a solution to the redshirting debate?

[Anonymous]

I believe in one district (out west), you cannot redshirt your child unless you have a doctor's note, ie, developmental delay, etc.

[Anonymous]

Aren’t cogat and other tests now age-scaled?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not this debate again. Stay in your lane. It is none of your business what parents decide for their children.

It is my business if my kid has to compete against someone 13 months older than them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe in one district (out west), you cannot redshirt your child unless you have a doctor's note, ie, developmental delay, etc.

Then everyone will claim developmental delay. If you need a note then there should be a heavily documented evaluation and services and solid reason why. Most kids with developmental days are not in heavy private services so they are much better off starting on time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not this debate again. Stay in your lane. It is none of your business what parents decide for their children.

It is my business if my kid has to compete against someone 13 months older than them.

It can be more than 13 months. My child is a September kid so if someone holds back their March, April, May, June kid, its far more of an age spread than 13 months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t cogat and other tests now age-scaled?

Cogat is both age and grade normed but schools will look at grade mainly, not age. My child gets in the 99% for age but mid 90's, sometimes higher for grade as he's one of the absolute youngest so its impossible grade wise for him to compete for magnet slots (though not concerned as his middle school has a program for math and other ones and he's getting better he'd get at a magnet).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not this debate again. Stay in your lane. It is none of your business what parents decide for their children.

It is my business if my kid has to compete against someone 13 months older than them.

It can be more than 13 months. My child is a September kid so if someone holds back their March, April, May, June kid, its far more of an age spread than 13 months.

Why would anyone do that? A kid born in June is already on the older half. I guess they want their kid to be at-least 7 months older than any other kid. If holding back a child who's already slated to be on the older half doesn't scream greed, I don't know what does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe in one district (out west), you cannot redshirt your child unless you have a doctor's note, ie, developmental delay, etc.

Then everyone will claim developmental delay. If you need a note then there should be a heavily documented evaluation and services and solid reason why. Most kids with developmental days are not in heavy private services so they are much better off starting on time.

I assume if the doctor agrees then yes, the child is delayed. I guess you could have dishonest or lazy doctors who just write up whatever the parent wants, though.

FWIW, both my kids are summer babies, and they both started on time. They have always been the smallest and weakest, one of the more immature kids. Academically, never an issue. They are in MS/HS but still one of the smallest, and still doing really great academically.

[Anonymous]

Meh, I didn't redshirt my June baby and I regret it. Here I am know, considering holding her back to repeat k. She was clearly not ready and I refuse to compound on the problem by sending her to 1st if she is not ready.

It didn't even occur to me to hold her back to "give her an advantage".... I would much rather my kids have the time to take a year off after HS. But she was immature then and is now at what a K student should be halfway through - maturity and knowledge wise.

I was disheartened, but then I began thinking... I went to K at 6 and was taught to read at 7, in 1st grade. I learned very quickly. Maybe she really just need this extra year.

My other child, born in January, never had any problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not this debate again. Stay in your lane. It is none of your business what parents decide for their children.

It is my business if my kid has to compete against someone 13 months older than them.

For college applications your kid will have to compete against older kids. This is because privates, Publics, states, and countries all have different cutoffs from one another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not this debate again. Stay in your lane. It is none of your business what parents decide for their children.

It is my business if my kid has to compete against someone 13 months older than them.

It can be more than 13 months. My child is a September kid so if someone holds back their March, April, May, June kid, its far more of an age spread than 13 months.

Why would anyone do that? A kid born in June is already on the older half. I guess they want their kid to be at-least 7 months older than any other kid. If holding back a child who's already slated to be on the older half doesn't scream greed, I don't know what does.

My friend redshirted her early July daughter; the girl repeated 1st grade. The girl had reading issues. She was not pleased about doing this because our school had universal pk3 and pk4. She had done pk4, Kindergarten, and 1st (first time around), then she went to 2nd grade for about a month before dropping back with one group of kids and then her parent yanked her and she had to make all new friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not this debate again. Stay in your lane. It is none of your business what parents decide for their children.

It is my business if my kid has to compete against someone 13 months older than them.

It can be more than 13 months. My child is a September kid so if someone holds back their March, April, May, June kid, its far more of an age spread than 13 months.

Why would anyone do that? A kid born in June is already on the older half. I guess they want their kid to be at-least 7 months older than any other kid. If holding back a child who's already slated to be on the older half doesn't scream greed, I don't know what does.

Kids born in June are not in the older half. Even if no one redshirted, the cut off is Sept 30 (Loudoun, Fairfax) or Sept 1 (Moco.) Either way June kids are in the youngest quarter and even more so due to redshirting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not this debate again. Stay in your lane. It is none of your business what parents decide for their children.

It is my business if my kid has to compete against someone 13 months older than them.

It can be more than 13 months. My child is a September kid so if someone holds back their March, April, May, June kid, its far more of an age spread than 13 months.

Why would anyone do that? A kid born in June is already on the older half. I guess they want their kid to be at-least 7 months older than any other kid. If holding back a child who's already slated to be on the older half doesn't scream greed, I don't know what does.

Kids born in June are not in the older half. Even if no one redshirted, the cut off is Sept 30 (Loudoun, Fairfax) or Sept 1 (Moco.) Either way June kids are in the youngest quarter and even more so due to redshirting.

Your post makes no sense. June kids are not the youngest as the cut off is September. My child is a September kid. He is the youngest or one of the youngest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not this debate again. Stay in your lane. It is none of your business what parents decide for their children.

It is my business if my kid has to compete against someone 13 months older than them.

It can be more than 13 months. My child is a September kid so if someone holds back their March, April, May, June kid, its far more of an age spread than 13 months.

Why would anyone do that? A kid born in June is already on the older half. I guess they want their kid to be at-least 7 months older than any other kid. If holding back a child who's already slated to be on the older half doesn't scream greed, I don't know what does.

My friend redshirted her early July daughter; the girl repeated 1st grade. The girl had reading issues. She was not pleased about doing this because our school had universal pk3 and pk4. She had done pk4, Kindergarten, and 1st (first time around), then she went to 2nd grade for about a month before dropping back with one group of kids and then her parent yanked her and she had to make all new friends.

That makes no sense. You fight for a good IEP and get private tutoring. It seems easier to hold a child back than actually put the work into helping as some parents expect the schools to do everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not this debate again. Stay in your lane. It is none of your business what parents decide for their children.

It is my business if my kid has to compete against someone 13 months older than them.

It can be more than 13 months. My child is a September kid so if someone holds back their March, April, May, June kid, its far more of an age spread than 13 months.

Why would anyone do that? A kid born in June is already on the older half. I guess they want their kid to be at-least 7 months older than any other kid. If holding back a child who's already slated to be on the older half doesn't scream greed, I don't know what does.

My friend redshirted her early July daughter; the girl repeated 1st grade. The girl had reading issues. She was not pleased about doing this because our school had universal pk3 and pk4. She had done pk4, Kindergarten, and 1st (first time around), then she went to 2nd grade for about a month before dropping back with one group of kids and then her parent yanked her and she had to make all new friends.

That makes no sense. You fight for a good IEP and get private tutoring. It seems easier to hold a child back than actually put the work into helping as some parents expect the schools to do everything.

The entitlement and blindness of DCUM'S anti-redshirt posters is unreal. It always surprises me, but as I think they are an extremely sheltered and hypocritical group in general, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.