Redshirting consequences at Lafayette

[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

The language is not vague at all. The statute clearly states that enrollment is compulsory in the year the child turns 5 prior to sep 30. then the regulations make clear that once the child is duly enrolled in DCPS, retention is at the discretion of the principal (although a parent has to agree with retention for a PK or K student). DCPS interpretation of the regulations makes very clear that children must be placed in the grade corresponding to the age cutoff. https://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcps/page_content/attachments/Pre-Kindergarten%20and%20Kindergarten%20Enrollment%2C%20Promotions%2C%20and%20Retentions%20FAQs%20for%20Parents%20and%20Guardians%20December%202022.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I think if a parent shows up with a 6 year old who has never been enrolled in an educational program under DC law, then yes, it is appropriate to place that child in the grade that corresponds to their age (1st) and then in the first few weeks of school assess whether the child would benefit from being sent to K. I actually think this is a wholly reasonable way to approach it. The flip side is that parents convinced their kid is not ready for K need to enroll the child in K, then in the first few weeks make their case that the child should be sent to PK4 based on what the teachers are seeing. Or they can argue for K to be repeated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I hesitate to even wade into the arguments of the pp you’re responding to because they are either trolling or not reachable by rational thought, but I think what they are saying in this case is that even if you ban red-shirting, you can end up with age differences like 10 and 8 in class by holding back kids who are below grade level.

But that is obviously done in collaboration with teachers and the principal (and, frankly, not done enough in DCPS), and as everyone has repeated several times the problem in the current situation is these parents trying to unilaterally make the call and go over the principal’s head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They actually do give an age for 1st in the regulations, the handbook, and the 2022 FAQ on this subject (all already linked in this thread), but PP has been arguing that it's written in a way that you could interpret it as a "must be at least this age" rule and not a "must be exactly this age" rule. Actual intent is quite obvious, but in any case at the very least these parents should have sought clarification before the start of this school year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They actually do give an age for 1st in the regulations, the handbook, and the 2022 FAQ on this subject (all already linked in this thread), but PP has been arguing that it's written in a way that you could interpret it as a "must be at least this age" rule and not a "must be exactly this age" rule. Actual intent is quite obvious, but in any case at the very least these parents should have sought clarification before the start of this school year.

What the parents should have done is sent their kids to K then asked to repeat the year, which is actually what the regs and policy allow. But they are too good to follow the rules and think their kids need special treatment … but not TOO special because of course they are not one of those SPED kids who have to repeat K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They actually do give an age for 1st in the regulations, the handbook, and the 2022 FAQ on this subject (all already linked in this thread), but PP has been arguing that it's written in a way that you could interpret it as a "must be at least this age" rule and not a "must be exactly this age" rule. Actual intent is quite obvious, but in any case at the very least these parents should have sought clarification before the start of this school year.

The only parents who read the rule as just an age minimum and not as a requirement you must be enrolled in school by that time are people who want to skirt the clear anti-redshirting position of DCPS to redshirt. It's people who are being disingenuously tricky with the rule, not people who just read the rule and thought, in good faith, that's what it meant.

As evidenced by the fact that 99% of the school district has ZERO redshirted kids (I'm not including kids who have IEPs or who may be placed back in PK4 after starting K based on teacher and administrative recommendations, only kids whose parents simply don't enroll them in K until age 6). If the rule were unclear or vague, this would be a widespread issue. It is not. Everyone understands the rule, a small number of parents hoped to skirt the rule on a technicality because that had been previously overlooked at their school by a principal eager to cater to wealthy, demanding parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They actually do give an age for 1st in the regulations, the handbook, and the 2022 FAQ on this subject (all already linked in this thread), but PP has been arguing that it's written in a way that you could interpret it as a "must be at least this age" rule and not a "must be exactly this age" rule. Actual intent is quite obvious, but in any case at the very least these parents should have sought clarification before the start of this school year.

What the parents should have done is sent their kids to K then asked to repeat the year, which is actually what the regs and policy allow. But they are too good to follow the rules and think their kids need special treatment … but not TOO special because of course they are not one of those SPED kids who have to repeat K.

The irony here is that if they sent their kids to K on time, they almost certainly would have done fine, been at or above grade level, and it would be a non-issue.

[Anonymous]

DCPS is going down the drain. So busy with infighting over irrelevant details. No wonder why other public school systems are light years ahead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCPS is going down the drain. So busy with infighting over irrelevant details. No wonder why other public school systems are light years ahead.

How is it DCPS's fault when people of extreme privilege stomp their feet and cry to the media when a school doesn't bend to their every whim? This isn't "infighting."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS is going down the drain. So busy with infighting over irrelevant details. No wonder why other public school systems are light years ahead.

How is it DCPS's fault when people of extreme privilege stomp their feet and cry to the media when a school doesn't bend to their every whim? This isn't "infighting."

Says every five-year-old who gets into a playground skirmish. “He started it” is not an argument that top school districts make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS is going down the drain. So busy with infighting over irrelevant details. No wonder why other public school systems are light years ahead.

How is it DCPS's fault when people of extreme privilege stomp their feet and cry to the media when a school doesn't bend to their every whim? This isn't "infighting."

Says every five-year-old who gets into a playground skirmish. “He started it” is not an argument that top school districts make.

Plenty of top school districts don't allow unilateral redshirting.

I hope you've come to realize that you are arguing against the entire thread at this point. There don't appear to be any other posters on your side. To the extent that anyone is seeing your media campaign, letters to PTOs, etc and coming here for more info, you are really doing a huge amount of damage to your cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS is going down the drain. So busy with infighting over irrelevant details. No wonder why other public school systems are light years ahead.

How is it DCPS's fault when people of extreme privilege stomp their feet and cry to the media when a school doesn't bend to their every whim? This isn't "infighting."

Says every five-year-old who gets into a playground skirmish. “He started it” is not an argument that top school districts make.

Plenty of top school districts don't allow unilateral redshirting.

I hope you've come to realize that you are arguing against the entire thread at this point. There don't appear to be any other posters on your side. To the extent that anyone is seeing your media campaign, letters to PTOs, etc and coming here for more info, you are really doing a huge amount of damage to your cause.

Neither side is just one poster. Please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS is going down the drain. So busy with infighting over irrelevant details. No wonder why other public school systems are light years ahead.

How is it DCPS's fault when people of extreme privilege stomp their feet and cry to the media when a school doesn't bend to their every whim? This isn't "infighting."

Says every five-year-old who gets into a playground skirmish. “He started it” is not an argument that top school districts make.

Plenty of top school districts don't allow unilateral redshirting.

I hope you've come to realize that you are arguing against the entire thread at this point. There don't appear to be any other posters on your side. To the extent that anyone is seeing your media campaign, letters to PTOs, etc and coming here for more info, you are really doing a huge amount of damage to your cause.

Neither side is just one poster. Please.

There is 100% one poster posting repeatedly in the last 3-4 pages; I think they are actually the only pro-unilateral redshirting poster in those pages. They aren’t sock puppeting because they don’t pretend to be anyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS is going down the drain. So busy with infighting over irrelevant details. No wonder why other public school systems are light years ahead.

How is it DCPS's fault when people of extreme privilege stomp their feet and cry to the media when a school doesn't bend to their every whim? This isn't "infighting."

Says every five-year-old who gets into a playground skirmish. “He started it” is not an argument that top school districts make.

Plenty of top school districts don't allow unilateral redshirting.

I hope you've come to realize that you are arguing against the entire thread at this point. There don't appear to be any other posters on your side. To the extent that anyone is seeing your media campaign, letters to PTOs, etc and coming here for more info, you are really doing a huge amount of damage to your cause.

I'm pretty sure Westchester, NY doesn't allow it.

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/14/upshot/boys-kindergarten-redshirting.html