Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don't understand is that if these families had the resources to pay for private PK for an extra year instead of taking free DC PK, why not just pay for a private K? I don't think DCPS would then bump their kid to 2nd the following year when they should be in 1st grade, just as they wouldn't do that for a kid coming from a MD school with a different cutoff.

A daycare can claim they offered Pre-K and that usually satisfies DC.

But private K much rarer. Difficult to get into, and even more expensive, on average, than what daycare Pre-K costs.

When you live in a $2.8 M house - do you really thing they are doing the trade-off of private K costs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, MCPS says children who will turn five years old between September 2 and October 15, 2025 are eligible for consideration for the early entrance to kindergarten process.

They are, but it is very, very rare that this is approved. I don't know anyone who has gone through the process, myself included, and had their kid start early. Our daughter had done 2 years of PK in DCPS and was an early reader, and we were told she wasn't ready. The state requires MCPS to evaluate kids, but not to place them early. Meanwhile, red shirting of summer birthday kids is relatively common, especially with how academic kindergarten in MCPS is. (We left DC before K, so not sure if the same in true in DCPS.) -NP

Its a very sketchy evaluation as they aren't clear the standards and it is different at every school. I don't think holding back in MCPS is that common, maybe in the wealthier schools but I don't know any kids held back. Our school wouldn't let us test. We went private for a few years as I wasn't holding my kid back for the school being selfish and self serving.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don't understand is that if these families had the resources to pay for private PK for an extra year instead of taking free DC PK, why not just pay for a private K? I don't think DCPS would then bump their kid to 2nd the following year when they should be in 1st grade, just as they wouldn't do that for a kid coming from a MD school with a different cutoff.

A daycare can claim they offered Pre-K and that usually satisfies DC.

But private K much rarer. Difficult to get into, and even more expensive, on average, than what daycare Pre-K costs.

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don't understand is that if these families had the resources to pay for private PK for an extra year instead of taking free DC PK, why not just pay for a private K? I don't think DCPS would then bump their kid to 2nd the following year when they should be in 1st grade, just as they wouldn't do that for a kid coming from a MD school with a different cutoff.

Anonymous wrote:To put this in broader perspective:

What was happening is that DCPS has a district-wide policy against redshirting, but the former principal at Lafayette was letting parents redshirt anyway.

I will note here that Lafayette is 72% white and 3% at risk in a district that has less than 20% white students and 45% of kids are at risk. Make of that what you will.

The new principal at Lafayette is bringing the school in line with district-wide policy. While I can see how these individual families would be frustrated by it, the truth is that it should never have happened, it's good that it stopped, and they are just going to have to suck it up.

DCPS could offer summer programming to these kids to ensure they are ready for 1st grade in the fall. That should probably be the compromise.

DCPS has a district-wide policy against redshirting. If they want to change that policy, it must be changed on a district-wide level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's an argument for red shirting: it potentially can save the school and District money on IEP and 504s. It also helps keep the older class on track by not having a student who is emotionally immature or who would benefit from doing a lower grade level work.

Its a tough issues for families and schools where kids are near the cut off date.

It doesn't save as if a child is delayed they will need help and the longer you wait the more a child will struggle and the more help they will need. If your child is struggling and you know it as a parent you need to get them help before K. If your child needs to be held back, you failed to get your child the help they needed if its something like immaturity. However, no kids should be mature going into K. No 5 year old is mature.

Rigid thinking about the cutoffs is how public schools usually operate, however that doesn't make it right.

If your kid is within a few months of the cutoff, making them young for the grade, any immaturity can easily be within normal.

Take a kid who is old for their grade and doing well, then change the cutoffs and make them young for grade instead, and they may struggle.

The cutoffs are arbitrary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's an argument for red shirting: it potentially can save the school and District money on IEP and 504s. It also helps keep the older class on track by not having a student who is emotionally immature or who would benefit from doing a lower grade level work.

Its a tough issues for families and schools where kids are near the cut off date.

It doesn't save as if a child is delayed they will need help and the longer you wait the more a child will struggle and the more help they will need. If your child is struggling and you know it as a parent you need to get them help before K. If your child needs to be held back, you failed to get your child the help they needed if its something like immaturity. However, no kids should be mature going into K. No 5 year old is mature.

Anonymous wrote:Here's an argument for red shirting: it potentially can save the school and District money on IEP and 504s. It also helps keep the older class on track by not having a student who is emotionally immature or who would benefit from doing a lower grade level work.

Its a tough issues for families and schools where kids are near the cut off date.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that DCPS should change their policy to accommodate families who intend to leave DCPS for private or suburban schools is more than a little silly. Surely you guys see that? Why would they do something that facilitates attrition?

I am going to ignore the "needs" of parents who want to redshirt in order to ensure their kid is not at a disadvantage in private, or for other selfish reasons like sports. Simply don't care, those are not good reasons to change a policy or carve out an exception.

However, I think it IS worthwhile to discuss how DCPS has two conflicting policies that relate directly to the redshirting issue:

- The cut off date is designed to help make kids eligible for school earlier, which helps parents with childcare costs in a city with some of the highest childcare costs in the country.

- DCPS pushes a highly academic K curriculum with the goal of lifting test scores in reading and math, especially among at risk kids. This can vary a bit from school to school, but overall DCPS's K curriculum is more rigorous than at many charters, privates, or suburban schools, and it results in more time in seats and more worksheets, and less physical activity and free play time.

And therein lies the problem. If DCPS K curriculum looked like it did 20 or 30 years ago, the early age cutoff wouldn't be a big deal because K would look a lot more like PK and would be developmentally appropriate for the kids with summer and September birthdays who are 4 or just-turned 5. Instead they push younger kids into K classrooms and then expect them to acclimate to a developmentally inappropriate classroom environment. This not only results in some parents wanting to redshirt, it also creates more "behavioral problems" that are really just kids who are too young being expected to sit still and pay attention before they are ready.

A lot of DCPS schools also still engage in old-fashioned disciplinary methods that exacerbate this problem, like taking recess away as a punishment (idiotic, as many behavior problems in K are *caused* by lack of physical outlets and release) and using public point systems instead of group accountability (encourages comparison and shaming likely to compound behavioral issues, not solve them).

DCPS absolutely should be challenged on these policies and asked to account for the way in which they push young kids into classrooms, give them a developmentally inappropriate schedule and curriculum, and then punish them for non-compliance (at the age of 5!). It's a problem.

But these entitled Lafayette families are distracting from the real problem with this nonsense.

I actually agree that the K curriculum in DCPS is not age appropriate, as awesome as it is that they seemed to get everyone reading by the end of the year. They hyper focus on literacy, and everything else suffers -- math, playtime, social time, projects, etc. I actually think the 1st grade curriculum is more balanced and fun.

I know many kids, mine included, for whom K was their least favorite year.

This is a very entitled viewpoint. I thought the K curriculum was fantastic and the focus on literacy is really important for most DC kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that DCPS should change their policy to accommodate families who intend to leave DCPS for private or suburban schools is more than a little silly. Surely you guys see that? Why would they do something that facilitates attrition?

I am going to ignore the "needs" of parents who want to redshirt in order to ensure their kid is not at a disadvantage in private, or for other selfish reasons like sports. Simply don't care, those are not good reasons to change a policy or carve out an exception.

However, I think it IS worthwhile to discuss how DCPS has two conflicting policies that relate directly to the redshirting issue:

- The cut off date is designed to help make kids eligible for school earlier, which helps parents with childcare costs in a city with some of the highest childcare costs in the country.

- DCPS pushes a highly academic K curriculum with the goal of lifting test scores in reading and math, especially among at risk kids. This can vary a bit from school to school, but overall DCPS's K curriculum is more rigorous than at many charters, privates, or suburban schools, and it results in more time in seats and more worksheets, and less physical activity and free play time.

And therein lies the problem. If DCPS K curriculum looked like it did 20 or 30 years ago, the early age cutoff wouldn't be a big deal because K would look a lot more like PK and would be developmentally appropriate for the kids with summer and September birthdays who are 4 or just-turned 5. Instead they push younger kids into K classrooms and then expect them to acclimate to a developmentally inappropriate classroom environment. This not only results in some parents wanting to redshirt, it also creates more "behavioral problems" that are really just kids who are too young being expected to sit still and pay attention before they are ready.

A lot of DCPS schools also still engage in old-fashioned disciplinary methods that exacerbate this problem, like taking recess away as a punishment (idiotic, as many behavior problems in K are *caused* by lack of physical outlets and release) and using public point systems instead of group accountability (encourages comparison and shaming likely to compound behavioral issues, not solve them).

DCPS absolutely should be challenged on these policies and asked to account for the way in which they push young kids into classrooms, give them a developmentally inappropriate schedule and curriculum, and then punish them for non-compliance (at the age of 5!). It's a problem.

But these entitled Lafayette families are distracting from the real problem with this nonsense.

I actually agree that the K curriculum in DCPS is not age appropriate, as awesome as it is that they seemed to get everyone reading by the end of the year. They hyper focus on literacy, and everything else suffers -- math, playtime, social time, projects, etc. I actually think the 1st grade curriculum is more balanced and fun.

I know many kids, mine included, for whom K was their least favorite year.

Anonymous wrote:The idea that DCPS should change their policy to accommodate families who intend to leave DCPS for private or suburban schools is more than a little silly. Surely you guys see that? Why would they do something that facilitates attrition?

I am going to ignore the "needs" of parents who want to redshirt in order to ensure their kid is not at a disadvantage in private, or for other selfish reasons like sports. Simply don't care, those are not good reasons to change a policy or carve out an exception.

However, I think it IS worthwhile to discuss how DCPS has two conflicting policies that relate directly to the redshirting issue:

- The cut off date is designed to help make kids eligible for school earlier, which helps parents with childcare costs in a city with some of the highest childcare costs in the country.

- DCPS pushes a highly academic K curriculum with the goal of lifting test scores in reading and math, especially among at risk kids. This can vary a bit from school to school, but overall DCPS's K curriculum is more rigorous than at many charters, privates, or suburban schools, and it results in more time in seats and more worksheets, and less physical activity and free play time.

And therein lies the problem. If DCPS K curriculum looked like it did 20 or 30 years ago, the early age cutoff wouldn't be a big deal because K would look a lot more like PK and would be developmentally appropriate for the kids with summer and September birthdays who are 4 or just-turned 5. Instead they push younger kids into K classrooms and then expect them to acclimate to a developmentally inappropriate classroom environment. This not only results in some parents wanting to redshirt, it also creates more "behavioral problems" that are really just kids who are too young being expected to sit still and pay attention before they are ready.

A lot of DCPS schools also still engage in old-fashioned disciplinary methods that exacerbate this problem, like taking recess away as a punishment (idiotic, as many behavior problems in K are *caused* by lack of physical outlets and release) and using public point systems instead of group accountability (encourages comparison and shaming likely to compound behavioral issues, not solve them).

DCPS absolutely should be challenged on these policies and asked to account for the way in which they push young kids into classrooms, give them a developmentally inappropriate schedule and curriculum, and then punish them for non-compliance (at the age of 5!). It's a problem.

But these entitled Lafayette families are distracting from the real problem with this nonsense.