Anonymous wrote:My Sep child was immature. We were debating whether to take the test to push DC in to K or not and eventually decided not to. So, my kid is the oldest in class, a bit taller than other kids, but in terms of maturity, on par with the current peers. We didn't actually redshirt, but more like it.

OP, you know your child well. If you think he would benefit from the extra year of pre-K, do it. As parents, we always second guess ourselves wondering if we made the right choice, but there's only so much we can do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think OP is going to get useful information. In general DCUMs antiredshirt posters aren't capable of rational thought or communication and so information value is low (although they certainly provide cheap entertainment). OP, you need to work with your developmental pediatrician, and your IEP team. If you want marginally more thoughtful feedback, try the SN board.

You've posted this exactly sentence at least 3 times on this one thread. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them irrational. Not sure why you even read this or the SN board at all if you think the feedback is so "marginal."

No, it's not just me who knows how irrational DCUMs antiredshirt posters are. There are multiple posters.

I read these threads for the entertainment value, obviously. I post because I pity and empathize with struggling parents like OP and don't want them to take DCUMs antiredshirt posts seriously, since they are generally low-value posts from deeply competitive and insecure people. If you don't like that characterization, stop posting so irrationally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think OP is going to get useful information. In general DCUMs antiredshirt posters aren't capable of rational thought or communication and so information value is low (although they certainly provide cheap entertainment). OP, you need to work with your developmental pediatrician, and your IEP team. If you want marginally more thoughtful feedback, try the SN board.

You've posted this exactly sentence at least 3 times on this one thread. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them irrational. Not sure why you even read this or the SN board at all if you think the feedback is so "marginal."

And they've done it on several other threads I've seen recently. It's unhelpful and doesn't advance the discourse, although it clearly makes her feel better to write this out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think OP is going to get useful information. In general DCUMs antiredshirt posters aren't capable of rational thought or communication and so information value is low (although they certainly provide cheap entertainment). OP, you need to work with your developmental pediatrician, and your IEP team. If you want marginally more thoughtful feedback, try the SN board.

You've posted this exactly sentence at least 3 times on this one thread. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them irrational. Not sure why you even read this or the SN board at all if you think the feedback is so "marginal."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think OP is going to get useful information. In general DCUMs antiredshirt posters aren't capable of rational thought or communication and so information value is low (although they certainly provide cheap entertainment). OP, you need to work with your developmental pediatrician, and your IEP team. If you want marginally more thoughtful feedback, try the SN board.

You've posted this exactly sentence at least 3 times on this one thread. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them irrational. Not sure why you even read this or the SN board at all if you think the feedback is so "marginal."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids were not redshirted (spring birthdays, no SN known at the time), so I never had to consider this and am therefore curious- what ARE the socially acceptable reasons to redshirt? For those who are against redshirting, what needs do you deem valid to make a case for redshirting?

For me, it's documented special needs and recommendations from professionals. For example, my coworker's kid was severely premature, and is probably 5th percentile for height and weight. I didn't ask, but I'm sure has some learning delays too. They decided to have their kid repeat K, and I can totally understand that decision.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think OP is going to get useful information. In general DCUMs antiredshirt posters aren't capable of rational thought or communication and so information value is low (although they certainly provide cheap entertainment). OP, you need to work with your developmental pediatrician, and your IEP team. If you want marginally more thoughtful feedback, try the SN board.

Anonymous wrote:My kids were not redshirted (spring birthdays, no SN known at the time), so I never had to consider this and am therefore curious- what ARE the socially acceptable reasons to redshirt? For those who are against redshirting, what needs do you deem valid to make a case for redshirting?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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!

Anonymous wrote: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.