We started our summer baby on time at barely 5. Some of the kids in class were 7. Yes, there were huge differences in behavior (being able to sit still, etc.). Your kid will get 2s on some behavior measures. That's okay. It will all even out later. By upper elementary, you can't tell the difference between the students in terms of age difference.

Being the youngest has its benefits, OP. Your kid isn't handed anything and has to work a little harder for everything.

The kid I mentioned graduated high school at 17 and is not on the Dean's List at a very competitive uni. Kid gets right in there and competes for what they want. There is no fear of failure. They learned early that failure doesn't kill you, it just makes you stronger.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A question about fairness!

How is it fair for red shirted kids to be in a class with my late June birthday kid? Developmentally they are going to be ahead, do the teachers care or take this into consideration?? It doesn't seem fair. Some can be almost 9 months older.

Do you read to your child? Pay for supplements? Are you MC and above? Does your child have health insurance? Safe housing? Stable access to food?

If so, how is it fair for kids in your child’s class who don’t have the above to be in class with your child? Or do you not care about those kids?

Grow up. You are so embarrassing and ridiculous. I didn’t redshirt, I just cannot stand DCUMs whiny, narcissistic, and pathetic anti redshirters.

You are always the most vitriolic person on any red shirting thread. I mean, look at your language in this post, which is 10x more dramatic than anything anyone else has posted.

Usually when people object to red shirting, it's the situations in which it's fully discretionary. Like not situations where a child has an identified developmental disadvantage. It's the people who hold back their summer birthdays (usually boys) because they don't want their sons to be on the smaller side in school. There are also people who do it explicitly for advantages in athletics (and in fact that is where the word comes from, as it originally only described "red shirted" college freshman who would be recruited but not played their freshman year in order to give them time to get bigger/stronger/more competitive).

There are obviously fairness concerns with discretionary redshirting and they are never going to go away, no matter how angry and vicious you get on DCUM threads on the subject.

NP, and I agree with PP. Anti-redshirt parents always gloss over the other unfair, "discretionary" advantages their children have. Where they live, what school they go to, what they eat, what hobbies they have, what tutors they get, etc., etc. But somehow the terrible line in the sand is redshirting, which, incidentally, may be more accessible to some families than other advantages (i.e., if you already have a stay home parent or a family caregiver it doesn't cost extra to delay school entry for a year).

PP may have been a little harsh, but the whining is ridculous.

Some people who oppose redshirting oppose it specifically because they don't have those same discretionary advantages you are talking about. It really depends on the person.

One reason I oppose redshirting except in the instance of developmental delays is because my kid is already at a disadvantage versus kids who have a lot of resources, with parents who can afford tutoring and supplementing, kids who don't have ADHD, kids with more family and people in their corner helping them on. My kid doesn't have any of that stuff. But then on top of that, the really well-resourced families are ALSO the ones more likely to redshirt (because they know the system, because they can afford another year of childcare) so then in addition to their kids having more financial resources and family resources, their kids are also going to bigger and older than my kid all the way through school.

If redshirting was something that MC and LC families did to even the playing field, you might have a point. But redshirting (outside of developmental issues) is largely something that already-advantaged families do to increase their advantages.

So yeah: anti-redshirt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no plans to redshirt. But I have a few thoughts

1) I can understand why people with notably immature children just shy of the cutoff redshirt. My son is a January baby, so he's on the older side (this is DC, 9/30 cutoff) and he felt just barely ready for PK3. If he was an August or September baby, I honestly don't know what we would have done. He walked late, he talked late, he potty trained late. The transition to PK3 was really rough on him at 3.5. This past spring he just was not ready, full stop. My daughter, on the other hand, is an August baby, and I have absolutely no qualms about sending her next year. She's honestly closer to ready now (at just over 2) than my son was when he'd just turned 3. Kid are different, and if you happen to have a slow to mature kid with a badly timed birthday, that really sucks and I feel for you.

2) There's huge class issues here. Especially in DC. Yes, our daughter will be ready, but if she wasn't? We'd honestly still probably have to send her. We can't spend $20k on another year of childcare when it's not absolutely necessary and there's a free option, whether it was best for her or not. So you've got to consider that side of it, too.

3) A lot of people just redshirt for the advantages and/or for not wanting their kid to be the youngest, and that's crappy. Someone has to be the youngest, suck it up.

Fully agree with all of this. I'm not anti-redshirting, but the way it plays out sometimes is, yes, unfair. And to respond to another PP -- of course other things are unfair. The world is not unfair. But redshirting is distinct from other aspects of unfairness in education, in that it's pretty easy to set a policy that makes redshirting hard, or makes it easy. It's really hard to address the impacts of income inequality on kids in public schools. But redshirting? It's pretty easy to create a policy that is anti-redshirt except in cases of developmental delays.

But people here are adamant that redshirting is not advantageous and everyone will look down on those kids. Doesn't seem clear cut that there's a need for a policy here.

+1

Do educators think this would be a good thing? The existing policy (in FCPS) gives you a two-year window, and leaves it up to parents to make their own decisions within that window. My elementary school encouraged us to trust our knowledge of our kid in making our decision. There was no suggestion that choosing year 2 was somehow frowned upon, or that choosing year 1 was encouraged. Either were perfectly appropriate options. There is no magic to when kids start (other than that maybe all kids should start later, or that school should look more like play in younger grades) and there is no guarantee that kids will be on par with their peers for any number of reasons regardless of when they start. My modest proposal: you make the best decision for your kid, and I'll make the best decision for mine.

Anonymous wrote:A question about fairness!

How is it fair for red shirted kids to be in a class with my late June birthday kid? Developmentally they are going to be ahead, do the teachers care or take this into consideration?? It doesn't seem fair. Some can be almost 9 months older.

First of all, even without redshirting, some kids can be a year older than the others. Wherever you arbitrarily draw the line, a child could be born tge day before or the day after.

Secondly, kids are not widgets, they do not all develop at the same rate in any characteristic, let alone across all characteristics. Do you expect every child to be the same height on their 5th birthday? Expecting kids to have the same level of maturity, social skills, athletic ability, mathematical ability, language skills, etc., is equally absurd. Most people understand that every person (of any age) has strengths and weaknesses. For children, abilities may correlate roughly with age, but a single child can be advanced in some ways and struggling in others. Parents debating whether or not to redshirt will probably second-guess themselves for years and occasionally have regrets. Keeping them on level may be great in someways, but leave them struggling in others. Redshirting may mean they struggle a little less in some areas, but have other challenges in ways that would have been served better starting earlier. Often there isn’t a “right” answer for a specific child. The idea that an arbitrary rule can be THE “right” answer for EVERY child is ridiculous.

Thirdly, it’s not a competition. Other kids can thrive without limiting your child. Moreover, a child who lacks the maturity to behave in class could cause disruptions that would be detrimental to your child’s experience. Parents who redshirt their kids may be doing your child an immense favor.

Finally, life isn’t fair. There are too many variables to make that a possibility. Even my kids complaining about gifts learned that when we asked them what would make it fair: the same dollar amount? number of gifts? getting the kid who liked slime Barbies that they didn’t want because that’s what their sibling wanted (or vice versa). I think letting each parent make the best determination for their child’s individual case (whether that’s starting “on time”, redshirting, or possibly even early enrollment) is probably the closest thing to fairness we can achieve. Everyone (including you) has the option to consider whether redshirting their child would be beneficial.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A question about fairness!

How is it fair for red shirted kids to be in a class with my late June birthday kid? Developmentally they are going to be ahead, do the teachers care or take this into consideration?? It doesn't seem fair. Some can be almost 9 months older.

Do you read to your child? Pay for supplements? Are you MC and above? Does your child have health insurance? Safe housing? Stable access to food?

If so, how is it fair for kids in your child’s class who don’t have the above to be in class with your child? Or do you not care about those kids?

Grow up. You are so embarrassing and ridiculous. I didn’t redshirt, I just cannot stand DCUMs whiny, narcissistic, and pathetic anti redshirters.

You are always the most vitriolic person on any red shirting thread. I mean, look at your language in this post, which is 10x more dramatic than anything anyone else has posted.

Usually when people object to red shirting, it's the situations in which it's fully discretionary. Like not situations where a child has an identified developmental disadvantage. It's the people who hold back their summer birthdays (usually boys) because they don't want their sons to be on the smaller side in school. There are also people who do it explicitly for advantages in athletics (and in fact that is where the word comes from, as it originally only described "red shirted" college freshman who would be recruited but not played their freshman year in order to give them time to get bigger/stronger/more competitive).

There are obviously fairness concerns with discretionary redshirting and they are never going to go away, no matter how angry and vicious you get on DCUM threads on the subject.

NP, and I agree with PP. Anti-redshirt parents always gloss over the other unfair, "discretionary" advantages their children have. Where they live, what school they go to, what they eat, what hobbies they have, what tutors they get, etc., etc. But somehow the terrible line in the sand is redshirting, which, incidentally, may be more accessible to some families than other advantages (i.e., if you already have a stay home parent or a family caregiver it doesn't cost extra to delay school entry for a year).

PP may have been a little harsh, but the whining is ridculous.

I red-shirted and it had nothing to do with how my kid would compare to other kids, but rather how ready he was for the way K is taught, which is quite different from how it was taught 30 years ago. He was ready for playing, and finger-painting but even preschool circle time was tough enough for him that his teacher suggested that he didn't seem ready for K. He doesn't have a learning disability, or other challenges and is doing fine now. I don't know who he would be in the counter-factual sliding door world where we sent him on time. Maybe also fine. We did our best to make the right choice for him at the time. I really wasn't aware of the DCUM anti-redshirting sentiments then but, frankly, I still would have given priority to my own sense of my kid's best interest, rather than what other people might think of my choices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no plans to redshirt. But I have a few thoughts

1) I can understand why people with notably immature children just shy of the cutoff redshirt. My son is a January baby, so he's on the older side (this is DC, 9/30 cutoff) and he felt just barely ready for PK3. If he was an August or September baby, I honestly don't know what we would have done. He walked late, he talked late, he potty trained late. The transition to PK3 was really rough on him at 3.5. This past spring he just was not ready, full stop. My daughter, on the other hand, is an August baby, and I have absolutely no qualms about sending her next year. She's honestly closer to ready now (at just over 2) than my son was when he'd just turned 3. Kid are different, and if you happen to have a slow to mature kid with a badly timed birthday, that really sucks and I feel for you.

2) There's huge class issues here. Especially in DC. Yes, our daughter will be ready, but if she wasn't? We'd honestly still probably have to send her. We can't spend $20k on another year of childcare when it's not absolutely necessary and there's a free option, whether it was best for her or not. So you've got to consider that side of it, too.

3) A lot of people just redshirt for the advantages and/or for not wanting their kid to be the youngest, and that's crappy. Someone has to be the youngest, suck it up.

Fully agree with all of this. I'm not anti-redshirting, but the way it plays out sometimes is, yes, unfair. And to respond to another PP -- of course other things are unfair. The world is not unfair. But redshirting is distinct from other aspects of unfairness in education, in that it's pretty easy to set a policy that makes redshirting hard, or makes it easy. It's really hard to address the impacts of income inequality on kids in public schools. But redshirting? It's pretty easy to create a policy that is anti-redshirt except in cases of developmental delays.

But people here are adamant that redshirting is not advantageous and everyone will look down on those kids. Doesn't seem clear cut that there's a need for a policy here.

Anonymous wrote:I have no plans to redshirt. But I have a few thoughts

1) I can understand why people with notably immature children just shy of the cutoff redshirt. My son is a January baby, so he's on the older side (this is DC, 9/30 cutoff) and he felt just barely ready for PK3. If he was an August or September baby, I honestly don't know what we would have done. He walked late, he talked late, he potty trained late. The transition to PK3 was really rough on him at 3.5. This past spring he just was not ready, full stop. My daughter, on the other hand, is an August baby, and I have absolutely no qualms about sending her next year. She's honestly closer to ready now (at just over 2) than my son was when he'd just turned 3. Kid are different, and if you happen to have a slow to mature kid with a badly timed birthday, that really sucks and I feel for you.

2) There's huge class issues here. Especially in DC. Yes, our daughter will be ready, but if she wasn't? We'd honestly still probably have to send her. We can't spend $20k on another year of childcare when it's not absolutely necessary and there's a free option, whether it was best for her or not. So you've got to consider that side of it, too.

3) A lot of people just redshirt for the advantages and/or for not wanting their kid to be the youngest, and that's crappy. Someone has to be the youngest, suck it up.

Fully agree with all of this. I'm not anti-redshirting, but the way it plays out sometimes is, yes, unfair. And to respond to another PP -- of course other things are unfair. The world is not unfair. But redshirting is distinct from other aspects of unfairness in education, in that it's pretty easy to set a policy that makes redshirting hard, or makes it easy. It's really hard to address the impacts of income inequality on kids in public schools. But redshirting? It's pretty easy to create a policy that is anti-redshirt except in cases of developmental delays.

I have no plans to redshirt. But I have a few thoughts

1) I can understand why people with notably immature children just shy of the cutoff redshirt. My son is a January baby, so he's on the older side (this is DC, 9/30 cutoff) and he felt just barely ready for PK3. If he was an August or September baby, I honestly don't know what we would have done. He walked late, he talked late, he potty trained late. The transition to PK3 was really rough on him at 3.5. This past spring he just was not ready, full stop. My daughter, on the other hand, is an August baby, and I have absolutely no qualms about sending her next year. She's honestly closer to ready now (at just over 2) than my son was when he'd just turned 3. Kid are different, and if you happen to have a slow to mature kid with a badly timed birthday, that really sucks and I feel for you.

2) There's huge class issues here. Especially in DC. Yes, our daughter will be ready, but if she wasn't? We'd honestly still probably have to send her. We can't spend $20k on another year of childcare when it's not absolutely necessary and there's a free option, whether it was best for her or not. So you've got to consider that side of it, too.

3) A lot of people just redshirt for the advantages and/or for not wanting their kid to be the youngest, and that's crappy. Someone has to be the youngest, suck it up.

Anonymous wrote:I get redshirting for kids who are developmentally behind but in most cases, its just parents trying to give them unfair advantage. Same parents falsely claim learning disabilities and get them free tutoring or extra time on tests.

Citation, please.

Anonymous wrote:A question about fairness!

How is it fair for red shirted kids to be in a class with my late June birthday kid? Developmentally they are going to be ahead, do the teachers care or take this into consideration?? It doesn't seem fair. Some can be almost 9 months older.

This could be true even without redshirting. Should your May child be protected from those horrid children born in September? Perhaps we should divide grades up into three-month increments to make sure your child doesn't get compared to a kid who was walking while yours was still crawling? The horror. What about those kids who hit their growth spurts earlier than others? Probably best to separate them out so as not to scare your late bloomers whose brains might be in a different place. Also, there might be kids who have higher IQs or a natural aptitude for words or numbers. It isn't really fair that they pollute your child's air with their over-proficiency. Might be best for the teachers to set those ones to the side for fear of making others feel bad. My god, it's like we're surrounded by a massive sea of unfairness that is totally different from the real world these kids will eventually have to live in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have a boy, you should have redshirted. Late June boy will be at a disadvantage for everything all through school.

I had considered this for my son with an August birthday, but they could already read and perform math, so felt they were ready for school Sure, the first year or two there were some challenges, but that ceased to be an issue by the time they were 10.

And then puberty hits and it's a whole new ball of wax. My redshirted 13 yr old is the smallest in his friend group and a late bloomer. Thankfully he's not in the grade above where he'd stick out even more like a sore thumb against the boys who look like men.

Anonymous wrote:I get redshirting for kids who are developmentally behind but in most cases, its just parents trying to give them unfair advantage. Same parents falsely claim learning disabilities and get them free tutoring or extra time on tests.

Falsely claim? How would you know? Are you saying schools, doctors, and other parents are colluding to screw your little precious? That's some extra level paranoia you've got going on there. Just get your kid whatever help they need and they too can do well in school and get what they need to succeed.

Anonymous wrote:If you have a boy, you should have redshirted. Late June boy will be at a disadvantage for everything all through school.

I had considered this for my son with an August birthday, but they could already read and perform math, so felt they were ready for school Sure, the first year or two there were some challenges, but that ceased to be an issue by the time they were 10.

Anonymous wrote:A question about fairness!

How is it fair for red shirted kids to be in a class with my late June birthday kid? Developmentally they are going to be ahead, do the teachers care or take this into consideration?? It doesn't seem fair. Some can be almost 9 months older.

It depends on the kid. DS is a late June birthday and taller than most of his classmates. He was selected for LIV services so he academically fine. He plays sports with kids born in his birth year.

He has a friend who could be in his grade but was red shirted and it was 100% the right call. The kid would have struggled if he had started on time. Maturity wise he is not there. Attention wise he is not there. And size wise he is not there. Good kid, smart, funny, and a good heart but not ready to be in the higher grade.