Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ugh, as someone whose 4 year old is in a preK class full of kids who are *already* turning 6, I say send your kids to school on time.
You're going to have a rough time in life.
Uh, no. PP is simply sending her kid to school ON TIME as it's supposed to happen. These other people are being a bit selfish, in my opinion, in redshirting their kids. Seriously, someone has to be the oldest and the youngest in the class. It's not the end of the world. I get it if your kid has serious delays or medical issues, but outside of that, get over it. Why is it more fair that your kid will now be 6 for all of kindergarten when there are kids who are literally just turning 5 a day or two before the year starts, vs. your kid being 5 like all the other kids in the class but not turning 6 until most of them have already turned 6? I have a summer birthday and never thought twice about this. Being around older kids can push you to do better. It just seems terribly selfish and unfair to set up a scenario where your kid is going to be a year older and thus possibly better able to compete for sports positions and scholarships, etc. Think about all of the kids whose families are low-income and can't afford to send their kids to private pre-K or "junior K" (whatever the heck that is!) and probably have less a chance to compete for these things in the first place due to circumstances beyond their control. It just makes me angry. End of rant.
Why should my Kid be the youngest when I can legally send her in K when she will turn 6 3 days before school starts (Aug 27th birthday)? She was born at 39 weeks, if she were born at 40 she would have to start at 6 as well. Sorry.. deal with it... I think it’s totally fair.
Because someone's kid has to be the youngest. I guess I just feel like the regulations are there for a purpose, and it's bending the rules to not follow them. What about the kid who was born on Aug 27 but whose family can't afford to send him to an extra year of preschool or daycare and needs to start public K? Yes, the cut-offs are arbitrary, but if you push it back to Aug 27 because you don't want your kid to be the youngest, then why won't the next parent want to push it back to Aug 15 because her kid shouldn't be the youngest, and then another parent to July 25, and so on.
I understand your point, but I doubt any parent would do what you are suggesting. If they truly think it is in the interest of their child, they will redshirt. Just a curiosity, but what’s your kid’s birthday?
Really? Some people honestly can't afford another year of childcare or preschool. Some people don't speak English fluently or have access to knowledge about the educational system and have no concept that they even could/should consider "redshirting" -- they see the cut-off date for enrollment and follow the rules accordingly. My child's birthday is in June, and he's very small for his age. We could afford private school and considered doing private for a year before putting him into public, but the plan was always to be in-grade -- that he would go to a private, nature-based kindergarten program and then enter in 1st grade. I'm not saying this is right for every child or that there aren't circumstances when you would want to "redshirt," but just that it's not feasible for everyone and is setting up a bit of an unnecessary divide. I have good friends whose kid has a late August birthday, and they are thrilled to have one less year of preschool to pay for.
I agree with this. My first grader has two good friends (boys) who turned 6 in August, after K had ended. Both are doing awesome. Unless there are severe special needs, redshirting doesn't do your kid any favors.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ugh, as someone whose 4 year old is in a preK class full of kids who are *already* turning 6, I say send your kids to school on time.
You're going to have a rough time in life.
Uh, no. PP is simply sending her kid to school ON TIME as it's supposed to happen. These other people are being a bit selfish, in my opinion, in redshirting their kids. Seriously, someone has to be the oldest and the youngest in the class. It's not the end of the world. I get it if your kid has serious delays or medical issues, but outside of that, get over it. Why is it more fair that your kid will now be 6 for all of kindergarten when there are kids who are literally just turning 5 a day or two before the year starts, vs. your kid being 5 like all the other kids in the class but not turning 6 until most of them have already turned 6? I have a summer birthday and never thought twice about this. Being around older kids can push you to do better. It just seems terribly selfish and unfair to set up a scenario where your kid is going to be a year older and thus possibly better able to compete for sports positions and scholarships, etc. Think about all of the kids whose families are low-income and can't afford to send their kids to private pre-K or "junior K" (whatever the heck that is!) and probably have less a chance to compete for these things in the first place due to circumstances beyond their control. It just makes me angry. End of rant.
Why should my Kid be the youngest when I can legally send her in K when she will turn 6 3 days before school starts (Aug 27th birthday)? She was born at 39 weeks, if she were born at 40 she would have to start at 6 as well. Sorry.. deal with it... I think it’s totally fair.
Because someone's kid has to be the youngest. I guess I just feel like the regulations are there for a purpose, and it's bending the rules to not follow them. What about the kid who was born on Aug 27 but whose family can't afford to send him to an extra year of preschool or daycare and needs to start public K? Yes, the cut-offs are arbitrary, but if you push it back to Aug 27 because you don't want your kid to be the youngest, then why won't the next parent want to push it back to Aug 15 because her kid shouldn't be the youngest, and then another parent to July 25, and so on.
I understand your point, but I doubt any parent would do what you are suggesting. If they truly think it is in the interest of their child, they will redshirt. Just a curiosity, but what’s your kid’s birthday?
Really? Some people honestly can't afford another year of childcare or preschool. Some people don't speak English fluently or have access to knowledge about the educational system and have no concept that they even could/should consider "redshirting" -- they see the cut-off date for enrollment and follow the rules accordingly. My child's birthday is in June, and he's very small for his age. We could afford private school and considered doing private for a year before putting him into public, but the plan was always to be in-grade -- that he would go to a private, nature-based kindergarten program and then enter in 1st grade. I'm not saying this is right for every child or that there aren't circumstances when you would want to "redshirt," but just that it's not feasible for everyone and is setting up a bit of an unnecessary divide. I have good friends whose kid has a late August birthday, and they are thrilled to have one less year of preschool to pay for.
Anonymous wrote:NP here. We will be "redshirting" our kid, and we've known it since he was born. The cutoff in VA is 9/30 and he was born in early September. No way am I starting off a 4 year old in kindergarten -- it's not in the best interests of my child, and I'm not legally required to start him for another year. I think a lot of people go to a private K program, and then do public K after that. I would ask around in your neighborhood and see if other parents can recommend a nearby school.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ugh, as someone whose 4 year old is in a preK class full of kids who are *already* turning 6, I say send your kids to school on time.
You're going to have a rough time in life.
Uh, no. PP is simply sending her kid to school ON TIME as it's supposed to happen. These other people are being a bit selfish, in my opinion, in redshirting their kids. Seriously, someone has to be the oldest and the youngest in the class. It's not the end of the world. I get it if your kid has serious delays or medical issues, but outside of that, get over it. Why is it more fair that your kid will now be 6 for all of kindergarten when there are kids who are literally just turning 5 a day or two before the year starts, vs. your kid being 5 like all the other kids in the class but not turning 6 until most of them have already turned 6? I have a summer birthday and never thought twice about this. Being around older kids can push you to do better. It just seems terribly selfish and unfair to set up a scenario where your kid is going to be a year older and thus possibly better able to compete for sports positions and scholarships, etc. Think about all of the kids whose families are low-income and can't afford to send their kids to private pre-K or "junior K" (whatever the heck that is!) and probably have less a chance to compete for these things in the first place due to circumstances beyond their control. It just makes me angry. End of rant.
Why should my Kid be the youngest when I can legally send her in K when she will turn 6 3 days before school starts (Aug 27th birthday)? She was born at 39 weeks, if she were born at 40 she would have to start at 6 as well. Sorry.. deal with it... I think it’s totally fair.
Because someone's kid has to be the youngest. I guess I just feel like the regulations are there for a purpose, and it's bending the rules to not follow them. What about the kid who was born on Aug 27 but whose family can't afford to send him to an extra year of preschool or daycare and needs to start public K? Yes, the cut-offs are arbitrary, but if you push it back to Aug 27 because you don't want your kid to be the youngest, then why won't the next parent want to push it back to Aug 15 because her kid shouldn't be the youngest, and then another parent to July 25, and so on.
I understand your point, but I doubt any parent would do what you are suggesting. If they truly think it is in the interest of their child, they will redshirt. Just a curiosity, but what’s your kid’s birthday?
Really? Some people honestly can't afford another year of childcare or preschool. Some people don't speak English fluently or have access to knowledge about the educational system and have no concept that they even could/should consider "redshirting" -- they see the cut-off date for enrollment and follow the rules accordingly. My child's birthday is in June, and he's very small for his age. We could afford private school and considered doing private for a year before putting him into public, but the plan was always to be in-grade -- that he would go to a private, nature-based kindergarten program and then enter in 1st grade. I'm not saying this is right for every child or that there aren't circumstances when you would want to "redshirt," but just that it's not feasible for everyone and is setting up a bit of an unnecessary divide. I have good friends whose kid has a late August birthday, and they are thrilled to have one less year of preschool to pay for.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Really? Some people honestly can't afford another year of childcare or preschool. Some people don't speak English fluently or have access to knowledge about the educational system and have no concept that they even could/should consider "redshirting" -- they see the cut-off date for enrollment and follow the rules accordingly. My child's birthday is in June, and he's very small for his age. We could afford private school and considered doing private for a year before putting him into public, but the plan was always to be in-grade -- that he would go to a private, nature-based kindergarten program and then enter in 1st grade. I'm not saying this is right for every child or that there aren't circumstances when you would want to "redshirt," but just that it's not feasible for everyone and is setting up a bit of an unnecessary divide. I have good friends whose kid has a late August birthday, and they are thrilled to have one less year of preschool to pay for.
What on earth does that have to do with anything? If some families aren't in a position to take their child to a library, are you not going to take yours? If some families can't afford to buy books, are you going to stop buying yours? What's with the weird concept of forced equality where none exists?
Anonymous wrote:
Really? Some people honestly can't afford another year of childcare or preschool. Some people don't speak English fluently or have access to knowledge about the educational system and have no concept that they even could/should consider "redshirting" -- they see the cut-off date for enrollment and follow the rules accordingly. My child's birthday is in June, and he's very small for his age. We could afford private school and considered doing private for a year before putting him into public, but the plan was always to be in-grade -- that he would go to a private, nature-based kindergarten program and then enter in 1st grade. I'm not saying this is right for every child or that there aren't circumstances when you would want to "redshirt," but just that it's not feasible for everyone and is setting up a bit of an unnecessary divide. I have good friends whose kid has a late August birthday, and they are thrilled to have one less year of preschool to pay for.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ugh, as someone whose 4 year old is in a preK class full of kids who are *already* turning 6, I say send your kids to school on time.
You're going to have a rough time in life.
Uh, no. PP is simply sending her kid to school ON TIME as it's supposed to happen. These other people are being a bit selfish, in my opinion, in redshirting their kids. Seriously, someone has to be the oldest and the youngest in the class. It's not the end of the world. I get it if your kid has serious delays or medical issues, but outside of that, get over it. Why is it more fair that your kid will now be 6 for all of kindergarten when there are kids who are literally just turning 5 a day or two before the year starts, vs. your kid being 5 like all the other kids in the class but not turning 6 until most of them have already turned 6? I have a summer birthday and never thought twice about this. Being around older kids can push you to do better. It just seems terribly selfish and unfair to set up a scenario where your kid is going to be a year older and thus possibly better able to compete for sports positions and scholarships, etc. Think about all of the kids whose families are low-income and can't afford to send their kids to private pre-K or "junior K" (whatever the heck that is!) and probably have less a chance to compete for these things in the first place due to circumstances beyond their control. It just makes me angry. End of rant.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ugh, as someone whose 4 year old is in a preK class full of kids who are *already* turning 6, I say send your kids to school on time.
You're going to have a rough time in life.
Uh, no. PP is simply sending her kid to school ON TIME as it's supposed to happen. These other people are being a bit selfish, in my opinion, in redshirting their kids. Seriously, someone has to be the oldest and the youngest in the class. It's not the end of the world. I get it if your kid has serious delays or medical issues, but outside of that, get over it. Why is it more fair that your kid will now be 6 for all of kindergarten when there are kids who are literally just turning 5 a day or two before the year starts, vs. your kid being 5 like all the other kids in the class but not turning 6 until most of them have already turned 6? I have a summer birthday and never thought twice about this. Being around older kids can push you to do better. It just seems terribly selfish and unfair to set up a scenario where your kid is going to be a year older and thus possibly better able to compete for sports positions and scholarships, etc. Think about all of the kids whose families are low-income and can't afford to send their kids to private pre-K or "junior K" (whatever the heck that is!) and probably have less a chance to compete for these things in the first place due to circumstances beyond their control. It just makes me angry. End of rant.
Why should my Kid be the youngest when I can legally send her in K when she will turn 6 3 days before school starts (Aug 27th birthday)? She was born at 39 weeks, if she were born at 40 she would have to start at 6 as well. Sorry.. deal with it... I think it’s totally fair.
Because someone's kid has to be the youngest. I guess I just feel like the regulations are there for a purpose, and it's bending the rules to not follow them. What about the kid who was born on Aug 27 but whose family can't afford to send him to an extra year of preschool or daycare and needs to start public K? Yes, the cut-offs are arbitrary, but if you push it back to Aug 27 because you don't want your kid to be the youngest, then why won't the next parent want to push it back to Aug 15 because her kid shouldn't be the youngest, and then another parent to July 25, and so on.
I understand your point, but I doubt any parent would do what you are suggesting. If they truly think it is in the interest of their child, they will redshirt. Just a curiosity, but what’s your kid’s birthday?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ugh, as someone whose 4 year old is in a preK class full of kids who are *already* turning 6, I say send your kids to school on time.
You're going to have a rough time in life.
Uh, no. PP is simply sending her kid to school ON TIME as it's supposed to happen. These other people are being a bit selfish, in my opinion, in redshirting their kids. Seriously, someone has to be the oldest and the youngest in the class. It's not the end of the world. I get it if your kid has serious delays or medical issues, but outside of that, get over it. Why is it more fair that your kid will now be 6 for all of kindergarten when there are kids who are literally just turning 5 a day or two before the year starts, vs. your kid being 5 like all the other kids in the class but not turning 6 until most of them have already turned 6? I have a summer birthday and never thought twice about this. Being around older kids can push you to do better. It just seems terribly selfish and unfair to set up a scenario where your kid is going to be a year older and thus possibly better able to compete for sports positions and scholarships, etc. Think about all of the kids whose families are low-income and can't afford to send their kids to private pre-K or "junior K" (whatever the heck that is!) and probably have less a chance to compete for these things in the first place due to circumstances beyond their control. It just makes me angry. End of rant.
Why should my Kid be the youngest when I can legally send her in K when she will turn 6 3 days before school starts (Aug 27th birthday)? She was born at 39 weeks, if she were born at 40 she would have to start at 6 as well. Sorry.. deal with it... I think it’s totally fair.
Because someone's kid has to be the youngest. I guess I just feel like the regulations are there for a purpose, and it's bending the rules to not follow them. What about the kid who was born on Aug 27 but whose family can't afford to send him to an extra year of preschool or daycare and needs to start public K? Yes, the cut-offs are arbitrary, but if you push it back to Aug 27 because you don't want your kid to be the youngest, then why won't the next parent want to push it back to Aug 15 because her kid shouldn't be the youngest, and then another parent to July 25, and so on.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ugh, as someone whose 4 year old is in a preK class full of kids who are *already* turning 6, I say send your kids to school on time.
You're going to have a rough time in life.
Uh, no. PP is simply sending her kid to school ON TIME as it's supposed to happen. These other people are being a bit selfish, in my opinion, in redshirting their kids. Seriously, someone has to be the oldest and the youngest in the class. It's not the end of the world. I get it if your kid has serious delays or medical issues, but outside of that, get over it. Why is it more fair that your kid will now be 6 for all of kindergarten when there are kids who are literally just turning 5 a day or two before the year starts, vs. your kid being 5 like all the other kids in the class but not turning 6 until most of them have already turned 6? I have a summer birthday and never thought twice about this. Being around older kids can push you to do better. It just seems terribly selfish and unfair to set up a scenario where your kid is going to be a year older and thus possibly better able to compete for sports positions and scholarships, etc. Think about all of the kids whose families are low-income and can't afford to send their kids to private pre-K or "junior K" (whatever the heck that is!) and probably have less a chance to compete for these things in the first place due to circumstances beyond their control. It just makes me angry. End of rant.
Why should my Kid be the youngest when I can legally send her in K when she will turn 6 3 days before school starts (Aug 27th birthday)? She was born at 39 weeks, if she were born at 40 she would have to start at 6 as well. Sorry.. deal with it... I think it’s totally fair.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ugh, as someone whose 4 year old is in a preK class full of kids who are *already* turning 6, I say send your kids to school on time.
You're going to have a rough time in life.
Uh, no. PP is simply sending her kid to school ON TIME as it's supposed to happen. These other people are being a bit selfish, in my opinion, in redshirting their kids. Seriously, someone has to be the oldest and the youngest in the class. It's not the end of the world. I get it if your kid has serious delays or medical issues, but outside of that, get over it. Why is it more fair that your kid will now be 6 for all of kindergarten when there are kids who are literally just turning 5 a day or two before the year starts, vs. your kid being 5 like all the other kids in the class but not turning 6 until most of them have already turned 6? I have a summer birthday and never thought twice about this. Being around older kids can push you to do better. It just seems terribly selfish and unfair to set up a scenario where your kid is going to be a year older and thus possibly better able to compete for sports positions and scholarships, etc. Think about all of the kids whose families are low-income and can't afford to send their kids to private pre-K or "junior K" (whatever the heck that is!) and probably have less a chance to compete for these things in the first place due to circumstances beyond their control. It just makes me angry. End of rant.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ugh, as someone whose 4 year old is in a preK class full of kids who are *already* turning 6, I say send your kids to school on time.
You're going to have a rough time in life.
Uh, no. PP is simply sending her kid to school ON TIME as it's supposed to happen. These other people are being a bit selfish, in my opinion, in redshirting their kids. Seriously, someone has to be the oldest and the youngest in the class. It's not the end of the world. I get it if your kid has serious delays or medical issues, but outside of that, get over it. Why is it more fair that your kid will now be 6 for all of kindergarten when there are kids who are literally just turning 5 a day or two before the year starts, vs. your kid being 5 like all the other kids in the class but not turning 6 until most of them have already turned 6? I have a summer birthday and never thought twice about this. Being around older kids can push you to do better. It just seems terribly selfish and unfair to set up a scenario where your kid is going to be a year older and thus possibly better able to compete for sports positions and scholarships, etc. Think about all of the kids whose families are low-income and can't afford to send their kids to private pre-K or "junior K" (whatever the heck that is!) and probably have less a chance to compete for these things in the first place due to circumstances beyond their control. It just makes me angry. End of rant.