Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the school is just don’t care. they have no incentive to do it. Older kids are easier for them.

This. I was going to go further and say that the schools actually prefer it. Publics can’t come right out and say that since it’s an equity issue (poor people can’t afford to keep their kids home an extra year or pay for more daycare) but privates say it all the time. At the top private in my city, they rarely allow boys who are the right age to start on time - they prefer them all older. Then they can dominate in competitions.

Kids should always be compared against others in their birth year for college entry, sports, etc.

This doesn't really makes sense because even if you could argue that older kindergarteners are easier due to emotional maturity or, I don't know, potty training (I would guess younger kids have more accidents), if you teach in middle or high school, you know that "older" does not always translate to more mature, and also that a lot of the behavioral problems are caused by hormonal changes happening before kids are ready.

So sure, some K teachers might welcome a few 7 year olds if it means the kids can share more easily or maybe more of them start the year knowing how to read. But go talk to some 6th grade teachers about how eager they are to have a bunch of 12 year olds, turning 13, in class. No thank you!

Older is NOT always better. Age cohorts exist for a reason and people who try to "jump" the cohort for advantage screw over everyone. The reason schools don't put up a fight is because the parents most likely to abuse this loophole also tend to be really hard to deal with and will threaten to sue over... anything. But no, teachers are not excited to have a bunch of older kids in class, good lord.

Anonymous wrote:Can confirm there is no red shirting in NYC. Our K class is all kids born in 2018. I have a March kid who is one of the oldest.

Another confirmation here. My daughter turned 5 in November of Kindergarten and there were 4 kids younger than her in class. They're very strict against red-shirting, I think I know of maybe 2 kids out of more than 100 in her grade who, because they moved from out of the city or whatever, are not born in 2015, my DD's birth year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Red shirting is bullshit. It’s basically outright cheating unless you are a month or two away from the cutoff.

Even in soccer leagues we have strict age cut offs to prevent older kids from being in same team as the younger ones. But somehow school sports think it’s just hunky dory to have almost two years differential in age on a boys team in middle school where there is a huge difference in size and aggression with age.

Cheating is breaking the rules. What rules is redshirting breaking? The schools know exactly how old the kids are.

The problem is that age cutoffs are presented as a rule but then are treated as a suggestion. OP is saying that it would be better to create more clarity around that so that families could make informed decisions.

I think the main reason redshirting gets a bad name is because in certain districts, people get blindsided by it. This happens because the rule is not clearly explained, and people are surprised to discover how much of an age gap there can be in the same grade. If you make the rule more clear and communicate it to everyone, there won't be surprises and people can make informed decisions.

My sister when through this with her kids. She had no clue redshirting was even a thing with her oldest, who has a summer birthday and wound up in a grade with a lot of much older kids and it was not a great fit. She just followed the age cut off thinking that was the rule and not realizing others didn't view it that way. And once your kid is in a grade like that, it's hard to go back and change it because there is a lot more stigma around "holding back" than redshirting, plus often kids are on target academically and the repercussions are just social, so then you are stuck with no good options.

She wised up with her second, who she redshirted with a July birthday and he's much happier. But that's only because she had the trial and error of the first, who got screwed. A clearly defined rule would have made for a better school experience for my nephew (and potentially also his classmates).

Clarity is good.

I am not sure new rules should be made because your sister can’t be bothered to talk to or learn about her own school district, while other parents clearly did.

No, this is a common thing -- parents won't redshirt with a first child but then will with a subsequent child because they "wise up." Often redshirting is not something a first time parent can understand because it's a sort of hidden nuance of the system.

Redshirting is essentially a loophole that is mostly intended for kids "on the bubble" -- kids close to the cut off where they really aren't ready. Most parents intuitively understand that if their kid is close to the cutoff and was particularly immature for the age or had developmental issues, they'd probably hold them back from K, maybe checking with the school to make sure it's okay.

But because age cutoffs are often framed to permit that kind of decision, sometimes people whose kids are not at all on the bubble -- they are of age well before the cut off and they have no maturity or developmental issues that would indicate that they need to wait -- exploit it because they think it will give their kid an advantage academically or, sometimes, athletically or socially. And that's what results in a K class with ages ranging from 5 to 7.

OP is saying go ahead and keep redshirting as a concept for kids on the bubble, but close it as a loophole for kids who aren't on the bubble but have parents who want to try and garner every advantage. This would have no impact on most redshirting -- most kids who are redshirted fall in that on the bubble group where their birthdays are close to the cut off and they have some maturity or developmental issues. And kids who are older but have pronounced maturity/developmental issues could still redshirt, it would just need to be cleared. The only people who would be impacted by what OP is proposing is the people with developmentally normal kids who are well past the cut off but who want an age advantage for whatever reason. Well good, those are the people who give redshirting a bad name when it's actually a perfectly normal, acceptable practice.

Anonymous wrote:^^^ The standard is that to enroll, the child must be five by September 1. It isn't that the child must attend if s/he is five by September 1.

At least in Maryland you have to file for an exemption
https://casetext.com/regulation/maryland-administrative-code/title-13a-state-board-of-education/subtitle-08-students/chapter-13a0801-general-regulations/section-13a080102-2-exemptions-to-kindergarten-attendance-requirement#:~:text=(1)%20A%20child%20who%20resides,the%20child's%20level%20of%20maturity.

Anonymous wrote:Because the school is just don’t care. they have no incentive to do it. Older kids are easier for them.

This. I was going to go further and say that the schools actually prefer it. Publics can’t come right out and say that since it’s an equity issue (poor people can’t afford to keep their kids home an extra year or pay for more daycare) but privates say it all the time. At the top private in my city, they rarely allow boys who are the right age to start on time - they prefer them all older. Then they can dominate in competitions.

Kids should always be compared against others in their birth year for college entry, sports, etc.

Could someone please point me to the anti-redshirting coalition that apparently is a united front against all redshirting, that several PPs have referenced?

I thought there were just a variety of attitudes/perspectives about when people should send kids "on time" versus waiting. I was not aware there was apparently an organized group with talking points.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Red shirting is bullshit. It’s basically outright cheating unless you are a month or two away from the cutoff.

Even in soccer leagues we have strict age cut offs to prevent older kids from being in same team as the younger ones. But somehow school sports think it’s just hunky dory to have almost two years differential in age on a boys team in middle school where there is a huge difference in size and aggression with age.

Cheating is breaking the rules. What rules is redshirting breaking? The schools know exactly how old the kids are.

The problem is that age cutoffs are presented as a rule but then are treated as a suggestion. OP is saying that it would be better to create more clarity around that so that families could make informed decisions.

I think the main reason redshirting gets a bad name is because in certain districts, people get blindsided by it. This happens because the rule is not clearly explained, and people are surprised to discover how much of an age gap there can be in the same grade. If you make the rule more clear and communicate it to everyone, there won't be surprises and people can make informed decisions.

My sister when through this with her kids. She had no clue redshirting was even a thing with her oldest, who has a summer birthday and wound up in a grade with a lot of much older kids and it was not a great fit. She just followed the age cut off thinking that was the rule and not realizing others didn't view it that way. And once your kid is in a grade like that, it's hard to go back and change it because there is a lot more stigma around "holding back" than redshirting, plus often kids are on target academically and the repercussions are just social, so then you are stuck with no good options.

She wised up with her second, who she redshirted with a July birthday and he's much happier. But that's only because she had the trial and error of the first, who got screwed. A clearly defined rule would have made for a better school experience for my nephew (and potentially also his classmates).

Clarity is good.

I am not sure new rules should be made because your sister can’t be bothered to talk to or learn about her own school district, while other parents clearly did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’ll have to reach out to your school board. A redshirted spring/summer birthday would be turning six before K not 7.

I’m talking about our current class. 3 kids are 7 already and it’s February. This is a Sep 1 cutoff public school.

This is weird op. All of my kids classmates are turning 7 in first grade. Something is off maybe these kids were held back?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just enroll your kid in kindergarten already. Yes, your kid will be among the youngest and the early years of grade school will have more twists and turns, but in the long run it's better. That way, your student graduates from high school at 17 instead of 19 or 20.

Our summer birthday started college at almost 18 and will graduate with a bachelor's at 21. A lot of her redshirted peers in the same grade are already 23. They'll graduate with a bachelor's at 24/25/26. Half their 20s are already over, and now what? Grad school? They'll be almost 30 by the time they hit the workforce...

Look ahead 20 years, OP. Redshirting actually holds your kid back later.

+1

Agree. It is unfair to make your kid graduate high school when they are 19 or almost 19.

Right on cue, the inability to do math pops up.

Your inability.

No, I can add. It is the anti-redshirters who cannot add.

There will 100% be kids in my DD's class that turn 19 during their senior year. I'm not PP, but I also have a DD in 3rd and there are kids that are turning 10 this spring before the end of 3rd grade. Add 9 years to this scenario (12th grade - 3rd grade = 9 years) and they absolutely will turn 19 during their senior year. 10 years old + 9 years = 19 years old. Meanwhile my DD that I sent ON TIME will be 17 her entire senior year.

I also know a 4th grader turning 11 in April... maybe it's just where we live, but it definitely happens.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be glad the cutoff is 9/1.

In New York State, it’s 12/31. And people still redshirt summer boys at least, so the gap is huge.

That’s too much. Public schools really need to mandate it. Anything that is 6months from the cutoff should require a medical/learning condition of some sort that they are receiving services for.

Nonsense. You parent your kids, let other people parent theirs.

The point is that it affects others. It affects the class dynamic. It changes the age and size range etc in the class.

This. I don't understand the attitude that redshirting is a purely individual choice. Obviously there's a social/cooperative dynamic or there wouldn't be age cut offs at all. They'd just tell parents to send kids when they felt like it.

I don't have any issues with redshirting when appropriate but I don't think it should just be a unilateral parent choice unless you're talking about kids right near the cut off where it's not really going to make a difference for the cohort (a redshirted August birthday is always either going to be the oldest or youngest, but only by a bit so I don't care what parents choose in those cases).

Make up your minds. Does it hurt others or only hold your own kid back if you redshirt? So many people post about what a tragedy it is to redshirt your kid and the message it sends to them and how their young for grade kid is running circles around everyone. So what's the problem? I think it's pretty clear people use the faux concern as a cover because they are insecure about their own kids.

You are dragging in every other conversation about redshirting and (angrily, and without reason) lumping them all together. I can tell you are just chomping at the bit to yell at "anti-redshirters" and you don't actually read the posts because your arguments make no sense in the context of this thread.

OP isn't making an argument against all redshirting, she's looking for a more formalized process. Like giving parents discretion within an age window but requiring a more formal process (an evaluation, a diagnosis, some kind of application for approval) outside that window. This is not an "anti-redshirt" position. It's a "pro-clarity" position. It would still enable people to redshirt and it would have zero impact on the vast majority of redshirting decisions, which involve kids within a couple months of the cut off. But it would give schools a bit more control over age cohorts and therefore give parents a bit more confidence that their kid is in the right cohort with kids who are at a similar maturity level.

There are school districts (like DCPS, for instance) where they actually require some kind of documentation/permissions process for ANY redshirting decision, so OP is not even suggesting a particularly restrictive policy. Just more restrictive than "do whatever you want."

DP. The PPs post made perfect sense, but you just don’t like the fact that she pointed out the significant inconsistency in positions that anti-redshirters take on DCUM. OPs question needs to be considered in a framework: is it an advantage or not? Is there actual harm or not? The answer to how to manage it depends on that analysis. No school districts have followed NYCs lead, so they do not seem to believe there is an issue. The PP pointed out correctly that there is extreme inconsistency in the anti-redshirt position. That’s reasonable, but you just don’t like it.

Speaking of positions, your position and OPs is apparently that you want redshirting to be limited to those families who have the ability and the education to see potential issues and pay for private assessments. You want it to be something primarily available to the children of the wealthy and educated, who have good insurance and a lot of time to start this process.

I mean, I guess that’s a position you can take. It wouldn’t be mine, but you are free to advocate to practically limit the ability to redshirt to the wealthiest and most privileged kids.

Because the school is just don’t care. they have no incentive to do it. Older kids are easier for them.

Anonymous wrote:I think red shirting should be banned from 3 months before the cutoff. No one should be turning 7 in K at all. Some do turn 7 in the summer after K.

This is how I feel.

No neurotypical child should be turning 7 during the K year.

^^^ The standard is that to enroll, the child must be five by September 1. It isn't that the child must attend if s/he is five by September 1.

Anonymous wrote:Just enroll your kid in kindergarten already. Yes, your kid will be among the youngest and the early years of grade school will have more twists and turns, but in the long run it's better. That way, your student graduates from high school at 17 instead of 19 or 20.

Our summer birthday started college at almost 18 and will graduate with a bachelor's at 21. A lot of her redshirted peers in the same grade are already 23. They'll graduate with a bachelor's at 24/25/26. Half their 20s are already over, and now what? Grad school? They'll be almost 30 by the time they hit the workforce...

Look ahead 20 years, OP. Redshirting actually holds your kid back later.

This is….objectively not better. Also (and, again.) if they’re graduating in May at 20 - or, in the vast majority of cases, at 19…it’s not redshirting, something else is going on

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Red shirting is bullshit. It’s basically outright cheating unless you are a month or two away from the cutoff.

Even in soccer leagues we have strict age cut offs to prevent older kids from being in same team as the younger ones. But somehow school sports think it’s just hunky dory to have almost two years differential in age on a boys team in middle school where there is a huge difference in size and aggression with age.

Cheating is breaking the rules. What rules is redshirting breaking? The schools know exactly how old the kids are.

The problem is that age cutoffs are presented as a rule but then are treated as a suggestion. OP is saying that it would be better to create more clarity around that so that families could make informed decisions.

I think the main reason redshirting gets a bad name is because in certain districts, people get blindsided by it. This happens because the rule is not clearly explained, and people are surprised to discover how much of an age gap there can be in the same grade. If you make the rule more clear and communicate it to everyone, there won't be surprises and people can make informed decisions.

My sister when through this with her kids. She had no clue redshirting was even a thing with her oldest, who has a summer birthday and wound up in a grade with a lot of much older kids and it was not a great fit. She just followed the age cut off thinking that was the rule and not realizing others didn't view it that way. And once your kid is in a grade like that, it's hard to go back and change it because there is a lot more stigma around "holding back" than redshirting, plus often kids are on target academically and the repercussions are just social, so then you are stuck with no good options.

She wised up with her second, who she redshirted with a July birthday and he's much happier. But that's only because she had the trial and error of the first, who got screwed. A clearly defined rule would have made for a better school experience for my nephew (and potentially also his classmates).

Clarity is good.

The other kids' parents understood the cutoff standards, obviously. The standard is that you must be five by September 1. It isn't that you must attend if you are five by September 1.