Redshirting consequences at Lafayette

post reply Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

◄ 1 2 3 ... 58 59 60 ... 86 87 88 ► Go

Go to page...

06/13/2025 10:23

Subject: Redshirting consequences at Lafayette

quote

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.