Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Threads like these make me happy I left close in DC for an exurb. My kid was due in late August, and born in late July. I redshirted with no issues; it would have been disastrous for my kid to struggle being the youngest and slowest in the class. It’s no wonder that parents of means opt out of public education.

Disastrous for your child? The hyperbole is over the top.

Agreed. First of all, a late August birthday wouldn't even make him the youngest in class. Because DC does not allow redshirting, there are lots of kids with September birthdays in schools. Second, it's unlikely her kid would have been the "slowest," physically, mentally, or socially, because of both normal variation in developmental speeds (go into any classroom -- is the smartest, fastest, most socially adept kid always the oldest? No.) as well as the fact that simply being born to an educated, well off family will offer her child advantages over many kids in DCPS. An early childhood with good nutrition, good healthcare, access to early athletic instruction and activities, and parents with college educations is worth WAY more than a couple extra months.

But PP is so afraid of her kid not being able to compete against other UMC kids that she's convinced herself he NEEDS those extra months, that not getting that advantage will be a disaster. It's actually very sad.

Anonymous wrote:I agree with having a standard and not making exceptions. But I wish dcps would gradually scoot these cutoffs back, maybe even just a few weeks a year. Half the kids in dcps are not emotionally ready for what’s asked of them in prek4 and K.

And now the gap between what private can offer in terms of developmental appropriateness is getting even bigger. In my neighborhood the private school kids will be several months older on average — and enjoy a gentle acceleration without the pressure of testing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The comments on the WaPo article seem pretty overwhelmingly to oppose DCPS’s stance, whereas here on this thread it has seemed a majority support DCPS. Interesting.

They keep saying that the youngest kids benefit from starting later, but of course red shirting just makes another cohort — e.g., the April and May birthdays — the youngest kids, who themselves would then benefit if they started later. I have yet to see a convincing response to that.

Remember WaPo attracts a national audience so a range of experiences and regulations. This board is hyperlocal, understands DCPS and has an interest in everyone playing by the same rules.

That said, it’s really because these three moms are intentionally making a mess of the messaging because it benefits them. There are absolutely important reasons to redshirt, as have been raised here already — trauma, ESL, developmental delays, neurodivergence, etc. And those can all be properly evaluated, approved and set up with a plan for success. Especially at a school like Lafayette. “I don’t want my kid to be the youngest” is not that.

They say “I want my kid to have an advantage” but they intentionally drop the second part of the sentence. Guess what? It’s “I want my kid to have an advantage OVER YOUR KID.” Doesn’t exactly garner as much support when they actually have to admit that’s what they mean. But by virtue of shoving their kid who is over a year too old for a class in with yours, that’s exactly what it means.

Also I’m not sure what messaging it sends to their kids / what kind of example it is for the rest of their lives… 1) I didn’t have enough faith in you to even try putting you in the appropriate grade 2) I was given notice of a rule, but instead of correcting course I decided to bully others to get my way. Neither is great. And these kids aren’t going to shake that reputation.

The tea coming out of the parent groups about these three is piping hot. They’ve used up all their goodwill by dragging a great school and community through the mud. Folks are listening to them with a sympathetic ear and then sending all the drama out like an old school phone tree. I am so close to dropping all their nonsense here so it’s a little more clear what these people are truly like.

I am dying for a cup of this tea

Same.

I live in Ward 5 and have been just so stunned at how oblivious these parents are, to be willing to put their name on "I want my kid to have an advantage over other kids."

Same in Ward 4

+1 Same in Ward 1. There has been lots of discussion among all the parents in my neighborhood about what entitled jack*sses these Lafayette parents are.

I am sympathetic to a significantly below average in maturity kid with an August or September birthday. I am - that's tough luck for anyone, and I could see how you'd struggle in PK3. But guess what rich white people WOTP - sometimes your kid draws the short straw! And since yours hasn't drawn literally a single other even moderately short straw in any other facet of life... I think they'll be just fine being (gasp! outrage! sigh!) the least mature kid in PK. Someone has to be! Life's tough all over!

These kids are not immature, they are younger being compared to kids 1-2 years older.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The comments on the WaPo article seem pretty overwhelmingly to oppose DCPS’s stance, whereas here on this thread it has seemed a majority support DCPS. Interesting.

They keep saying that the youngest kids benefit from starting later, but of course red shirting just makes another cohort — e.g., the April and May birthdays — the youngest kids, who themselves would then benefit if they started later. I have yet to see a convincing response to that.

Remember WaPo attracts a national audience so a range of experiences and regulations. This board is hyperlocal, understands DCPS and has an interest in everyone playing by the same rules.

That said, it’s really because these three moms are intentionally making a mess of the messaging because it benefits them. There are absolutely important reasons to redshirt, as have been raised here already — trauma, ESL, developmental delays, neurodivergence, etc. And those can all be properly evaluated, approved and set up with a plan for success. Especially at a school like Lafayette. “I don’t want my kid to be the youngest” is not that.

They say “I want my kid to have an advantage” but they intentionally drop the second part of the sentence. Guess what? It’s “I want my kid to have an advantage OVER YOUR KID.” Doesn’t exactly garner as much support when they actually have to admit that’s what they mean. But by virtue of shoving their kid who is over a year too old for a class in with yours, that’s exactly what it means.

Also I’m not sure what messaging it sends to their kids / what kind of example it is for the rest of their lives… 1) I didn’t have enough faith in you to even try putting you in the appropriate grade 2) I was given notice of a rule, but instead of correcting course I decided to bully others to get my way. Neither is great. And these kids aren’t going to shake that reputation.

The tea coming out of the parent groups about these three is piping hot. They’ve used up all their goodwill by dragging a great school and community through the mud. Folks are listening to them with a sympathetic ear and then sending all the drama out like an old school phone tree. I am so close to dropping all their nonsense here so it’s a little more clear what these people are truly like.

I am dying for a cup of this tea

Same.

I live in Ward 5 and have been just so stunned at how oblivious these parents are, to be willing to put their name on "I want my kid to have an advantage over other kids."

Same in Ward 4

+1 Same in Ward 1. There has been lots of discussion among all the parents in my neighborhood about what entitled jack*sses these Lafayette parents are.

I am sympathetic to a significantly below average in maturity kid with an August or September birthday. I am - that's tough luck for anyone, and I could see how you'd struggle in PK3. But guess what rich white people WOTP - sometimes your kid draws the short straw! And since yours hasn't drawn literally a single other even moderately short straw in any other facet of life... I think they'll be just fine being (gasp! outrage! sigh!) the least mature kid in PK. Someone has to be! Life's tough all over!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion that "'redshirting" is some trick that rich people use to get an unfair advantage for their kid seems utterly and completely ridiculous. It's not going to give them a leg up academically or athletically. If anything, it's going to give the kid a complex about why he or she is older than everyone else. But if the parent sees some problem that will be exacerbated by pushing their kid along, then I don't know why we don't give the parent the benefit of the doubt. They know their kid better than anyone else.

You don’t think being a year older gives people an edge athletically? Where do you think the practice of redshirting came from in college athletics? Just a lot of coaches who all thought little Johnny who had been recruited for D1 needed some extra time to develop adequate/average sports skills? The lengths folks will go to on this forum to defend these families is really something… but claiming there’s no athletic advantage to redshirting really takes the cake.

No. That's completely crazy. And that's not how or why people redshirt in college. It's not even remotely analogous. You are just making a bunch of dumb assumptions.

This is literally exactly why. And it's why prep schools are popular. And it is absolutely why every rich parent with a kid born after June I've ever met has redshirted their kid.

This is something only people who don't know anything about sports believe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The comments on the WaPo article seem pretty overwhelmingly to oppose DCPS’s stance, whereas here on this thread it has seemed a majority support DCPS. Interesting.

They keep saying that the youngest kids benefit from starting later, but of course red shirting just makes another cohort — e.g., the April and May birthdays — the youngest kids, who themselves would then benefit if they started later. I have yet to see a convincing response to that.

Remember WaPo attracts a national audience so a range of experiences and regulations. This board is hyperlocal, understands DCPS and has an interest in everyone playing by the same rules.

That said, it’s really because these three moms are intentionally making a mess of the messaging because it benefits them. There are absolutely important reasons to redshirt, as have been raised here already — trauma, ESL, developmental delays, neurodivergence, etc. And those can all be properly evaluated, approved and set up with a plan for success. Especially at a school like Lafayette. “I don’t want my kid to be the youngest” is not that.

They say “I want my kid to have an advantage” but they intentionally drop the second part of the sentence. Guess what? It’s “I want my kid to have an advantage OVER YOUR KID.” Doesn’t exactly garner as much support when they actually have to admit that’s what they mean. But by virtue of shoving their kid who is over a year too old for a class in with yours, that’s exactly what it means.

Also I’m not sure what messaging it sends to their kids / what kind of example it is for the rest of their lives… 1) I didn’t have enough faith in you to even try putting you in the appropriate grade 2) I was given notice of a rule, but instead of correcting course I decided to bully others to get my way. Neither is great. And these kids aren’t going to shake that reputation.

The tea coming out of the parent groups about these three is piping hot. They’ve used up all their goodwill by dragging a great school and community through the mud. Folks are listening to them with a sympathetic ear and then sending all the drama out like an old school phone tree. I am so close to dropping all their nonsense here so it’s a little more clear what these people are truly like.

I am dying for a cup of this tea

Same.

I live in Ward 5 and have been just so stunned at how oblivious these parents are, to be willing to put their name on "I want my kid to have an advantage over other kids."

Same in Ward 4

+1 Same in Ward 1. There has been lots of discussion among all the parents in my neighborhood about what entitled jack*sses these Lafayette parents are.

I am sympathetic to a significantly below average in maturity kid with an August or September birthday. I am - that's tough luck for anyone, and I could see how you'd struggle in PK3. But guess what rich white people WOTP - sometimes your kid draws the short straw! And since yours hasn't drawn literally a single other even moderately short straw in any other facet of life... I think they'll be just fine being (gasp! outrage! sigh!) the least mature kid in PK. Someone has to be! Life's tough all over!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The comments on the WaPo article seem pretty overwhelmingly to oppose DCPS’s stance, whereas here on this thread it has seemed a majority support DCPS. Interesting.

They keep saying that the youngest kids benefit from starting later, but of course red shirting just makes another cohort — e.g., the April and May birthdays — the youngest kids, who themselves would then benefit if they started later. I have yet to see a convincing response to that.

Remember WaPo attracts a national audience so a range of experiences and regulations. This board is hyperlocal, understands DCPS and has an interest in everyone playing by the same rules.

That said, it’s really because these three moms are intentionally making a mess of the messaging because it benefits them. There are absolutely important reasons to redshirt, as have been raised here already — trauma, ESL, developmental delays, neurodivergence, etc. And those can all be properly evaluated, approved and set up with a plan for success. Especially at a school like Lafayette. “I don’t want my kid to be the youngest” is not that.

They say “I want my kid to have an advantage” but they intentionally drop the second part of the sentence. Guess what? It’s “I want my kid to have an advantage OVER YOUR KID.” Doesn’t exactly garner as much support when they actually have to admit that’s what they mean. But by virtue of shoving their kid who is over a year too old for a class in with yours, that’s exactly what it means.

Also I’m not sure what messaging it sends to their kids / what kind of example it is for the rest of their lives… 1) I didn’t have enough faith in you to even try putting you in the appropriate grade 2) I was given notice of a rule, but instead of correcting course I decided to bully others to get my way. Neither is great. And these kids aren’t going to shake that reputation.

The tea coming out of the parent groups about these three is piping hot. They’ve used up all their goodwill by dragging a great school and community through the mud. Folks are listening to them with a sympathetic ear and then sending all the drama out like an old school phone tree. I am so close to dropping all their nonsense here so it’s a little more clear what these people are truly like.

I am dying for a cup of this tea

Same.

I live in Ward 5 and have been just so stunned at how oblivious these parents are, to be willing to put their name on "I want my kid to have an advantage over other kids."

Same in Ward 4

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion that "'redshirting" is some trick that rich people use to get an unfair advantage for their kid seems utterly and completely ridiculous. It's not going to give them a leg up academically or athletically. If anything, it's going to give the kid a complex about why he or she is older than everyone else. But if the parent sees some problem that will be exacerbated by pushing their kid along, then I don't know why we don't give the parent the benefit of the doubt. They know their kid better than anyone else.

You don’t think being a year older gives people an edge athletically? Where do you think the practice of redshirting came from in college athletics? Just a lot of coaches who all thought little Johnny who had been recruited for D1 needed some extra time to develop adequate/average sports skills? The lengths folks will go to on this forum to defend these families is really something… but claiming there’s no athletic advantage to redshirting really takes the cake.

No. That's completely crazy. And that's not how or why people redshirt in college. It's not even remotely analogous. You are just making a bunch of dumb assumptions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Threads like these make me happy I left close in DC for an exurb. My kid was due in late August, and born in late July. I redshirted with no issues; it would have been disastrous for my kid to struggle being the youngest and slowest in the class. It’s no wonder that parents of means opt out of public education.

Disastrous for your child? The hyperbole is over the top.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion that "'redshirting" is some trick that rich people use to get an unfair advantage for their kid seems utterly and completely ridiculous. It's not going to give them a leg up academically or athletically. If anything, it's going to give the kid a complex about why he or she is older than everyone else. But if the parent sees some problem that will be exacerbated by pushing their kid along, then I don't know why we don't give the parent the benefit of the doubt. They know their kid better than anyone else.

You don’t think being a year older gives people an edge athletically? Where do you think the practice of redshirting came from in college athletics? Just a lot of coaches who all thought little Johnny who had been recruited for D1 needed some extra time to develop adequate/average sports skills? The lengths folks will go to on this forum to defend these families is really something… but claiming there’s no athletic advantage to redshirting really takes the cake.

No. That's completely crazy. And that's not how or why people redshirt in college. It's not even remotely analogous. You are just making a bunch of dumb assumptions.

This is literally exactly why. And it's why prep schools are popular. And it is absolutely why every rich parent with a kid born after June I've ever met has redshirted their kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion that "'redshirting" is some trick that rich people use to get an unfair advantage for their kid seems utterly and completely ridiculous. It's not going to give them a leg up academically or athletically. If anything, it's going to give the kid a complex about why he or she is older than everyone else. But if the parent sees some problem that will be exacerbated by pushing their kid along, then I don't know why we don't give the parent the benefit of the doubt. They know their kid better than anyone else.

You don’t think being a year older gives people an edge athletically? Where do you think the practice of redshirting came from in college athletics? Just a lot of coaches who all thought little Johnny who had been recruited for D1 needed some extra time to develop adequate/average sports skills? The lengths folks will go to on this forum to defend these families is really something… but claiming there’s no athletic advantage to redshirting really takes the cake.

No. That's completely crazy. And that's not how or why people redshirt in college. It's not even remotely analogous. You are just making a bunch of dumb assumptions.

Anonymous wrote:The notion that "'redshirting" is some trick that rich people use to get an unfair advantage for their kid seems utterly and completely ridiculous. It's not going to give them a leg up academically or athletically. If anything, it's going to give the kid a complex about why he or she is older than everyone else. But if the parent sees some problem that will be exacerbated by pushing their kid along, then I don't know why we don't give the parent the benefit of the doubt. They know their kid better than anyone else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion that "'redshirting" is some trick that rich people use to get an unfair advantage for their kid seems utterly and completely ridiculous. It's not going to give them a leg up academically or athletically. If anything, it's going to give the kid a complex about why he or she is older than everyone else. But if the parent sees some problem that will be exacerbated by pushing their kid along, then I don't know why we don't give the parent the benefit of the doubt. They know their kid better than anyone else.

You don’t think being a year older gives people an edge athletically? Where do you think the practice of redshirting came from in college athletics? Just a lot of coaches who all thought little Johnny who had been recruited for D1 needed some extra time to develop adequate/average sports skills? The lengths folks will go to on this forum to defend these families is really something… but claiming there’s no athletic advantage to redshirting really takes the cake.

Anonymous wrote:Threads like these make me happy I left close in DC for an exurb. My kid was due in late August, and born in late July. I redshirted with no issues; it would have been disastrous for my kid to struggle being the youngest and slowest in the class. It’s no wonder that parents of means opt out of public education.