Genuinely don't get why redshirting in K is allowed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The current "rule" allows basically any parent to redshirt at basically any time. Not much of a rule, is it.

It does? How? Where? In Maryland, any parent is allowed to redshirt a 5-year-old for one year -- which is not what I, personally, consider "at basically any time".

Are you this literal in real life or only online? Do you genuinely not see the point of this post? There is redshirting allowed with no documented need other than parental preference.

Yes, there is. Those are the rules. If you don't like the rules, start working to change the rules.

How many times are you going to regurgitate that line without making any point at all? WHAT are the rules? You're not even making sense now.

The rule is that the school system allows parents to redshirt their children for kindergarten based on parental preference. You don't like this rule. But it is a rule.

[Anonymous]

It allows them almost an entire year's leeway though which is too large a timeframe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It allows them almost an entire year's leeway though which is too large a timeframe.

According to whom?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It allows them almost an entire year's leeway though which is too large a timeframe.

According to whom?

Let me go further. Too large according to what evidence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It allows them almost an entire year's leeway though which is too large a timeframe.

According to whom?

Yes, the argument here is basically,

1. The school system lets parents do a thing that I don't think the school system ought to let parents do, because
2. The thing is bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It allows them almost an entire year's leeway though which is too large a timeframe.

According to whom?

Yes, the argument here is basically,

1. The school system lets parents do a thing that I don't think the school system ought to let parents do, because
2. The thing is bad.

Wow. God exists.

Maybe you can move off of this obsession you have with other parents parenting choices and set us all straight on some other parenting issues. Clearly you got this one all figured out for all of us.

[Anonymous]

So much nonsense in this thread. I chose not to send my five year old to kindergarten. Why? It's none of your business. I had a reason and it wasn't to gain a competitive advantage over your kid. We don't approach education as a competition. It's pitiful to see adults worrying about another child having an advantage in kindergarten. What are you afraid is going to happen to your child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So much nonsense in this thread. I chose not to send my five year old to kindergarten. Why? It's none of your business. I had a reason and it wasn't to gain a competitive advantage over your kid. We don't approach education as a competition. It's pitiful to see adults worrying about another child having an advantage in kindergarten. What are you afraid is going to happen to your child?

Same here. Of course we all try to do what's best for our kids with the resources and information we have available, hopefully with a long view to raising well-adjusted adults. Don't understand why people on here seem to view it as a zero sum game.

[Anonymous]

People should leave redshirting parents alone. They know better than anyone if their child is incapable of handling a Kindergarten class. I would prefer that when my child goes to Kindergarten they are not in class with a bunch of kids who cannot manage being there.

If your child is in no shape to go to Kindergarten, keep them out for another year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a limit to redshirting within the first year? I don't know of any.

A child who turns six on Sept 2 (and so would naturally be the oldest in the K class in MD) can still redshirt, right? So there is nothing stopping a 7 year old from being in K, is there? Surely we can agree that that's a whacky system, and maybe SOME limits and guidelines should be implemented. We're already starting to get April and May parents asking about redshirting right here on DCUM.

After reading this whole thread I'm pretty convinced that giving parents the discretion to choose when to start school (up to 1 year late) is actually perfectly reasonable. Are all of you anti-redshirters this willing to let the government (state in this case) into other affairs in your home? -signed no dog in this fight

The govt is in your affairs either way. Yes, I am fine with it and we have had govt in our home due to my husbands job, being caretakers for an elderly resident and more. Even early intervention is govt in your home. We have nothing to hide. I do not agree with holding kids back. We did, regretted it and pushed our kid forward. The forward is so much better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think at least part of the frustration is that school districts make it nearly impossible for a child to start even two months early, but a kid can start up to a year late. So if you have a kid who is ready for K at 4.75 years old, they simply aren't allowed to start early, regardless of how mature and academically prepared they may be.
So on one hand, the school is saying "all that matters is the age - we can educate any child within the same age range" when talking to parents of advanced kids and then in the next breath saying that "age doesn't matter, maturity is what counts" when saying parents can chose to hold their kids back.

So which is it? Can the school adequately educate all children of the same age span in the same classroom (with the notable exception of those kids with severe enough disabilities as to not be mainstreamed)? If so, then why doesn't a kid who is six and being enrolled for the first time go into first grade? If not, then why don't the schools recognize that just as some kids may benefit from being older than normal, others may benefit from being younger than normal?

A little consistency in the policies would be nice.

That's a great point. Is there parental discretion or isn't there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People should leave redshirting parents alone. They know better than anyone if their child is incapable of handling a Kindergarten class. I would prefer that when my child goes to Kindergarten they are not in class with a bunch of kids who cannot manage being there.

If your child is in no shape to go to Kindergarten, keep them out for another year.

You will notice no way unless you give your kid the opportunity and if they cannot handle it, then remove them or have them repeat. Why underestimate kids. Many will rise to the challenge if supported.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That's a great point. Is there parental discretion or isn't there?

There is limited parental discretion. Why does it have to be all or nothing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People should leave redshirting parents alone. They know better than anyone if their child is incapable of handling a Kindergarten class. I would prefer that when my child goes to Kindergarten they are not in class with a bunch of kids who cannot manage being there.

If your child is in no shape to go to Kindergarten, keep them out for another year.

Cannot "manage" being there? What does that even mean? There will be more mature kids and less mature kids. There will be academically advanced kids, and academically behind kids. There is no way to create a 'fair' system of clones with identical abilities, despite what redshirting parents claim to think.

Most do it to try to get their kid a leg up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think at least part of the frustration is that school districts make it nearly impossible for a child to start even two months early, but a kid can start up to a year late. So if you have a kid who is ready for K at 4.75 years old, they simply aren't allowed to start early, regardless of how mature and academically prepared they may be.
So on one hand, the school is saying "all that matters is the age - we can educate any child within the same age range" when talking to parents of advanced kids and then in the next breath saying that "age doesn't matter, maturity is what counts" when saying parents can chose to hold their kids back.

So which is it? Can the school adequately educate all children of the same age span in the same classroom (with the notable exception of those kids with severe enough disabilities as to not be mainstreamed)? If so, then why doesn't a kid who is six and being enrolled for the first time go into first grade? If not, then why don't the schools recognize that just as some kids may benefit from being older than normal, others may benefit from being younger than normal?

A little consistency in the policies would be nice.

That's a great point. Is there parental discretion or isn't there?

Actually I think the cases are easily distinguished: in the case of holding your kid back, the parents assume the responsibility of having made the wrong decision. In the case of sending early, the schools must then assume the responsibility of caring for a child that is not ready. It's easy to see why the requirements are one-sided.