy cat lady. No amount of sock puppeting is going to change that. In that respect your stupidity is quite unique.

I haven’t met a single parent in real life objecting to other kids being held back.

I am not whoever you have been responding to previously and I absolutely object to parents redshirting kids unilaterally in DCPS. With school and/or teacher support? Absolutely. Making the choice unilaterally? No. I don't want DCPSes to become like private schools where the "official" cutoff and the actual cutoff are entirely different. It absolutely disadvantages poor kids who don't have options. And certainly parents shouldn't get two bites at PK lotteries for desirable placements. I would actually guess that the majority of parents have broadly similar views. Certainly they do on this thread. If your takeaway from this thread is that most posters support the NW parents pushing this then you are truly delusional.

Yeah, I know the usual sock puppet techniques: new poster, DP, +1, not the poster you replied to, etc. you’re not fooling anyone, crazy cat lady.

I’ve been involved in the PTA, know many parents, not once have I heard anyone even hint at complaining about other kids being held back. Most often people would say something along the lines of “he was immature for his age”, and the response is “parents know their kids better”.

You’re taking this to Internet forums with so much gusto because your comments were not received well in real life, with a mix of confusion and disgust.

When talking with someone I know to be volatile and aggressive, I will generally respond in a fairly neutral way regardless of my actual feelings on the matter. Based on the way you've conducted yourself in this thread, I'm guessing the parents you know know better than to say what they might actually think around you.

Thats right, in real life you’re neutral because you wouldn’t dare bring the crazy crap your posting here to other parents face. You’re crazy, delusional and a coward to top it off.

At least I volunteered my time to better the community in some way. All you have to offer is the jealous irrational fear that other kids are getting ahead of yours. I bet that’s making you very popular among other parents!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m new to the post. Redshirting should be illegal. Kids are 10 in my child’s 3rd grade class while some are 8.

Should retention also be illegal?

Retention why? We are not talking kids with issues. We are talking about typical kid with no concerns. It’s not healthy to hold back kids.

Why? So your kid doesn’t have 10 year olds and 8 year olds together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if instead of Lafayette, it were a Ward 8 school where a few kids were moving from Pre-K to 1st because of this issue? Or is it simply inconceivable that any parent in Ward 8 would want this? Or insist on it when it is best for them and their class?

So no answers to this one.

+1

What about if an un-housed child moves from pre-K in MCPS to DCPS and turns 6 before September 30th (MCPS cutoff is 9/1). The parent and previous teachers want the child to go to Kindergarten.

What would you say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know why I should penalize my kid for the sake of other kids if I felt they (it’s always a boy though) needed to mature a year before kindergarten, and I don’t see why it’s a problem for other people to do it as well. I can see an argument for limiting it to a year, but frankly we’re probably moving to a world where we’re going to hold boys back more anyway- they just mature much more slowly than girls do.

As for “others can’t do it so you shouldn’t get to” that’s just silly. I can’t fly private so I fly commercial, but I don’t care if others do. It’s not obviously going to create a better world- and there’s not a hint of evidence that holding kids back is bad- limiting my ability to hold my kid back because other parents don’t have their act together.

I agree that parents, teachers, and principals working together should be able to make this call as needed, and think that parents should not be able to make the call unilaterally. But my biggest issue is that the latter is not equally available to everyone in DCPS. Our school is a universal "no" to red-shirting, and I've heard of parents at many other schools with the same experience. It is completely unfair for this to be a secret option for just some parents at some schools. One way or another, whatever policy they are enforcing should be uniform within DCPS.

As the author of the post you’re replying to, I fully agree. People should advocate for change at the system level and stop trying to bend the rules

Well the problem is there are no “rules” as you’re purporting. The language is vague which I’m assuming was actually intentional to give flexibility.

For the anti-redshirters to be correct, the language would need to say that at 5 by 9/30 you need to be enrolled in kindergarten and at 6 by 9/30 you must be enrolled in 1st grade.

This is not what the ‘policy’ says

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if instead of Lafayette, it were a Ward 8 school where a few kids were moving from Pre-K to 1st because of this issue? Or is it simply inconceivable that any parent in Ward 8 would want this? Or insist on it when it is best for them and their class?

So no answers to this one.

+1

What about if an un-housed child moves from pre-K in MCPS to DCPS and turns 6 before September 30th (MCPS cutoff is 9/1). The parent and previous teachers want the child to go to Kindergarten.

What would you say?

You think this is some gotcha? the rules says - he goes to 1st then the principal has discretion to send him to K or retain in 1st.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know why I should penalize my kid for the sake of other kids if I felt they (it’s always a boy though) needed to mature a year before kindergarten, and I don’t see why it’s a problem for other people to do it as well. I can see an argument for limiting it to a year, but frankly we’re probably moving to a world where we’re going to hold boys back more anyway- they just mature much more slowly than girls do.

As for “others can’t do it so you shouldn’t get to” that’s just silly. I can’t fly private so I fly commercial, but I don’t care if others do. It’s not obviously going to create a better world- and there’s not a hint of evidence that holding kids back is bad- limiting my ability to hold my kid back because other parents don’t have their act together.

I agree that parents, teachers, and principals working together should be able to make this call as needed, and think that parents should not be able to make the call unilaterally. But my biggest issue is that the latter is not equally available to everyone in DCPS. Our school is a universal "no" to red-shirting, and I've heard of parents at many other schools with the same experience. It is completely unfair for this to be a secret option for just some parents at some schools. One way or another, whatever policy they are enforcing should be uniform within DCPS.

As the author of the post you’re replying to, I fully agree. People should advocate for change at the system level and stop trying to bend the rules

Well the problem is there are no “rules” as you’re purporting. The language is vague which I’m assuming was actually intentional to give flexibility.

For the anti-redshirters to be correct, the language would need to say that at 5 by 9/30 you need to be enrolled in kindergarten and at 6 by 9/30 you must be enrolled in 1st grade.

This is not what the ‘policy’ says

lol the policy is actually very clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know why I should penalize my kid for the sake of other kids if I felt they (it’s always a boy though) needed to mature a year before kindergarten, and I don’t see why it’s a problem for other people to do it as well. I can see an argument for limiting it to a year, but frankly we’re probably moving to a world where we’re going to hold boys back more anyway- they just mature much more slowly than girls do.

As for “others can’t do it so you shouldn’t get to” that’s just silly. I can’t fly private so I fly commercial, but I don’t care if others do. It’s not obviously going to create a better world- and there’s not a hint of evidence that holding kids back is bad- limiting my ability to hold my kid back because other parents don’t have their act together.

I agree that parents, teachers, and principals working together should be able to make this call as needed, and think that parents should not be able to make the call unilaterally. But my biggest issue is that the latter is not equally available to everyone in DCPS. Our school is a universal "no" to red-shirting, and I've heard of parents at many other schools with the same experience. It is completely unfair for this to be a secret option for just some parents at some schools. One way or another, whatever policy they are enforcing should be uniform within DCPS.

As the author of the post you’re replying to, I fully agree. People should advocate for change at the system level and stop trying to bend the rules

Well the problem is there are no “rules” as you’re purporting. The language is vague which I’m assuming was actually intentional to give flexibility.

For the anti-redshirters to be correct, the language would need to say that at 5 by 9/30 you need to be enrolled in kindergarten and at 6 by 9/30 you must be enrolled in 1st grade.

This is not what the ‘policy’ says

lol the policy is actually very clear.

Ok does it say when a child is 6 before 9/30 they must go to 1st grade?

Can you point to where that is? It’s possible I’m not seeing it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if instead of Lafayette, it were a Ward 8 school where a few kids were moving from Pre-K to 1st because of this issue? Or is it simply inconceivable that any parent in Ward 8 would want this? Or insist on it when it is best for them and their class?

So no answers to this one.

+1

What about if an un-housed child moves from pre-K in MCPS to DCPS and turns 6 before September 30th (MCPS cutoff is 9/1). The parent and previous teachers want the child to go to Kindergarten.

What would you say?

You think this is some gotcha? the rules says - he goes to 1st then the principal has discretion to send him to K or retain in 1st.

No no. You can’t have it both ways.

The current policy allows for discretion. You all anti-redshirters are arguing there should be no discretion.

The child would go to 1st and as Prall and Caruthers have said, teachers would differentiate their learning and if they failed 1st grade then they’d be retained.

I’m so sorry, but it definitely got ya.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if instead of Lafayette, it were a Ward 8 school where a few kids were moving from Pre-K to 1st because of this issue? Or is it simply inconceivable that any parent in Ward 8 would want this? Or insist on it when it is best for them and their class?

So no answers to this one.

+1

What about if an un-housed child moves from pre-K in MCPS to DCPS and turns 6 before September 30th (MCPS cutoff is 9/1). The parent and previous teachers want the child to go to Kindergarten.

What would you say?

You think this is some gotcha? the rules says - he goes to 1st then the principal has discretion to send him to K or retain in 1st.

No no. You can’t have it both ways.

The current policy allows for discretion. You all anti-redshirters are arguing there should be no discretion.

The child would go to 1st and as Prall and Caruthers have said, teachers would differentiate their learning and if they failed 1st grade then they’d be retained.

I’m so sorry, but it definitely got ya.

I think you are extremely confused. The current policy allows principals discretion. These folks had their principal say no. It’s that simple. Discretion for the principal does not mean do whatever rich white people want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if instead of Lafayette, it were a Ward 8 school where a few kids were moving from Pre-K to 1st because of this issue? Or is it simply inconceivable that any parent in Ward 8 would want this? Or insist on it when it is best for them and their class?

So no answers to this one.

+1

What about if an un-housed child moves from pre-K in MCPS to DCPS and turns 6 before September 30th (MCPS cutoff is 9/1). The parent and previous teachers want the child to go to Kindergarten.

What would you say?

You think this is some gotcha? the rules says - he goes to 1st then the principal has discretion to send him to K or retain in 1st.

No no. You can’t have it both ways.

The current policy allows for discretion. You all anti-redshirters are arguing there should be no discretion.

The child would go to 1st and as Prall and Caruthers have said, teachers would differentiate their learning and if they failed 1st grade then they’d be retained.

I’m so sorry, but it definitely got ya.

I think you are extremely confused. The current policy allows principals discretion. These folks had their principal say no. It’s that simple. Discretion for the principal does not mean do whatever rich white people want.

The question is what type of discretion and why?

Why is a child with documented developmental disabilities being told to go to 1st?

Why is DCPS pulling students out of pre-K now and moving them to K when they’re already enrolled in DCPS prek4?

Why won’t they let a child moving from Florida with a clear age policy enter into K, the next consecutive grade?

So, either there is discretion and the discretion is abhorrent or there’s no discretion and DCPS is backpedaling to cover their own __, and/or the combination of above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if instead of Lafayette, it were a Ward 8 school where a few kids were moving from Pre-K to 1st because of this issue? Or is it simply inconceivable that any parent in Ward 8 would want this? Or insist on it when it is best for them and their class?

So no answers to this one.

+1

What about if an un-housed child moves from pre-K in MCPS to DCPS and turns 6 before September 30th (MCPS cutoff is 9/1). The parent and previous teachers want the child to go to Kindergarten.

What would you say?

You think this is some gotcha? the rules says - he goes to 1st then the principal has discretion to send him to K or retain in 1st.

No no. You can’t have it both ways.

The current policy allows for discretion. You all anti-redshirters are arguing there should be no discretion.

The child would go to 1st and as Prall and Caruthers have said, teachers would differentiate their learning and if they failed 1st grade then they’d be retained.

I’m so sorry, but it definitely got ya.

I think you are extremely confused. The current policy allows principals discretion. These folks had their principal say no. It’s that simple. Discretion for the principal does not mean do whatever rich white people want.

But I think you’re confused because you said above that they would send the child to 1st. No discretion.

Would that really be in the best interest of the child? Even if there is no IEP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m new to the post. Redshirting should be illegal. Kids are 10 in my child’s 3rd grade class while some are 8.

Should retention also be illegal?

Retention why? We are not talking kids with issues. We are talking about typical kid with no concerns. It’s not healthy to hold back kids.

Why? So your kid doesn’t have 10 year olds and 8 year olds together.

Do you really think it’s developmentally appropriate? If the ten year old is having maturity issues, being with 8 years olds will make it worse vs better as then they behave like 8 years olds olds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know why I should penalize my kid for the sake of other kids if I felt they (it’s always a boy though) needed to mature a year before kindergarten, and I don’t see why it’s a problem for other people to do it as well. I can see an argument for limiting it to a year, but frankly we’re probably moving to a world where we’re going to hold boys back more anyway- they just mature much more slowly than girls do.

As for “others can’t do it so you shouldn’t get to” that’s just silly. I can’t fly private so I fly commercial, but I don’t care if others do. It’s not obviously going to create a better world- and there’s not a hint of evidence that holding kids back is bad- limiting my ability to hold my kid back because other parents don’t have their act together.

I agree that parents, teachers, and principals working together should be able to make this call as needed, and think that parents should not be able to make the call unilaterally. But my biggest issue is that the latter is not equally available to everyone in DCPS. Our school is a universal "no" to red-shirting, and I've heard of parents at many other schools with the same experience. It is completely unfair for this to be a secret option for just some parents at some schools. One way or another, whatever policy they are enforcing should be uniform within DCPS.

As the author of the post you’re replying to, I fully agree. People should advocate for change at the system level and stop trying to bend the rules

Well the problem is there are no “rules” as you’re purporting. The language is vague which I’m assuming was actually intentional to give flexibility.

For the anti-redshirters to be correct, the language would need to say that at 5 by 9/30 you need to be enrolled in kindergarten and at 6 by 9/30 you must be enrolled in 1st grade.

This is not what the ‘policy’ says

lol the policy is actually very clear.

Ok does it say when a child is 6 before 9/30 they must go to 1st grade?

Can you point to where that is? It’s possible I’m not seeing it

They don't give an age for every grade through 12th because you just follow along from the starting age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if instead of Lafayette, it were a Ward 8 school where a few kids were moving from Pre-K to 1st because of this issue? Or is it simply inconceivable that any parent in Ward 8 would want this? Or insist on it when it is best for them and their class?

So no answers to this one.

+1

What about if an un-housed child moves from pre-K in MCPS to DCPS and turns 6 before September 30th (MCPS cutoff is 9/1). The parent and previous teachers want the child to go to Kindergarten.

What would you say?

You think this is some gotcha? the rules says - he goes to 1st then the principal has discretion to send him to K or retain in 1st.

No no. You can’t have it both ways.

The current policy allows for discretion. You all anti-redshirters are arguing there should be no discretion.

The child would go to 1st and as Prall and Caruthers have said, teachers would differentiate their learning and if they failed 1st grade then they’d be retained.

I’m so sorry, but it definitely got ya.

I think you are extremely confused. The current policy allows principals discretion. These folks had their principal say no. It’s that simple. Discretion for the principal does not mean do whatever rich white people want.

This. There's not a lot of exemptions but they do happen and these people are just pitching an absolute fit because the principal they screamed about to the press in the winter didn't agree to provide them the exemption they just assumed they'd get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the DCPS parents here who support the K enrollment policies and want to see them better enforced, have you found a productive way outside DCUM to voice your concerns?

It’s only one crazy parent and she’s not even in DCPS. Her story changes depending on the forum she’s posting on.

Honestly it’s just a paranoid idiot at this point.

What on earth are you talking about?

It’s not a bunch of parents complaining about redshirting, it’s just one crazy cat lady. No amount of sock puppeting is going to change that. In that respect your stupidity is quite unique.

I haven’t met a single parent in real life objecting to other kids being held back.

I am not whoever you have been responding to previously and I absolutely object to parents redshirting kids unilaterally in DCPS. With school and/or teacher support? Absolutely. Making the choice unilaterally? No. I don't want DCPSes to become like private schools where the "official" cutoff and the actual cutoff are entirely different. It absolutely disadvantages poor kids who don't have options. And certainly parents shouldn't get two bites at PK lotteries for desirable placements. I would actually guess that the majority of parents have broadly similar views. Certainly they do on this thread. If your takeaway from this thread is that most posters support the NW parents pushing this then you are truly delusional.

Yeah, I know the usual sock puppet techniques: new poster, DP, +1, not the poster you replied to, etc. you’re not fooling anyone, crazy cat lady.

I’ve been involved in the PTA, know many parents, not once have I heard anyone even hint at complaining about other kids being held back. Most often people would say something along the lines of “he was immature for his age”, and the response is “parents know their kids better”.

You’re taking this to Internet forums with so much gusto because your comments were not received well in real life, with a mix of confusion and disgust.

When talking with someone I know to be volatile and aggressive, I will generally respond in a fairly neutral way regardless of my actual feelings on the matter. Based on the way you've conducted yourself in this thread, I'm guessing the parents you know know better than to say what they might actually think around you.

Thats right, in real life you’re neutral because you wouldn’t dare bring the crazy crap your posting here to other parents face. You’re crazy, delusional and a coward to top it off.

At least I volunteered my time to better the community in some way. All you have to offer is the jealous irrational fear that other kids are getting ahead of yours. I bet that’s making you very popular among other parents!

You’re not doing the parents of Lafayette any favors. Now the principal has her hackles up, and we’re getting embarrassing press. I have no strong opinion on red shirting, but I do have a strong opinion about your behavior, and it’s 100% been a detriment to the community, prior volunteer service or no.