Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about redshirting -- there are redshirted kids in my kid's class, it's fine, I don't even thing about it.

However as the parent of a kid with an August birthday, I also think parents worry WAY too much about their kid being youngest. Is it because of that stupid Gladwell book? It's really fine. My august birthday kid (not redshirted) is on the mature side of the grade in some things, on the immature side in others. Does well academically and I've never felt the academics are too much.

I figure most people redshirting are doing so because of some kind of delay and I'm sure that's fine. But the way it gets talked about on here, some parents seem to think that if your kid is the youngest in the grade, they are somehow disadvantaged for life. It's dumb. Kids mature at different rates anyway. Also some kids are on the small side or need extra help in math or reading even if they get he extra year.

I just think a lot of you overthink this. As long as the kids are all around the same age, it's fine, and it's more important to just support your kid at home and address any issues that come up, than worrying that their relative age will somehow be this be-all-end-all advantage or disadvantage. It's really not that big of a deal and becomes less of one as they get older.

this was my opinion, until he got to fifth grade, and then the difference in maturity started to pop up, mainly in how much the social order was being decided by the kids who were most confident, had phones first, had video games first, etc. DS was always one of the larger kids in the class but by sixth grade it was getting bad—he was going to school with some kids kids who were 12-13 years older than him—thanks to redshirting!—and it was having a detrimental effect.

We still didn't connect the dots until we applied to a private—for academic not social reasons—and the admissions office pointed out how incredibly young our son was, even before they saw his grades or saw him physically. He red-shirted and is now one of the older kids and it's like night and day. A kid who we always thought was doing fine is now doing great—now the comments from teachers are things like "unusual maturity" and 'really knows who he is" and "confident with the other kids" instead of "he's trying to fit in" and "He'll be okay with a bit more of a confidence boost"...

Obviously not right for everyone and sometimes beign around more mature kids can be a positive experience—if they're the kind of kids who mature into decent people and not mature into bullies. But, some kids can really benefit, especially if they're young for the grade.

Malcom Gladwell's book has nothing to do with this, because it's not about whether all kids will benefit from being an older kid, it's about whether the kids who are younger than their peers—by a substantial margin—in a grade will benefit from not being in that position.

12-13 MONTHS older than him obviously

Yeah, but he has an early June birthday... he was WELL in the range of DCPS for his grade. The kids who were 12 or 13 months older were kids whose parents red-shirted THEM and upended the order.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about redshirting -- there are redshirted kids in my kid's class, it's fine, I don't even thing about it.

However as the parent of a kid with an August birthday, I also think parents worry WAY too much about their kid being youngest. Is it because of that stupid Gladwell book? It's really fine. My august birthday kid (not redshirted) is on the mature side of the grade in some things, on the immature side in others. Does well academically and I've never felt the academics are too much.

I figure most people redshirting are doing so because of some kind of delay and I'm sure that's fine. But the way it gets talked about on here, some parents seem to think that if your kid is the youngest in the grade, they are somehow disadvantaged for life. It's dumb. Kids mature at different rates anyway. Also some kids are on the small side or need extra help in math or reading even if they get he extra year.

I just think a lot of you overthink this. As long as the kids are all around the same age, it's fine, and it's more important to just support your kid at home and address any issues that come up, than worrying that their relative age will somehow be this be-all-end-all advantage or disadvantage. It's really not that big of a deal and becomes less of one as they get older.

this was my opinion, until he got to fifth grade, and then the difference in maturity started to pop up, mainly in how much the social order was being decided by the kids who were most confident, had phones first, had video games first, etc. DS was always one of the larger kids in the class but by sixth grade it was getting bad—he was going to school with some kids kids who were 12-13 years older than him—thanks to redshirting!—and it was having a detrimental effect.

We still didn't connect the dots until we applied to a private—for academic not social reasons—and the admissions office pointed out how incredibly young our son was, even before they saw his grades or saw him physically. He red-shirted and is now one of the older kids and it's like night and day. A kid who we always thought was doing fine is now doing great—now the comments from teachers are things like "unusual maturity" and 'really knows who he is" and "confident with the other kids" instead of "he's trying to fit in" and "He'll be okay with a bit more of a confidence boost"...

Obviously not right for everyone and sometimes beign around more mature kids can be a positive experience—if they're the kind of kids who mature into decent people and not mature into bullies. But, some kids can really benefit, especially if they're young for the grade.

Malcom Gladwell's book has nothing to do with this, because it's not about whether all kids will benefit from being an older kid, it's about whether the kids who are younger than their peers—by a substantial margin—in a grade will benefit from not being in that position.

12-13 MONTHS older than him obviously

Yeah, but he has an early June birthday... he was WELL in the range of DCPS for his grade. The kids who were 12 or 13 months older were kids whose parents red-shirted THEM and upended the order.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about redshirting -- there are redshirted kids in my kid's class, it's fine, I don't even thing about it.

However as the parent of a kid with an August birthday, I also think parents worry WAY too much about their kid being youngest. Is it because of that stupid Gladwell book? It's really fine. My august birthday kid (not redshirted) is on the mature side of the grade in some things, on the immature side in others. Does well academically and I've never felt the academics are too much.

I figure most people redshirting are doing so because of some kind of delay and I'm sure that's fine. But the way it gets talked about on here, some parents seem to think that if your kid is the youngest in the grade, they are somehow disadvantaged for life. It's dumb. Kids mature at different rates anyway. Also some kids are on the small side or need extra help in math or reading even if they get he extra year.

I just think a lot of you overthink this. As long as the kids are all around the same age, it's fine, and it's more important to just support your kid at home and address any issues that come up, than worrying that their relative age will somehow be this be-all-end-all advantage or disadvantage. It's really not that big of a deal and becomes less of one as they get older.

this was my opinion, until he got to fifth grade, and then the difference in maturity started to pop up, mainly in how much the social order was being decided by the kids who were most confident, had phones first, had video games first, etc. DS was always one of the larger kids in the class but by sixth grade it was getting bad—he was going to school with some kids kids who were 12-13 years older than him—thanks to redshirting!—and it was having a detrimental effect.

We still didn't connect the dots until we applied to a private—for academic not social reasons—and the admissions office pointed out how incredibly young our son was, even before they saw his grades or saw him physically. He red-shirted and is now one of the older kids and it's like night and day. A kid who we always thought was doing fine is now doing great—now the comments from teachers are things like "unusual maturity" and 'really knows who he is" and "confident with the other kids" instead of "he's trying to fit in" and "He'll be okay with a bit more of a confidence boost"...

Obviously not right for everyone and sometimes beign around more mature kids can be a positive experience—if they're the kind of kids who mature into decent people and not mature into bullies. But, some kids can really benefit, especially if they're young for the grade.

Malcom Gladwell's book has nothing to do with this, because it's not about whether all kids will benefit from being an older kid, it's about whether the kids who are younger than their peers—by a substantial margin—in a grade will benefit from not being in that position.

Just so you realize though, there are now kids in his class that are 13+ months younger than him. I'm glad you worked it out but this is one of the arguments against redshirting is that it's a never ending cycle with people constantly fighting not to be the youngest.

There's no question some kids do need to be held back, but a blanket allowance to start K late is what is being asked for by these parents and it's just not conducive to the system as a whole.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about redshirting -- there are redshirted kids in my kid's class, it's fine, I don't even thing about it.

However as the parent of a kid with an August birthday, I also think parents worry WAY too much about their kid being youngest. Is it because of that stupid Gladwell book? It's really fine. My august birthday kid (not redshirted) is on the mature side of the grade in some things, on the immature side in others. Does well academically and I've never felt the academics are too much.

I figure most people redshirting are doing so because of some kind of delay and I'm sure that's fine. But the way it gets talked about on here, some parents seem to think that if your kid is the youngest in the grade, they are somehow disadvantaged for life. It's dumb. Kids mature at different rates anyway. Also some kids are on the small side or need extra help in math or reading even if they get he extra year.

I just think a lot of you overthink this. As long as the kids are all around the same age, it's fine, and it's more important to just support your kid at home and address any issues that come up, than worrying that their relative age will somehow be this be-all-end-all advantage or disadvantage. It's really not that big of a deal and becomes less of one as they get older.

this was my opinion, until he got to fifth grade, and then the difference in maturity started to pop up, mainly in how much the social order was being decided by the kids who were most confident, had phones first, had video games first, etc. DS was always one of the larger kids in the class but by sixth grade it was getting bad—he was going to school with some kids kids who were 12-13 years older than him—thanks to redshirting!—and it was having a detrimental effect.

We still didn't connect the dots until we applied to a private—for academic not social reasons—and the admissions office pointed out how incredibly young our son was, even before they saw his grades or saw him physically. He red-shirted and is now one of the older kids and it's like night and day. A kid who we always thought was doing fine is now doing great—now the comments from teachers are things like "unusual maturity" and 'really knows who he is" and "confident with the other kids" instead of "he's trying to fit in" and "He'll be okay with a bit more of a confidence boost"...

Obviously not right for everyone and sometimes beign around more mature kids can be a positive experience—if they're the kind of kids who mature into decent people and not mature into bullies. But, some kids can really benefit, especially if they're young for the grade.

Malcom Gladwell's book has nothing to do with this, because it's not about whether all kids will benefit from being an older kid, it's about whether the kids who are younger than their peers—by a substantial margin—in a grade will benefit from not being in that position.

12-13 MONTHS older than him obviously

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about redshirting -- there are redshirted kids in my kid's class, it's fine, I don't even thing about it.

However as the parent of a kid with an August birthday, I also think parents worry WAY too much about their kid being youngest. Is it because of that stupid Gladwell book? It's really fine. My august birthday kid (not redshirted) is on the mature side of the grade in some things, on the immature side in others. Does well academically and I've never felt the academics are too much.

I figure most people redshirting are doing so because of some kind of delay and I'm sure that's fine. But the way it gets talked about on here, some parents seem to think that if your kid is the youngest in the grade, they are somehow disadvantaged for life. It's dumb. Kids mature at different rates anyway. Also some kids are on the small side or need extra help in math or reading even if they get he extra year.

I just think a lot of you overthink this. As long as the kids are all around the same age, it's fine, and it's more important to just support your kid at home and address any issues that come up, than worrying that their relative age will somehow be this be-all-end-all advantage or disadvantage. It's really not that big of a deal and becomes less of one as they get older.

this was my opinion, until he got to fifth grade, and then the difference in maturity started to pop up, mainly in how much the social order was being decided by the kids who were most confident, had phones first, had video games first, etc. DS was always one of the larger kids in the class but by sixth grade it was getting bad—he was going to school with some kids kids who were 12-13 years older than him—thanks to redshirting!—and it was having a detrimental effect.

We still didn't connect the dots until we applied to a private—for academic not social reasons—and the admissions office pointed out how incredibly young our son was, even before they saw his grades or saw him physically. He red-shirted and is now one of the older kids and it's like night and day. A kid who we always thought was doing fine is now doing great—now the comments from teachers are things like "unusual maturity" and 'really knows who he is" and "confident with the other kids" instead of "he's trying to fit in" and "He'll be okay with a bit more of a confidence boost"...

Obviously not right for everyone and sometimes beign around more mature kids can be a positive experience—if they're the kind of kids who mature into decent people and not mature into bullies. But, some kids can really benefit, especially if they're young for the grade.

Malcom Gladwell's book has nothing to do with this, because it's not about whether all kids will benefit from being an older kid, it's about whether the kids who are younger than their peers—by a substantial margin—in a grade will benefit from not being in that position.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about redshirting -- there are redshirted kids in my kid's class, it's fine, I don't even thing about it.

However as the parent of a kid with an August birthday, I also think parents worry WAY too much about their kid being youngest. Is it because of that stupid Gladwell book? It's really fine. My august birthday kid (not redshirted) is on the mature side of the grade in some things, on the immature side in others. Does well academically and I've never felt the academics are too much.

I figure most people redshirting are doing so because of some kind of delay and I'm sure that's fine. But the way it gets talked about on here, some parents seem to think that if your kid is the youngest in the grade, they are somehow disadvantaged for life. It's dumb. Kids mature at different rates anyway. Also some kids are on the small side or need extra help in math or reading even if they get he extra year.

I just think a lot of you overthink this. As long as the kids are all around the same age, it's fine, and it's more important to just support your kid at home and address any issues that come up, than worrying that their relative age will somehow be this be-all-end-all advantage or disadvantage. It's really not that big of a deal and becomes less of one as they get older.

this was my opinion, until he got to fifth grade, and then the difference in maturity started to pop up, mainly in how much the social order was being decided by the kids who were most confident, had phones first, had video games first, etc. DS was always one of the larger kids in the class but by sixth grade it was getting bad—he was going to school with some kids kids who were 12-13 years older than him—thanks to redshirting!—and it was having a detrimental effect.

We still didn't connect the dots until we applied to a private—for academic not social reasons—and the admissions office pointed out how incredibly young our son was, even before they saw his grades or saw him physically. He red-shirted and is now one of the older kids and it's like night and day. A kid who we always thought was doing fine is now doing great—now the comments from teachers are things like "unusual maturity" and 'really knows who he is" and "confident with the other kids" instead of "he's trying to fit in" and "He'll be okay with a bit more of a confidence boost"...

Obviously not right for everyone and sometimes beign around more mature kids can be a positive experience—if they're the kind of kids who mature into decent people and not mature into bullies. But, some kids can really benefit, especially if they're young for the grade.

Malcom Gladwell's book has nothing to do with this, because it's not about whether all kids will benefit from being an older kid, it's about whether the kids who are younger than their peers—by a substantial margin—in a grade will benefit from not being in that position.

Thank you! I was going through the same observations with DC and finally made similar decisions. Thank you for this comforting and reassuring post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about redshirting -- there are redshirted kids in my kid's class, it's fine, I don't even thing about it.

However as the parent of a kid with an August birthday, I also think parents worry WAY too much about their kid being youngest. Is it because of that stupid Gladwell book? It's really fine. My august birthday kid (not redshirted) is on the mature side of the grade in some things, on the immature side in others. Does well academically and I've never felt the academics are too much.

I figure most people redshirting are doing so because of some kind of delay and I'm sure that's fine. But the way it gets talked about on here, some parents seem to think that if your kid is the youngest in the grade, they are somehow disadvantaged for life. It's dumb. Kids mature at different rates anyway. Also some kids are on the small side or need extra help in math or reading even if they get he extra year.

I just think a lot of you overthink this. As long as the kids are all around the same age, it's fine, and it's more important to just support your kid at home and address any issues that come up, than worrying that their relative age will somehow be this be-all-end-all advantage or disadvantage. It's really not that big of a deal and becomes less of one as they get older.

this was my opinion, until he got to fifth grade, and then the difference in maturity started to pop up, mainly in how much the social order was being decided by the kids who were most confident, had phones first, had video games first, etc. DS was always one of the larger kids in the class but by sixth grade it was getting bad—he was going to school with some kids kids who were 12-13 years older than him—thanks to redshirting!—and it was having a detrimental effect.

We still didn't connect the dots until we applied to a private—for academic not social reasons—and the admissions office pointed out how incredibly young our son was, even before they saw his grades or saw him physically. He red-shirted and is now one of the older kids and it's like night and day. A kid who we always thought was doing fine is now doing great—now the comments from teachers are things like "unusual maturity" and 'really knows who he is" and "confident with the other kids" instead of "he's trying to fit in" and "He'll be okay with a bit more of a confidence boost"...

Obviously not right for everyone and sometimes beign around more mature kids can be a positive experience—if they're the kind of kids who mature into decent people and not mature into bullies. But, some kids can really benefit, especially if they're young for the grade.

Malcom Gladwell's book has nothing to do with this, because it's not about whether all kids will benefit from being an older kid, it's about whether the kids who are younger than their peers—by a substantial margin—in a grade will benefit from not being in that position.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about redshirting -- there are redshirted kids in my kid's class, it's fine, I don't even thing about it.

However as the parent of a kid with an August birthday, I also think parents worry WAY too much about their kid being youngest. Is it because of that stupid Gladwell book? It's really fine. My august birthday kid (not redshirted) is on the mature side of the grade in some things, on the immature side in others. Does well academically and I've never felt the academics are too much.

I figure most people redshirting are doing so because of some kind of delay and I'm sure that's fine. But the way it gets talked about on here, some parents seem to think that if your kid is the youngest in the grade, they are somehow disadvantaged for life. It's dumb. Kids mature at different rates anyway. Also some kids are on the small side or need extra help in math or reading even if they get he extra year.

I just think a lot of you overthink this. As long as the kids are all around the same age, it's fine, and it's more important to just support your kid at home and address any issues that come up, than worrying that their relative age will somehow be this be-all-end-all advantage or disadvantage. It's really not that big of a deal and becomes less of one as they get older.

this was my opinion, until he got to fifth grade, and then the difference in maturity started to pop up, mainly in how much the social order was being decided by the kids who were most confident, had phones first, had video games first, etc. DS was always one of the larger kids in the class but by sixth grade it was getting bad—he was going to school with some kids kids who were 12-13 years older than him—thanks to redshirting!—and it was having a detrimental effect.

We still didn't connect the dots until we applied to a private—for academic not social reasons—and the admissions office pointed out how incredibly young our son was, even before they saw his grades or saw him physically. He red-shirted and is now one of the older kids and it's like night and day. A kid who we always thought was doing fine is now doing great—now the comments from teachers are things like "unusual maturity" and 'really knows who he is" and "confident with the other kids" instead of "he's trying to fit in" and "He'll be okay with a bit more of a confidence boost"...

Obviously not right for everyone and sometimes beign around more mature kids can be a positive experience—if they're the kind of kids who mature into decent people and not mature into bullies. But, some kids can really benefit, especially if they're young for the grade.

Malcom Gladwell's book has nothing to do with this, because it's not about whether all kids will benefit from being an older kid, it's about whether the kids who are younger than their peers—by a substantial margin—in a grade will benefit from not being in that position.

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about redshirting -- there are redshirted kids in my kid's class, it's fine, I don't even thing about it.

However as the parent of a kid with an August birthday, I also think parents worry WAY too much about their kid being youngest. Is it because of that stupid Gladwell book? It's really fine. My august birthday kid (not redshirted) is on the mature side of the grade in some things, on the immature side in others. Does well academically and I've never felt the academics are too much.

I figure most people redshirting are doing so because of some kind of delay and I'm sure that's fine. But the way it gets talked about on here, some parents seem to think that if your kid is the youngest in the grade, they are somehow disadvantaged for life. It's dumb. Kids mature at different rates anyway. Also some kids are on the small side or need extra help in math or reading even if they get he extra year.

I just think a lot of you overthink this. As long as the kids are all around the same age, it's fine, and it's more important to just support your kid at home and address any issues that come up, than worrying that their relative age will somehow be this be-all-end-all advantage or disadvantage. It's really not that big of a deal and becomes less of one as they get older.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the code permits kids this age to enroll in kindergarten, then they aren’t really one year older than the age for the grade in which they are currently enrolled, right? I’d argue the age would now start with kids born in after May 30 or June 30 or whatever.

The silver lining could be that these bills close that ridiculous loophole.

Assuming they also change the PK ages, it would basically just give most kids 2 shots at the PK & K lotteries and will absolutely be used as such for those without financial pressure to use free PK. If they don’t change the PK ages, then this is literally the very rich kids loophole: you can only use it for K if you’re rich? So rich Kers have the option to try the lottery twice and redshirt if they want? Sounds great for them… and like it will definitely perpetuate inequities across the system

This is so dumb. Privileges in society is not applying to public kindergarten lottery two years in a row.

I can't tell what you're trying to say. In DC, it would definitely perpetuate inequalities if rich people had more opportunities to play the lottery and skewing charters/desirable schools even more UMC is definitely not what is best for the system. Similarly, people holding the Kers back solely to take advantage of another shot at the lottery is not what's best for the system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

These kids, if allowed to enroll in K rather than first, will be granted the "equitable access" preference for high school enrollment. So this affects their classmates and siblings for the next decade +.