And my DD is a non-red shirted summer birthday and I sure wish she had other younger girls like yours in her class to play and learn with. I agree - tough when others are nearly a year or more older! If everyone played by the rules there would be a natural evening out of ages throughout the year. As it is, the grades are always stacked with older kids

Anonymous wrote:No one other than other red-shirters believes your reasons. We all know you are giving your child an advantage by ploppping them ahead of the line. At least own it.

I am sorry you are wrong! I am sending my DD (who is 1 week shy of the cutoff) when she wil be anout to turn 6 instead of 5 and I am not doing it so she can get better grades than the other kids. I would never do it for this reason because I think she will become smarter if pushed ahead instead of held back. I am doing it because I want her to fit in and be proud of herself. She is a bit shy and I have seen her following the tougher (older ) girls around as they sometimes even make fun of her or tell her that she can’t play with them. I felt very sad for her. Now that she is in class with basically same age kids or younger she is sooo much better. Happy, always has friends, everyone always wants to play with her, etc. it was the best decision I could have made for her. If she ever gets bored, I will supplement. I doubt this will happen since she is only a month older than the October kids.

I am sure my DD would have been able to keep up with the academics one year earlier, but she is much happier now.

Anonymous wrote:No one other than other red-shirters believes your reasons. We all know you are giving your child an advantage by ploppping them ahead of the line. At least own it.

Sure I guess that could be my reason if my kid was at the top of the class. But she's not and she likely never will be. We had our own reasons for holding back and it had nothing to do with gaining advantage over other children.

Anonymous wrote:No one other than other red-shirters believes your reasons. We all know you are giving your child an advantage by ploppping them ahead of the line. At least own it.

Speak for yourself, eh? You don't believe the reasons. Not all of us. You.

No one other than other red-shirters believes your reasons. We all know you are giving your child an advantage by ploppping them ahead of the line. At least own it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course there are 6 year olds turning 7 in K, just as there are 5 year olds turning 6.

OP may be concerned with her August/September birthday child, but generally, the concern about redshirting is the children with spring and summer birthdays.

Ok, but in that case, there aren't any 4-year-olds.

There are also aren't any 20-year-olds graduating from high school -- another DCUM phantom redshirting menace. If you delay entry to kindergarten for a year, you graduate from high school when you're 18 or 19.

Yes, my September birthday DS was 4 when he started K in Virginia.

And then he turned 5 less than 30 days later. And none of the kids in his class were 6 when they started K, because kids with September birthdays who start kindergarten a year late in Virginia, start when they are 5.

It's true that no kindergartners are 4 and 7 at the same time, generally. But there are certainly kindergartners who are 5 and 7 at the same time, in the same class together.

How is this possible? My DD (redshirted) turned 6 on August 23rd which was the at before (or after) she started kindergarten. There were a few kids who tunrned 6 right after her and some that turned 6 in the spring/early summer. Nobody turned 7 until July. I doubt there are many redshirted kids that were born before June/July. This is in DC private school where cutoff is sept 1st

Ssh, we are suppose to pretend that most redshirted kids are years older, instead of only a month or two than the fall birthday kids.

Of course, there may be even older kids in the class, sometimes the school elects to hold students back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I thought the party line with DCUM anti-redshirt posters was that all redshirted kids were dumb and redshirting didn't matter. But here you are all worried about how it's an advantage, so much so that doing it is cheating (never mind that most school districts freely allow it).

Pick a lane. Honestly sometimes I think the DCUM anti-redshirt crowd should learn basic logic skills as they seem to be sorely lacking.

No, you silly PP. Never have the DCUM anti-redshirt posters taken the position that redshirting doesn't matter. After all, if it didn't matter, why bother being a DCUM anti-redshirt poster? The party line of the DCUM anti-redshirt posters is that all redshirted kids are dumb AND ALSO advanced (unfairly, of course). I don't understand how this is possible, but there it is.

Well they were lacking and then their parents decided to give them an age advantage to make them competitive with kids 20% younger. That's confusing to you?

It's confusing to me that you think that school is a competition.

Sure, to some degree. Every state test I get is weighted against their peers. They have to apply to college at the same time as these peers. I mean, if it wasn't competitive why on earth would anyone keep their child back? What does what the other students are capable of matter, since it isn't competitive?

Clearly you see school as a competition which is why red-shirting bothers you. Understand that there are others of us that don't see it as a competition.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I thought the party line with DCUM anti-redshirt posters was that all redshirted kids were dumb and redshirting didn't matter. But here you are all worried about how it's an advantage, so much so that doing it is cheating (never mind that most school districts freely allow it).

Pick a lane. Honestly sometimes I think the DCUM anti-redshirt crowd should learn basic logic skills as they seem to be sorely lacking.

No, you silly PP. Never have the DCUM anti-redshirt posters taken the position that redshirting doesn't matter. After all, if it didn't matter, why bother being a DCUM anti-redshirt poster? The party line of the DCUM anti-redshirt posters is that all redshirted kids are dumb AND ALSO advanced (unfairly, of course). I don't understand how this is possible, but there it is.

Well they were lacking and then their parents decided to give them an age advantage to make them competitive with kids 20% younger. That's confusing to you?

It's confusing to me that you think that school is a competition.

Sure, to some degree. Every state test I get is weighted against their peers. They have to apply to college at the same time as these peers. I mean, if it wasn't competitive why on earth would anyone keep their child back? What does what the other students are capable of matter, since it isn't competitive?

There are lots of reasons to hold a child back that have nothing to do with being competitive.....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sure, to some degree. Every state test I get is weighted against their peers. They have to apply to college at the same time as these peers. I mean, if it wasn't competitive why on earth would anyone keep their child back? What does what the other students are capable of matter, since it isn't competitive?

People have answered this question on every single red-shirting thread on DCUM ever. Have you not read any of the answers? Or have you read the answers, but you don't believe that that the posters are telling the truth?

No, I have not seen explanations of how school is in no way competitive, but yet redshirting makes sense. If its not competition, who cares if your kid is in last?

Go back and re-read. I've seen the answers. They're there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sure, to some degree. Every state test I get is weighted against their peers. They have to apply to college at the same time as these peers. I mean, if it wasn't competitive why on earth would anyone keep their child back? What does what the other students are capable of matter, since it isn't competitive?

People have answered this question on every single red-shirting thread on DCUM ever. Have you not read any of the answers? Or have you read the answers, but you don't believe that that the posters are telling the truth?

No, I have not seen explanations of how school is in no way competitive, but yet redshirting makes sense. If its not competition, who cares if your kid is in last?

Anonymous wrote:

Sure, to some degree. Every state test I get is weighted against their peers. They have to apply to college at the same time as these peers. I mean, if it wasn't competitive why on earth would anyone keep their child back? What does what the other students are capable of matter, since it isn't competitive?

People have answered this question on every single red-shirting thread on DCUM ever. Have you not read any of the answers? Or have you read the answers, but you don't believe that that the posters are telling the truth?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well they were lacking and then their parents decided to give them an age advantage to make them competitive with kids 20% younger. That's confusing to you?

It's confusing to me that you think that school is a competition.

Ah. So its okay when you massage things to benefit your kid because their self confidence was at stake, but when your older child puts younger children in that position (though worse, as its in the classroom of the younger child) you mock it. Interesting.

I'm the PP you're responding to. No, I didn't send my kids late. I sent my older kid on time (January birthday) and my younger kid early. Younger Kid is now in sixth grade and has always been the youngest kid in their class, as far as I know. Are there kids in Younger Kid's class who are more than a year older than Younger Kid? Probably, but I don't know, and I also don't care. Why? Because school isn't a competition.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I thought the party line with DCUM anti-redshirt posters was that all redshirted kids were dumb and redshirting didn't matter. But here you are all worried about how it's an advantage, so much so that doing it is cheating (never mind that most school districts freely allow it).

Pick a lane. Honestly sometimes I think the DCUM anti-redshirt crowd should learn basic logic skills as they seem to be sorely lacking.

No, you silly PP. Never have the DCUM anti-redshirt posters taken the position that redshirting doesn't matter. After all, if it didn't matter, why bother being a DCUM anti-redshirt poster? The party line of the DCUM anti-redshirt posters is that all redshirted kids are dumb AND ALSO advanced (unfairly, of course). I don't understand how this is possible, but there it is.

Well they were lacking and then their parents decided to give them an age advantage to make them competitive with kids 20% younger. That's confusing to you?

It's confusing to me that you think that school is a competition.

Sure, to some degree. Every state test I get is weighted against their peers. They have to apply to college at the same time as these peers. I mean, if it wasn't competitive why on earth would anyone keep their child back? What does what the other students are capable of matter, since it isn't competitive?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I thought the party line with DCUM anti-redshirt posters was that all redshirted kids were dumb and redshirting didn't matter. But here you are all worried about how it's an advantage, so much so that doing it is cheating (never mind that most school districts freely allow it).

Pick a lane. Honestly sometimes I think the DCUM anti-redshirt crowd should learn basic logic skills as they seem to be sorely lacking.

No, you silly PP. Never have the DCUM anti-redshirt posters taken the position that redshirting doesn't matter. After all, if it didn't matter, why bother being a DCUM anti-redshirt poster? The party line of the DCUM anti-redshirt posters is that all redshirted kids are dumb AND ALSO advanced (unfairly, of course). I don't understand how this is possible, but there it is.

Well they were lacking and then their parents decided to give them an age advantage to make them competitive with kids 20% younger. That's confusing to you?

It's confusing to me that you think that school is a competition.

Ah. So its okay when you massage things to benefit your kid because their self confidence was at stake, but when your older child puts younger children in that position (though worse, as its in the classroom of the younger child) you mock it. Interesting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I thought the party line with DCUM anti-redshirt posters was that all redshirted kids were dumb and redshirting didn't matter. But here you are all worried about how it's an advantage, so much so that doing it is cheating (never mind that most school districts freely allow it).

Pick a lane. Honestly sometimes I think the DCUM anti-redshirt crowd should learn basic logic skills as they seem to be sorely lacking.

No, you silly PP. Never have the DCUM anti-redshirt posters taken the position that redshirting doesn't matter. After all, if it didn't matter, why bother being a DCUM anti-redshirt poster? The party line of the DCUM anti-redshirt posters is that all redshirted kids are dumb AND ALSO advanced (unfairly, of course). I don't understand how this is possible, but there it is.

Well they were lacking and then their parents decided to give them an age advantage to make them competitive with kids 20% younger. That's confusing to you?

It's confusing to me that you think that school is a competition.