Anonymous wrote:I was held back when I was little. No one called it redshirting then. I won't go into the reasons for privacy's sake. But the idea that this gave me some advantage over my classmates is just bizarre and ridiculous and kinda paranoid. I know everyone here is in high dudgeon and luxuriating in their own sense of self-righteousness, but you're really making a very big mountain out of a very small molehill. It's really not that big of deal.

+1

I can’t believe people are fighting this fight when the real issue is the billionaire class. But I bet the billionaires are happy we can’t get our act together enough to fight them, because we’re so fighting over this minutia.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is all kind of nuts to me because I have a girl who is the very young end of the cut off and I think it would be a disadvantage to stay in preschool. It would make more sense to me if families wanted to do kindergarten twice.

I just don’t buy the idea that it’s definitely better to be older.

It’s not. This is why anti-redshirters are insane. They think school is a competition where older is more advantaged 🙄

That is the opinion of some people.

While I wouldn't describe myself as "anti-redshirt" (I think it's appropriate in some circumstances) my main issue with redshirting just for immaturity is that all this does is make the next youngest kids "immature" for the grade. So if all the parents of September and August kids redshirt, now July and June birthdays will be youngest and the parents will want to redshirt for immaturity. I think when it becomes a common practice (as opposed to something rare for kids who are actually developmentally delayed, not just young for the grade), it just creates a cycle of anxiety for parents.

To me, the obvious solution to this problem is to make sure kindergarten is designed to serve the needs of the youngest eligible students, assuming normal development. If there's a September cut off date, then K expectations should be appropriate for a child who is 4 at the beginning of the school year. That means that the first few months of K should feel a lot like PK4, but be guiding the kids towards more maturity so that by the end of the year, it feels more like 1st grade. If that's what K was like, it would eliminate the need to redshirt just for maturity, and redshirting would just be for documented delays or where the school has identified a reason why the child would do better in a younger cohort.

The problem is schools making K developmentally inappropriate. The schools set the cut offs, so the curriculum should make sense with those cut offs.

Anonymous wrote:When my kids were little I was pretty anti-red shirting (which was an easy position for me to take since both my kids were born in October) but now that my kids are in high school and I see how much some of their (very bright) friends with September birthdays are struggling, I see why people do it. Those kids are at a real disadvantage and it is not a great outcome for anyone. I get the equity implications of allowing red shirting and wish parents had the option of additional free preschool if they chose to delay kindergarten.

Yeah, I guess that is why California offers "TK" (transitional kindergarten) for kids who are at the young end of the year.

When my kids were little I was pretty anti-red shirting (which was an easy position for me to take since both my kids were born in October) but now that my kids are in high school and I see how much some of their (very bright) friends with September birthdays are struggling, I see why people do it. Those kids are at a real disadvantage and it is not a great outcome for anyone. I get the equity implications of allowing red shirting and wish parents had the option of additional free preschool if they chose to delay kindergarten.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was held back when I was little. No one called it redshirting then. I won't go into the reasons for privacy's sake. But the idea that this gave me some advantage over my classmates is just bizarre and ridiculous and kinda paranoid. I know everyone here is in high dudgeon and luxuriating in their own sense of self-righteousness, but you're really making a very big mountain out of a very small molehill. It's really not that big of deal.

Think of it this way: It gave you an advantage over yourself that was not red-shirted, right? That's what your parents wanted to do it? So, imagine the you whose parents don't go to the news... you're getting, at the very least, an advantage over them. There are some aspects of school that are zero-sum, including selective admissions later on, and PPs have eloquently explained how a culture of red-shirting changes the bar for everyone in problematic ways.

That's absurd. That's like saying no student should ever be allowed to have a math tutor because it's unfair to all the other kids who didnt have the same math tutor. And no, no one has explained why any of this is "problematic" for everyone else. They've only complied a list of tortured scenarios, build on questionable assumptions, that, in a million years, will never become reality.

Are you OK? you sound hysterical.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was held back when I was little. No one called it redshirting then. I won't go into the reasons for privacy's sake. But the idea that this gave me some advantage over my classmates is just bizarre and ridiculous and kinda paranoid. I know everyone here is in high dudgeon and luxuriating in their own sense of self-righteousness, but you're really making a very big mountain out of a very small molehill. It's really not that big of deal.

Think of it this way: It gave you an advantage over yourself that was not red-shirted, right? That's what your parents wanted to do it? So, imagine the you whose parents don't go to the news... you're getting, at the very least, an advantage over them. There are some aspects of school that are zero-sum, including selective admissions later on, and PPs have eloquently explained how a culture of red-shirting changes the bar for everyone in problematic ways.

That's absurd. That's like saying no student should ever be allowed to have a math tutor because it's unfair to all the other kids who didnt have the same math tutor. And no, no one has explained why any of this is "problematic" for everyone else. They've only complied a list of tortured scenarios, build on questionable assumptions, that, in a million years, will never become reality.

Way to move the goalposts. This person was asking why redshirting is considered an advantage. I explained why. Tutoring *is* an advantage. Obviously not everything that gives an advantage should be banned (e.g., studying), but similarly, some things that give an advantage should obviously be banned (e.g. cheating). That said, whether to ban something because it provides an advantage is a totally different question than PP’s dopey why’s it an advantage question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was held back when I was little. No one called it redshirting then. I won't go into the reasons for privacy's sake. But the idea that this gave me some advantage over my classmates is just bizarre and ridiculous and kinda paranoid. I know everyone here is in high dudgeon and luxuriating in their own sense of self-righteousness, but you're really making a very big mountain out of a very small molehill. It's really not that big of deal.

Think of it this way: It gave you an advantage over yourself that was not red-shirted, right? That's what your parents wanted to do it? So, imagine the you whose parents don't go to the news... you're getting, at the very least, an advantage over them. There are some aspects of school that are zero-sum, including selective admissions later on, and PPs have eloquently explained how a culture of red-shirting changes the bar for everyone in problematic ways.

That's absurd. That's like saying no student should ever be allowed to have a math tutor because it's unfair to all the other kids who didnt have the same math tutor. And no, no one has explained why any of this is "problematic" for everyone else. They've only complied a list of tortured scenarios, build on questionable assumptions, that, in a million years, will never become reality.

If the case the parent is making is "it would be hard for my kid to be the youngest", and not some specific set of behavioral or cognitive issues, what they are saying is they want some other kid to be the youngest.

Anonymous wrote:I was held back when I was little. No one called it redshirting then. I won't go into the reasons for privacy's sake. But the idea that this gave me some advantage over my classmates is just bizarre and ridiculous and kinda paranoid. I know everyone here is in high dudgeon and luxuriating in their own sense of self-righteousness, but you're really making a very big mountain out of a very small molehill. It's really not that big of deal.

Think of it this way: It gave you an advantage over yourself that was not red-shirted, right? That's what your parents wanted to do it? So, imagine the you whose parents don't go to the news... you're getting, at the very least, an advantage over them. There are some aspects of school that are zero-sum, including selective admissions later on, and PPs have eloquently explained how a culture of red-shirting changes the bar for everyone in problematic ways.

I was held back when I was little. No one called it redshirting then. I won't go into the reasons for privacy's sake. But the idea that this gave me some advantage over my classmates is just bizarre and ridiculous and kinda paranoid. I know everyone here is in high dudgeon and luxuriating in their own sense of self-righteousness, but you're really making a very big mountain out of a very small molehill. It's really not that big of deal.

Anonymous wrote:Here is another question- if these parents are allowed to just enroll their kids in whatever grade they want, why cant a parent who misses a grade cut off by a few days enroll their kid too young? Ex my child’s birthday is October 5th and I don’t want to pay for another year of daycare. Let them enroll in PK3.

People really don’t see where all of this leads if we don’t stick to the birthday cutoffs?

Tried to do this for our October child and was told there is no flexibility in DCPS for this. Didn't occur to me to call the news! Maybe next time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should rent a condo in Bethesda, send their kid to MOCO for the year because the cutoff is September 1 and then switch back to Lafayette and attend 1st next year. Of course I said Bethesda or Potomac or maybe TP because otherwise the ‘demographics’ probably won’t suit these open, accepting parents!

Yeah but some of these families have mid-summer, not September birthdays…

Does MCPS allow redshirting, though?

MCPS allows redshirting but is very strict when it comes to enrolling children early. There is a defined process for trying to test in early. Your child has to demonstrate that she is already proficient in the kindergarten curriculum in order to enroll in kindergarten a year early. I’ve known several families who really wanted to enroll their September children a year early. I haven’t heard any widespread complaints about redshirting in MCPS. It seems to be a different mindset.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going strictly by the age guidelines, you could have the following situation:

Kid A could have been a micro preemie who was due at the beginning of January, but was born on September 30th.

Kid B could have been due on September 23rd, but instead was 8 days overdue and born on October 1st.

According to DCPS guidelines, Kid A has to enroll in kindergarten this fall, but Kid B can enroll next year. Does that seem right to you?

There should be a little flexibility. I was born early, which made me eligible to enroll for kindergarten a year earlier than if I’d been born on my due date. I’m glad my parents held me back. I feel like I was in the correct grade and my classmates were peers.

There is flexibility. There’s a process. And as stated before, for things like developmental delays, ESL, traumatic history, neurodivergence, etc. If these parents fell into an any of these categories, they’d make sure that was the headline. If their kid was a micropreemie, they’d have put it up on billboards during this ridiculous campaign. That’s not the case. They’re naturally and normally near the end of DCPS’ cutoff (and not all are late September…) and have just always thought they were special. They are legitimately making this harder for people who do need this process and it’s EMBARRASSING.

Wait - you know of a “process”? A clear, legitimate process? Can you share more?

How do you go about doing this?

I’ll wait…..

The whole issue here is that there isn’t a process or consistency for any of this or anything DCPS does. DCPS created this disaster but failing to have any real procedures in place. They caused this by allowing the lottery and enrollment site to allow enrollment for kids past the “cut off” without question.

What they should do now, is walk it back - cooperate and then put in place clear rules going forward.

The rules are that your kid can't redshirt without the principal's signoff. That's always been the rule. At most, what has changed is the amount of discretion the principal has now that Lafayette moms screwed this up for kids with actual issues so very badly by causing DCPS to focus on what standards/process principals themselves are utilizing. (FWIW the MySchool lottery actually prompts you to confirm your intent if you try to misregister your child.)

Here is another question- if these parents are allowed to just enroll their kids in whatever grade they want, why cant a parent who misses a grade cut off by a few days enroll their kid too young? Ex my child’s birthday is October 5th and I don’t want to pay for another year of daycare. Let them enroll in PK3.

People really don’t see where all of this leads if we don’t stick to the birthday cutoffs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going strictly by the age guidelines, you could have the following situation:

Kid A could have been a micro preemie who was due at the beginning of January, but was born on September 30th.

Kid B could have been due on September 23rd, but instead was 8 days overdue and born on October 1st.

According to DCPS guidelines, Kid A has to enroll in kindergarten this fall, but Kid B can enroll next year. Does that seem right to you?

There should be a little flexibility. I was born early, which made me eligible to enroll for kindergarten a year earlier than if I’d been born on my due date. I’m glad my parents held me back. I feel like I was in the correct grade and my classmates were peers.

There is flexibility. There’s a process. And as stated before, for things like developmental delays, ESL, traumatic history, neurodivergence, etc. If these parents fell into an any of these categories, they’d make sure that was the headline. If their kid was a micropreemie, they’d have put it up on billboards during this ridiculous campaign. That’s not the case. They’re naturally and normally near the end of DCPS’ cutoff (and not all are late September…) and have just always thought they were special. They are legitimately making this harder for people who do need this process and it’s EMBARRASSING.

Wait - you know of a “process”? A clear, legitimate process? Can you share more?

How do you go about doing this?

I’ll wait…..

The whole issue here is that there isn’t a process or consistency for any of this or anything DCPS does. DCPS created this disaster but failing to have any real procedures in place. They caused this by allowing the lottery and enrollment site to allow enrollment for kids past the “cut off” without question.

What they should do now, is walk it back - cooperate and then put in place clear rules going forward.

So give these parents exactly what they demand but then every parent after gets a no? Squeaky wheel and all. And those squeaky wheels sure do seem to be concentrated in one part of DC.