Has anyone “redshirted” a January kid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would not as that's a huge hold back. You are military. You have tricare. Go to the on base developmental ped and they will help you get what you need - OT, PT, ST and/or ABA. Get your child help vs.holdback. He will be more than 9 months as the cut off is 9/1 in less you test in so kids will be significantly younger. Our experience is that our child acted much younger with younger kids and did better being the youngest vs. the oldest.

Did you post this just to prove your knowledge of Tricare insurances? We have obviously been getting him help.

Wow, OP. PP was just trying to help, but you've proven incredibly ungrateful and I have the feeling you've already decided and you just want people to pat you on the back. You should ask Jeff to delete this thread, it's useless.

I’m not ungrateful just irritated when people post “get him therapy”- like it never occurred to me to get my child help. I’ve been advocating to get him help since he was two years old and could probably give a seminar on it at this point.

You never said that you were or were not getting your child therapies. A lot of parents don't do therapies outside the school system, even if they have tricare. Tricare and Medicaid are the only two insurances that are very generous with private therapies. It makes no sense to hold back a January child. Some of us have kids with SN and are military and/or faced this as we were close or past the cut off date.

What answer are you looking for? Yes, plan to hold back your child.

Did you read the title of my thread? It has the question right there. I’m hoping to hear from people with experience holding back their kids (or who know kids who were held back). Positive and negative experiences are both informative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So again, how old is too old? If 6y8m isn’t too old to start K, how old is? This is not a rhetorical question - I’d like to hear answers from redshirt supporters.

I am strongly in favor of flexibility because from what I see, most parents have a decent sense of their child's readiness. I guess you could say it's pro-redshirting but what I am really in favor of is flexibility. Some kids strongly benefit by an earlier start, some by a later start. (I think this strict cookie cutter date approach is bananas.) It doesn't surprise me that the only large-scale study of the impact of relative age on ADHD medication/diagnosis where relative age didn't correlate to diagnosis was from the Netherlands, which is very flexible about starting year and allows for a lot of parental discretion. IMO that model is much better. Anti-redshirt DCUM posters are all about crazy slippery slope arguments, but I doubt that would happen in practice.

To answer your specific question, I think having a rule that kids have to be in school by the time they are seven is reasonable. Alternatively I think a two-year age range would be okay: you can elect entry in one of two years. I think in practice this how things work in the Netherlands: kids are given a wide starting age range from 5-7. It seems like a reasonable approach.

My child (not redshirted) was in a class with a child who was redshirted because of SNs, February birth. There were also other redshirted kids. It was fine. I saw literally none of the supposedly horrid impacts that DCUM's stressed-out anti-redshirt posters said would happen. Kids didn't care, parents (at least the sane, normal ones I hung out with) didn't care. Parents made the right choice as far as I could tell. It was NBD.

Way too reasonable.

[b]Unfortunately the DCUM anti-redshirt posters aren't well known for their reason.[/b]

Oh god, that is an understatement.

I read these discussions since I did Red-shirt my (mid-June) kid years ago, and there is an insane amount of craziness.

With that said, we red-shirted by initially sending to a private Kindergarten, to keep our options open to send onto first or to redo at a public kindergarten. After discussions with teachers and our own observations, we decided it would be best to repeat kindergarten.

Whether that was the best decision, there are pros and cons, but our kid is a leader at their school and full of confidence and very popular and maintains great grades. Whereas our kid plays competitive sports with age peers, they do everything else with their grade-peers.

But after reading DCUM over the years, I came to realize that our private family decision many years ago was actually an aggressive act to exercise our white privilege to specifically try and disadvantage others by hoarding educational advantages. I am so embarrassed now

[Anonymous]

Most counties in the area have rules that a child MUST begin Kindergarten the fall AFTER turning 6. So your child will fall within the acceptable range as defined by the county. If you don't register your child for the fall after they turn 5, you typically need to let your local school know though.

I would definitely recommend enrolling at a local private Kindergarten for next Fall. That way, you have a year and a half to see where he is at before needing to make a more permanent decision. I have known several people who did that. About half went on to enroll them in Kindergarten in public school and the other half enrolled them in 1st grade in public school. But you will have a lot more information to go on at that age.

Good luck OP - this is such a hard decision to make. And people are so judgmental about it, which makes it even harder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most counties in the area have rules that a child MUST begin Kindergarten the fall AFTER turning 6. So your child will fall within the acceptable range as defined by the county. If you don't register your child for the fall after they turn 5, you typically need to let your local school know though.

I would definitely recommend enrolling at a local private Kindergarten for next Fall. That way, you have a year and a half to see where he is at before needing to make a more permanent decision. I have known several people who did that. About half went on to enroll them in Kindergarten in public school and the other half enrolled them in 1st grade in public school. But you will have a lot more information to go on at that age.

Good luck OP - this is such a hard decision to make. And people are so judgmental about it, which makes it even harder.

Thanks for pointing this out. I always thought it was so interesting that people on this board say (angrily) SEND THEM ON TIME! But actually these folks are sending these kids earlier than the law requires. I get why it’s the norm to do so- it’s money. But it’s so normal to send your kid at the minimum age they are eligible that few people actually seem to realize you don’t HAVE to send your kid to school until the fall after they turn 6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So again, how old is too old? If 6y8m isn’t too old to start K, how old is? This is not a rhetorical question - I’d like to hear answers from redshirt supporters.

I am strongly in favor of flexibility because from what I see, most parents have a decent sense of their child's readiness. I guess you could say it's pro-redshirting but what I am really in favor of is flexibility. Some kids strongly benefit by an earlier start, some by a later start. (I think this strict cookie cutter date approach is bananas.) It doesn't surprise me that the only large-scale study of the impact of relative age on ADHD medication/diagnosis where relative age didn't correlate to diagnosis was from the Netherlands, which is very flexible about starting year and allows for a lot of parental discretion. IMO that model is much better. Anti-redshirt DCUM posters are all about crazy slippery slope arguments, but I doubt that would happen in practice.

To answer your specific question, I think having a rule that kids have to be in school by the time they are seven is reasonable. Alternatively I think a two-year age range would be okay: you can elect entry in one of two years. I think in practice this how things work in the Netherlands: kids are given a wide starting age range from 5-7. It seems like a reasonable approach.

My child (not redshirted) was in a class with a child who was redshirted because of SNs, February birth. There were also other redshirted kids. It was fine. I saw literally none of the supposedly horrid impacts that DCUM's stressed-out anti-redshirt posters said would happen. Kids didn't care, parents (at least the sane, normal ones I hung out with) didn't care. Parents made the right choice as far as I could tell. It was NBD.

Way too reasonable.

[b]Unfortunately the DCUM anti-redshirt posters aren't well known for their reason.[/b]

Oh god, that is an understatement.

I read these discussions since I did Red-shirt my (mid-June) kid years ago, and there is an insane amount of craziness.

With that said, we red-shirted by initially sending to a private Kindergarten, to keep our options open to send onto first or to redo at a public kindergarten. After discussions with teachers and our own observations, we decided it would be best to repeat kindergarten.

Whether that was the best decision, there are pros and cons, but our kid is a leader at their school and full of confidence and very popular and maintains great grades. Whereas our kid plays competitive sports with age peers, they do everything else with their grade-peers.

But after reading DCUM over the years, I came to realize that our private family decision many years ago was actually an aggressive act to exercise our white privilege to specifically try and disadvantage others by hoarding educational advantages. I am so embarrassed now

They probably would have been fine in either grade. Being a self-imposed "leader" just based off age and size isn't a true leader or something to brag about. My fall kid, who has SN, does fantastic in school as well. Mine would have been completely bored if he was a year behind. Sounds like you did that for your needs and bragging rights over anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So again, how old is too old? If 6y8m isn’t too old to start K, how old is? This is not a rhetorical question - I’d like to hear answers from redshirt supporters.

I am strongly in favor of flexibility because from what I see, most parents have a decent sense of their child's readiness. I guess you could say it's pro-redshirting but what I am really in favor of is flexibility. Some kids strongly benefit by an earlier start, some by a later start. (I think this strict cookie cutter date approach is bananas.) It doesn't surprise me that the only large-scale study of the impact of relative age on ADHD medication/diagnosis where relative age didn't correlate to diagnosis was from the Netherlands, which is very flexible about starting year and allows for a lot of parental discretion. IMO that model is much better. Anti-redshirt DCUM posters are all about crazy slippery slope arguments, but I doubt that would happen in practice.

To answer your specific question, I think having a rule that kids have to be in school by the time they are seven is reasonable. Alternatively I think a two-year age range would be okay: you can elect entry in one of two years. I think in practice this how things work in the Netherlands: kids are given a wide starting age range from 5-7. It seems like a reasonable approach.

My child (not redshirted) was in a class with a child who was redshirted because of SNs, February birth. There were also other redshirted kids. It was fine. I saw literally none of the supposedly horrid impacts that DCUM's stressed-out anti-redshirt posters said would happen. Kids didn't care, parents (at least the sane, normal ones I hung out with) didn't care. Parents made the right choice as far as I could tell. It was NBD.

Way too reasonable.

[b]Unfortunately the DCUM anti-redshirt posters aren't well known for their reason.[/b]

Oh god, that is an understatement.

I read these discussions since I did Red-shirt my (mid-June) kid years ago, and there is an insane amount of craziness.

With that said, we red-shirted by initially sending to a private Kindergarten, to keep our options open to send onto first or to redo at a public kindergarten. After discussions with teachers and our own observations, we decided it would be best to repeat kindergarten.

Whether that was the best decision, there are pros and cons, but our kid is a leader at their school and full of confidence and very popular and maintains great grades. Whereas our kid plays competitive sports with age peers, they do everything else with their grade-peers.

But after reading DCUM over the years, I came to realize that our private family decision many years ago was actually an aggressive act to exercise our white privilege to specifically try and disadvantage others by hoarding educational advantages. I am so embarrassed now

They probably would have been fine in either grade. Being a self-imposed "leader" just based off age and size isn't a true leader or something to brag about. My fall kid, who has SN, does fantastic in school as well. Mine would have been completely bored if he was a year behind. Sounds like you did that for your needs and bragging rights over anything.

Great example of the drive-by DCUM non-redshirt mafia!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So again, how old is too old? If 6y8m isn’t too old to start K, how old is? This is not a rhetorical question - I’d like to hear answers from redshirt supporters.

I am strongly in favor of flexibility because from what I see, most parents have a decent sense of their child's readiness. I guess you could say it's pro-redshirting but what I am really in favor of is flexibility. Some kids strongly benefit by an earlier start, some by a later start. (I think this strict cookie cutter date approach is bananas.) It doesn't surprise me that the only large-scale study of the impact of relative age on ADHD medication/diagnosis where relative age didn't correlate to diagnosis was from the Netherlands, which is very flexible about starting year and allows for a lot of parental discretion. IMO that model is much better. Anti-redshirt DCUM posters are all about crazy slippery slope arguments, but I doubt that would happen in practice.

To answer your specific question, I think having a rule that kids have to be in school by the time they are seven is reasonable. Alternatively I think a two-year age range would be okay: you can elect entry in one of two years. I think in practice this how things work in the Netherlands: kids are given a wide starting age range from 5-7. It seems like a reasonable approach.

My child (not redshirted) was in a class with a child who was redshirted because of SNs, February birth. There were also other redshirted kids. It was fine. I saw literally none of the supposedly horrid impacts that DCUM's stressed-out anti-redshirt posters said would happen. Kids didn't care, parents (at least the sane, normal ones I hung out with) didn't care. Parents made the right choice as far as I could tell. It was NBD.

Way too reasonable.

[b]Unfortunately the DCUM anti-redshirt posters aren't well known for their reason.[/b]

Oh god, that is an understatement.

I read these discussions since I did Red-shirt my (mid-June) kid years ago, and there is an insane amount of craziness.

With that said, we red-shirted by initially sending to a private Kindergarten, to keep our options open to send onto first or to redo at a public kindergarten. After discussions with teachers and our own observations, we decided it would be best to repeat kindergarten.

Whether that was the best decision, there are pros and cons, but our kid is a leader at their school and full of confidence and very popular and maintains great grades. Whereas our kid plays competitive sports with age peers, they do everything else with their grade-peers.

But after reading DCUM over the years, I came to realize that our private family decision many years ago was actually an aggressive act to exercise our white privilege to specifically try and disadvantage others by hoarding educational advantages. I am so embarrassed now

They probably would have been fine in either grade. Being a self-imposed "leader" just based off age and size isn't a true leader or something to brag about. My fall kid, who has SN, does fantastic in school as well. Mine would have been completely bored if he was a year behind. Sounds like you did that for your needs and bragging rights over anything.

Great example of the drive-by DCUM non-redshirt mafia!

Sounds like a good example of a lazy parent who would rather hold their child back then help them academically and socially be at their appropriate age level and justify it as maturity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So again, how old is too old? If 6y8m isn’t too old to start K, how old is? This is not a rhetorical question - I’d like to hear answers from redshirt supporters.

I am strongly in favor of flexibility because from what I see, most parents have a decent sense of their child's readiness. I guess you could say it's pro-redshirting but what I am really in favor of is flexibility. Some kids strongly benefit by an earlier start, some by a later start. (I think this strict cookie cutter date approach is bananas.) It doesn't surprise me that the only large-scale study of the impact of relative age on ADHD medication/diagnosis where relative age didn't correlate to diagnosis was from the Netherlands, which is very flexible about starting year and allows for a lot of parental discretion. IMO that model is much better. Anti-redshirt DCUM posters are all about crazy slippery slope arguments, but I doubt that would happen in practice.

To answer your specific question, I think having a rule that kids have to be in school by the time they are seven is reasonable. Alternatively I think a two-year age range would be okay: you can elect entry in one of two years. I think in practice this how things work in the Netherlands: kids are given a wide starting age range from 5-7. It seems like a reasonable approach.

My child (not redshirted) was in a class with a child who was redshirted because of SNs, February birth. There were also other redshirted kids. It was fine. I saw literally none of the supposedly horrid impacts that DCUM's stressed-out anti-redshirt posters said would happen. Kids didn't care, parents (at least the sane, normal ones I hung out with) didn't care. Parents made the right choice as far as I could tell. It was NBD.

Way too reasonable.

[b]Unfortunately the DCUM anti-redshirt posters aren't well known for their reason.[/b]

Oh god, that is an understatement.

I read these discussions since I did Red-shirt my (mid-June) kid years ago, and there is an insane amount of craziness.

With that said, we red-shirted by initially sending to a private Kindergarten, to keep our options open to send onto first or to redo at a public kindergarten. After discussions with teachers and our own observations, we decided it would be best to repeat kindergarten.

Whether that was the best decision, there are pros and cons, but our kid is a leader at their school and full of confidence and very popular and maintains great grades. Whereas our kid plays competitive sports with age peers, they do everything else with their grade-peers.

But after reading DCUM over the years, I came to realize that our private family decision many years ago was actually an aggressive act to exercise our white privilege to specifically try and disadvantage others by hoarding educational advantages. I am so embarrassed now

They probably would have been fine in either grade. Being a self-imposed "leader" just based off age and size isn't a true leader or something to brag about. My fall kid, who has SN, does fantastic in school as well. Mine would have been completely bored if he was a year behind. Sounds like you did that for your needs and bragging rights over anything.

Great example of the drive-by DCUM non-redshirt mafia!

Sounds like a good example of a lazy parent who would rather hold their child back then help them academically and socially be at their appropriate age level and justify it as maturity.

Are you serious right now? If only all those SN just helped their kids more- SN are nothing more than lazy parenting!

[Anonymous]

When my kids were in school one girl was either pushed ahead or had the last possible birthday before cut off and was by far the youngest. I knew her the whole time she was growing up and she always seemed so immature. That’s because she was actually so much younger than the rest of the class. Sometimes I would look at her behavior and think: she’s only acting her age. If she were in grade below it would be completely on target.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most counties in the area have rules that a child MUST begin Kindergarten the fall AFTER turning 6. So your child will fall within the acceptable range as defined by the county. If you don't register your child for the fall after they turn 5, you typically need to let your local school know though.

I would definitely recommend enrolling at a local private Kindergarten for next Fall. That way, you have a year and a half to see where he is at before needing to make a more permanent decision. I have known several people who did that. About half went on to enroll them in Kindergarten in public school and the other half enrolled them in 1st grade in public school. But you will have a lot more information to go on at that age.

Good luck OP - this is such a hard decision to make. And people are so judgmental about it, which makes it even harder.

I think this is a misunderstanding of the law. Most jurisdictions say a child must be in school by the fall after they turn six, which makes Kindergarten a legally optional year. With that said, the law in Maryland and Virginia is 5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So again, how old is too old? If 6y8m isn’t too old to start K, how old is? This is not a rhetorical question - I’d like to hear answers from redshirt supporters.

I am strongly in favor of flexibility because from what I see, most parents have a decent sense of their child's readiness. I guess you could say it's pro-redshirting but what I am really in favor of is flexibility. Some kids strongly benefit by an earlier start, some by a later start. (I think this strict cookie cutter date approach is bananas.) It doesn't surprise me that the only large-scale study of the impact of relative age on ADHD medication/diagnosis where relative age didn't correlate to diagnosis was from the Netherlands, which is very flexible about starting year and allows for a lot of parental discretion. IMO that model is much better. Anti-redshirt DCUM posters are all about crazy slippery slope arguments, but I doubt that would happen in practice.

To answer your specific question, I think having a rule that kids have to be in school by the time they are seven is reasonable. Alternatively I think a two-year age range would be okay: you can elect entry in one of two years. I think in practice this how things work in the Netherlands: kids are given a wide starting age range from 5-7. It seems like a reasonable approach.

My child (not redshirted) was in a class with a child who was redshirted because of SNs, February birth. There were also other redshirted kids. It was fine. I saw literally none of the supposedly horrid impacts that DCUM's stressed-out anti-redshirt posters said would happen. Kids didn't care, parents (at least the sane, normal ones I hung out with) didn't care. Parents made the right choice as far as I could tell. It was NBD.

Way too reasonable.

[b]Unfortunately the DCUM anti-redshirt posters aren't well known for their reason.[/b]

Oh god, that is an understatement.

I read these discussions since I did Red-shirt my (mid-June) kid years ago, and there is an insane amount of craziness.

With that said, we red-shirted by initially sending to a private Kindergarten, to keep our options open to send onto first or to redo at a public kindergarten. After discussions with teachers and our own observations, we decided it would be best to repeat kindergarten.

Whether that was the best decision, there are pros and cons, but our kid is a leader at their school and full of confidence and very popular and maintains great grades. Whereas our kid plays competitive sports with age peers, they do everything else with their grade-peers.

But after reading DCUM over the years, I came to realize that our private family decision many years ago was actually an aggressive act to exercise our white privilege to specifically try and disadvantage others by hoarding educational advantages. I am so embarrassed now

They probably would have been fine in either grade. Being a self-imposed "leader" just based off age and size isn't a true leader or something to brag about. My fall kid, who has SN, does fantastic in school as well. Mine would have been completely bored if he was a year behind. Sounds like you did that for your needs and bragging rights over anything.

Yep, and PP is who gives redshirters a bad name.

[Anonymous]

I've skipped the 7 pages of what I assume are fully of stupid redshirting arguments, so let me just say this:

Holding back could be the right move, IF you have your child in a strong program that's working to prep him for K. If you just hold him back and aren't pushing services and school readiness, you're not doing that much good. If you think the school has a strong K program, you could consider starting him in K and then repeating it (at that school or a different school) as opposed to an additional year in PK.

But, a lot of this depends on your kid's challenges. My kid's challenges are social and his strengths are academic, and he does well following rules. So we didn't hold him back, and I think that was the right choice. If your child has more challenges due to attention and language issues, then holding back so he can spend more time working on basic literacy skills might make more sense!

[Anonymous]

But after reading DCUM over the years, I came to realize that our private family decision many years ago was actually an aggressive act to exercise our white privilege to specifically try and disadvantage others by hoarding educational advantages.

Were you being sarcastic about this? It sounds extremely accurate to me. That’s what you did... at least own it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would not as that's a huge hold back. You are military. You have tricare. Go to the on base developmental ped and they will help you get what you need - OT, PT, ST and/or ABA. Get your child help vs.holdback. He will be more than 9 months as the cut off is 9/1 in less you test in so kids will be significantly younger. Our experience is that our child acted much younger with younger kids and did better being the youngest vs. the oldest.

Did you post this just to prove your knowledge of Tricare insurances? We have obviously been getting him help.

Wow, OP. PP was just trying to help, but you've proven incredibly ungrateful and I have the feeling you've already decided and you just want people to pat you on the back. You should ask Jeff to delete this thread, it's useless.

I’m not ungrateful just irritated when people post “get him therapy”- like it never occurred to me to get my child help. I’ve been advocating to get him help since he was two years old and could probably give a seminar on it at this point.

You never said that you were or were not getting your child therapies. A lot of parents don't do therapies outside the school system, even if they have tricare. Tricare and Medicaid are the only two insurances that are very generous with private therapies. It makes no sense to hold back a January child. Some of us have kids with SN and are military and/or faced this as we were close or past the cut off date.

What answer are you looking for? Yes, plan to hold back your child.

Did you read the title of my thread? It has the question right there. I’m hoping to hear from people with experience holding back their kids (or who know kids who were held back). Positive and negative experiences are both informative.

Yes, I did and I posted. We held back our child for speech/age (but fall not Jan. birthday) and it was a huge mistake. Child skipped K and went directly to 1st. Much better fit. Stronger academics helped the speech.

The real question is where is your child at, do they have learning disabilities and what else is going on? Are there IQ issues? You are generically asking if people hold back. Most do not hold back a January child and your child is going to be much older, bigger and will stand out especially in later elementary school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So again, how old is too old? If 6y8m isn’t too old to start K, how old is? This is not a rhetorical question - I’d like to hear answers from redshirt supporters.

I am strongly in favor of flexibility because from what I see, most parents have a decent sense of their child's readiness. I guess you could say it's pro-redshirting but what I am really in favor of is flexibility. Some kids strongly benefit by an earlier start, some by a later start. (I think this strict cookie cutter date approach is bananas.) It doesn't surprise me that the only large-scale study of the impact of relative age on ADHD medication/diagnosis where relative age didn't correlate to diagnosis was from the Netherlands, which is very flexible about starting year and allows for a lot of parental discretion. IMO that model is much better. Anti-redshirt DCUM posters are all about crazy slippery slope arguments, but I doubt that would happen in practice.

To answer your specific question, I think having a rule that kids have to be in school by the time they are seven is reasonable. Alternatively I think a two-year age range would be okay: you can elect entry in one of two years. I think in practice this how things work in the Netherlands: kids are given a wide starting age range from 5-7. It seems like a reasonable approach.

My child (not redshirted) was in a class with a child who was redshirted because of SNs, February birth. There were also other redshirted kids. It was fine. I saw literally none of the supposedly horrid impacts that DCUM's stressed-out anti-redshirt posters said would happen. Kids didn't care, parents (at least the sane, normal ones I hung out with) didn't care. Parents made the right choice as far as I could tell. It was NBD.

Way too reasonable.

[b]Unfortunately the DCUM anti-redshirt posters aren't well known for their reason.[/b]

Oh god, that is an understatement.

I read these discussions since I did Red-shirt my (mid-June) kid years ago, and there is an insane amount of craziness.

With that said, we red-shirted by initially sending to a private Kindergarten, to keep our options open to send onto first or to redo at a public kindergarten. After discussions with teachers and our own observations, we decided it would be best to repeat kindergarten.

Whether that was the best decision, there are pros and cons, but our kid is a leader at their school and full of confidence and very popular and maintains great grades. Whereas our kid plays competitive sports with age peers, they do everything else with their grade-peers.

But after reading DCUM over the years, I came to realize that our private family decision many years ago was actually an aggressive act to exercise our white privilege to specifically try and disadvantage others by hoarding educational advantages. I am so embarrassed now

They probably would have been fine in either grade. Being a self-imposed "leader" just based off age and size isn't a true leader or something to brag about. My fall kid, who has SN, does fantastic in school as well. Mine would have been completely bored if he was a year behind. Sounds like you did that for your needs and bragging rights over anything.

Great example of the drive-by DCUM non-redshirt mafia!

Sounds like a good example of a lazy parent who would rather hold their child back then help them academically and socially be at their appropriate age level and justify it as maturity.

Are you serious right now? If only all those SN just helped their kids more- SN are nothing more than lazy parenting!

I have a SN child and holding back was not the answer. Getting services and supporting our child was.