Anonymous wrote:They’re still at it

https://wapo.st/405wrSF

Does anyone have a gift link for this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion that "'redshirting" is some trick that rich people use to get an unfair advantage for their kid seems utterly and completely ridiculous. It's not going to give them a leg up academically or athletically. If anything, it's going to give the kid a complex about why he or she is older than everyone else. But if the parent sees some problem that will be exacerbated by pushing their kid along, then I don't know why we don't give the parent the benefit of the doubt. They know their kid better than anyone else.

This is some Pollyanna nonsense. Redshirting is a thing in sports precisely because being a year older gives a huge advantage. Looking for an academic edge (over others, though they don’t say the quiet part aloud) is why some parents do it for school.

You obviously know nothing about sports. That's not even why college athletes redshirt. They generally only get four years of eligibility. If you're trying to make it to the pros, it may not make sense to burn a year of eligibility sitting on the bench if it's clear you're not going to play because you're not good enough. But sitting out that year, not officially being on the team, doesn't make you any more attractive as a prospect the following year. It's still just as possible that someone new will come along, who is younger than you, who will also be better than you. Redshirting can mark you as a marginal talent.

The reason you would spend your first year on the bench and not, say, your 4th is because for non-superstars, coaches often want them to gain a year of physical maturity, because — gasp — being a year older gives you a comparative advantage physically. Like you are tiptoeing sooooo close to the truth, but can’t bring yourself to say it. Also, the whole reason there are only 5 years of eligibility (normally), is to stop multi-year redshirting for non-injury precisely because folks would otherwise do it. We do agree that if your kid was a superstar, you wouldn’t feel the need to hold him back… but here you are.

Have you....been to a children's soccer game? Or to a school classroom? There is zero correlation between a child's age and how good they are at math or at driving the ball down the field. The imagined benefits of redshirting seem a little fanciful.

People generally cite emotional maturity as the reason to redshirt. Which I think can be a very valid reason to do it -- some kids really are not ready to sit still, follow directions, resolve minor disputes with peers, and other things that are expected in a K classroom but not at the pre-K level.

But we should be careful with this, because as many posters have noted, Kindergarten expectations have increased in recent years, with the grade becoming more academic than it used to be. A generation ago, many K programs were not even full time, and they more resembled PK, with more time dedicated to free play, and lighter academics delivered largely through fun interactions like songs and games. It would have been unusual to see a classroom of K kids listening to a lesson on phonics or doing a math worksheet. Now those things are quite standard.

So what's the danger with redshirting? It further shifts expectations for ALL the students in the classroom, when already expectations are really pushing the limits of what is appropriate even for children who are 5.5 or close to 6 at the start of the year. The more 6 year olds you have in a K classroom, the more likely teachers are to view it as "normal" for kids to be be quiet, compliant, less prone to tears, etc. But actually it is typical for kindergarteners to struggle with those things, and traditionally the whole point of kindergarten was to help kids develop those skills so that they would be set up for success in 1st.

So allowing very emotionally immature kids to be redshirted occasionally shouldn't be an issue, as it will bring those kids more into line with other children in the classroom. But allowing broad discretion by parents results in too many kids being redshirted, which leads to classrooms that lean older, which leads to higher expectations from teachers, which then means that kids who are not even young for the grade (but now are young for the classroom) and who have no real maturity issues, are suddenly viewed as problems simply because they are not as mature as the average kid in class.

All of which is why redshirting decisions should be made in collaboration with the school, not independently by parents (and not by private preschools who have a major incentive to recommend redshirting -- it means they get an extra year of tuition from that family), and should only be done in more extreme situations and not when a child is simply at the lower end of normal for kindergarten maturity. If you are within the range of normal for the age, you should start on time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion that "'redshirting" is some trick that rich people use to get an unfair advantage for their kid seems utterly and completely ridiculous. It's not going to give them a leg up academically or athletically. If anything, it's going to give the kid a complex about why he or she is older than everyone else. But if the parent sees some problem that will be exacerbated by pushing their kid along, then I don't know why we don't give the parent the benefit of the doubt. They know their kid better than anyone else.

This is some Pollyanna nonsense. Redshirting is a thing in sports precisely because being a year older gives a huge advantage. Looking for an academic edge (over others, though they don’t say the quiet part aloud) is why some parents do it for school.

You obviously know nothing about sports. That's not even why college athletes redshirt. They generally only get four years of eligibility. If you're trying to make it to the pros, it may not make sense to burn a year of eligibility sitting on the bench if it's clear you're not going to play because you're not good enough. But sitting out that year, not officially being on the team, doesn't make you any more attractive as a prospect the following year. It's still just as possible that someone new will come along, who is younger than you, who will also be better than you. Redshirting can mark you as a marginal talent.

The reason you would spend your first year on the bench and not, say, your 4th is because for non-superstars, coaches often want them to gain a year of physical maturity, because — gasp — being a year older gives you a comparative advantage physically. Like you are tiptoeing sooooo close to the truth, but can’t bring yourself to say it. Also, the whole reason there are only 5 years of eligibility (normally), is to stop multi-year redshirting for non-injury precisely because folks would otherwise do it. We do agree that if your kid was a superstar, you wouldn’t feel the need to hold him back… but here you are.

Have you....been to a children's soccer game? Or to a school classroom? There is zero correlation between a child's age and how good they are at math or at driving the ball down the field. The imagined benefits of redshirting seem a little fanciful.

? Are you serious? Of course there are tangible benefits to a child’s age and their performance in a specific grade or in a sport. This is especially true when the child is younger…say…kindergarten or first grade age…Kinda ridiculous to think otherwise tbh

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion that "'redshirting" is some trick that rich people use to get an unfair advantage for their kid seems utterly and completely ridiculous. It's not going to give them a leg up academically or athletically. If anything, it's going to give the kid a complex about why he or she is older than everyone else. But if the parent sees some problem that will be exacerbated by pushing their kid along, then I don't know why we don't give the parent the benefit of the doubt. They know their kid better than anyone else.

This is some Pollyanna nonsense. Redshirting is a thing in sports precisely because being a year older gives a huge advantage. Looking for an academic edge (over others, though they don’t say the quiet part aloud) is why some parents do it for school.

You obviously know nothing about sports. That's not even why college athletes redshirt. They generally only get four years of eligibility. If you're trying to make it to the pros, it may not make sense to burn a year of eligibility sitting on the bench if it's clear you're not going to play because you're not good enough. But sitting out that year, not officially being on the team, doesn't make you any more attractive as a prospect the following year. It's still just as possible that someone new will come along, who is younger than you, who will also be better than you. Redshirting can mark you as a marginal talent.

The reason you would spend your first year on the bench and not, say, your 4th is because for non-superstars, coaches often want them to gain a year of physical maturity, because — gasp — being a year older gives you a comparative advantage physically. Like you are tiptoeing sooooo close to the truth, but can’t bring yourself to say it. Also, the whole reason there are only 5 years of eligibility (normally), is to stop multi-year redshirting for non-injury precisely because folks would otherwise do it. We do agree that if your kid was a superstar, you wouldn’t feel the need to hold him back… but here you are.

Have you....been to a children's soccer game? Or to a school classroom? There is zero correlation between a child's age and how good they are at math or at driving the ball down the field. The imagined benefits of redshirting seem a little fanciful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re still at it

https://wapo.st/405wrSF

Avra Siegel needs to consider either private school or home-schooling. She clearly has the means, and clearly is staying with DCPS solely to pick fights at this point. She's doing no one any favors with this pointless crusade, including her own kids.

+1

She received a benefit that she wasn't entitled to. If she's unhappy with DCPS, then she (and others like her) should make other arrangements.

Or - you know - advocate for what you believe in and for change you think is necessary?

But wait because they live west of the park that’s not allowed?

I say this as a WOTP DCPS parent: go away.

Oh please. This entire thread has been slamming “rich” Lafayette families (including children) and my post is the problem?

No one is "slamming" children.

The thread isn't about all Lafayette parents. It's about a few specific, extremely entitled Lafayette parents. Who have kindly identified themselves and keep going out of their way to explain to the public and the media how entitled they are.

This is your opinion and I disagree. They’re advocating for something they believe in and advocating for their child. In any other scenario this would be praised. Public Schooling should be a cooperative effort between families and the city. Not adversarial.

So why didn't these families discuss delaying kindergarten with the school a year ago? Cooperative effort? Really? Nope.

This. All of this. They didn't ask they assumed and then they assumed that even after they attacked the principal publicly for other things she'd be happy to give them what they wanted or at least if she didn't DCPS would. It didn't happen and now they are losing their minds and, if it's them on this board, saying some truly repulsive stuff.

If you know these families, you can definitely pick a few of them out on this thread by the writing and how they’ve drafted complaints in the past. It’s not hard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion that "'redshirting" is some trick that rich people use to get an unfair advantage for their kid seems utterly and completely ridiculous. It's not going to give them a leg up academically or athletically. If anything, it's going to give the kid a complex about why he or she is older than everyone else. But if the parent sees some problem that will be exacerbated by pushing their kid along, then I don't know why we don't give the parent the benefit of the doubt. They know their kid better than anyone else.

This is some Pollyanna nonsense. Redshirting is a thing in sports precisely because being a year older gives a huge advantage. Looking for an academic edge (over others, though they don’t say the quiet part aloud) is why some parents do it for school.

You obviously know nothing about sports. That's not even why college athletes redshirt. They generally only get four years of eligibility. If you're trying to make it to the pros, it may not make sense to burn a year of eligibility sitting on the bench if it's clear you're not going to play because you're not good enough. But sitting out that year, not officially being on the team, doesn't make you any more attractive as a prospect the following year. It's still just as possible that someone new will come along, who is younger than you, who will also be better than you. Redshirting can mark you as a marginal talent.

The reason you would spend your first year on the bench and not, say, your 4th is because for non-superstars, coaches often want them to gain a year of physical maturity, because — gasp — being a year older gives you a comparative advantage physically. Like you are tiptoeing sooooo close to the truth, but can’t bring yourself to say it. Also, the whole reason there are only 5 years of eligibility (normally), is to stop multi-year redshirting for non-injury precisely because folks would otherwise do it. We do agree that if your kid was a superstar, you wouldn’t feel the need to hold him back… but here you are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion that "'redshirting" is some trick that rich people use to get an unfair advantage for their kid seems utterly and completely ridiculous. It's not going to give them a leg up academically or athletically. If anything, it's going to give the kid a complex about why he or she is older than everyone else. But if the parent sees some problem that will be exacerbated by pushing their kid along, then I don't know why we don't give the parent the benefit of the doubt. They know their kid better than anyone else.

This is some Pollyanna nonsense. Redshirting is a thing in sports precisely because being a year older gives a huge advantage. Looking for an academic edge (over others, though they don’t say the quiet part aloud) is why some parents do it for school.

You obviously know nothing about sports. That's not even why college athletes redshirt. They generally only get four years of eligibility. If you're trying to make it to the pros, it may not make sense to burn a year of eligibility sitting on the bench if it's clear you're not going to play because you're not good enough. But sitting out that year, not officially being on the team, doesn't make you any more attractive as a prospect the following year. It's still just as possible that someone new will come along, who is younger than you, who will also be better than you. Redshirting can mark you as a marginal talent.

I am convinced this must be a troll account at this point.

But just to point out a factual error, redshirts are absolutely officially on the team. They do not necessarily count against scholarship limits but they are absolutely officially on the team.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The notion that "'redshirting" is some trick that rich people use to get an unfair advantage for their kid seems utterly and completely ridiculous. It's not going to give them a leg up academically or athletically. If anything, it's going to give the kid a complex about why he or she is older than everyone else. But if the parent sees some problem that will be exacerbated by pushing their kid along, then I don't know why we don't give the parent the benefit of the doubt. They know their kid better than anyone else.

This is some Pollyanna nonsense. Redshirting is a thing in sports precisely because being a year older gives a huge advantage. Looking for an academic edge (over others, though they don’t say the quiet part aloud) is why some parents do it for school.

You obviously know nothing about sports. That's not even why college athletes redshirt. They generally only get four years of eligibility. If you're trying to make it to the pros, it may not make sense to burn a year of eligibility sitting on the bench if it's clear you're not going to play because you're not good enough. But sitting out that year, not officially being on the team, doesn't make you any more attractive as a prospect the following year. It's still just as possible that someone new will come along, who is younger than you, who will also be better than you. Redshirting can mark you as a marginal talent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re still at it

https://wapo.st/405wrSF

Why are these people getting so much press? This applies to like 10 children (per the article)?

Why is DCPS digging in if this isn’t a widespread problem? What kind of resources are they willing to commit to fighting so few students enrolling late?

DCPS isn't "digging in." They are finally enforcing a two-decades old policy that the entire rest of the city follows, at the small handful of upper NW elementaries that imagined themselves somehow exempt from this policy.

Also, the policy doesn't say that a kid will never be allowed to do K at 6. It's just that in DC, parents are not allowed to unilaterally make that decision. You have to do it through the school. This is the rule every other family in DC follows. That 10 families at wealthy schools in the city's richest neighborhoods somehow think it's "unfair" for them to follow it does not mean DC is "digging in." They are following the rule.

I live in another ward, have a kid with a summer birthday, and I had zero opportunity to redshirt. But these Lafayette parents should get it because.... they are richer than me? They can afford housing in more expensive neighborhoods? They can afford extra time in private PK whereas I relied on DCPS PK for financial reasons?

Tell me why they get special rules. What is it about their situation that means they deserve a separate system?

I can tell you’re triggered being reminded that you live east of the park.

Do you get free after care?

These people are comically horrible! No surprise at all that DCPS wants to punish them now (by... making them follow rules). So satisfying to see this all play out, to be honest.

That's the thing -- they aren't being punished! They are just being treated like everyone else and it's driving them out of their minds. It feels like punishment because they are so accustomed to being catered to that NOT being catered to feels like discrimination or something. It's wild.

Meanwhile, when their kids start 1st at Lafayette (assuming they don't actually decide to go private or move, which are their only moves left), DCPS will bend over backwards to help make sure their kids catch up on anything they missed in K. Which probably isn't much, because these kids have been attending good preschools that almost certainly already gave this kid much of the kindergarten curriculum.

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re still at it

https://wapo.st/405wrSF

Why are these people getting so much press? This applies to like 10 children (per the article)?

Why is DCPS digging in if this isn’t a widespread problem? What kind of resources are they willing to commit to fighting so few students enrolling late?

DCPS isn't "digging in." They are finally enforcing a two-decades old policy that the entire rest of the city follows, at the small handful of upper NW elementaries that imagined themselves somehow exempt from this policy.

Also, the policy doesn't say that a kid will never be allowed to do K at 6. It's just that in DC, parents are not allowed to unilaterally make that decision. You have to do it through the school. This is the rule every other family in DC follows. That 10 families at wealthy schools in the city's richest neighborhoods somehow think it's "unfair" for them to follow it does not mean DC is "digging in." They are following the rule.

I live in another ward, have a kid with a summer birthday, and I had zero opportunity to redshirt. But these Lafayette parents should get it because.... they are richer than me? They can afford housing in more expensive neighborhoods? They can afford extra time in private PK whereas I relied on DCPS PK for financial reasons?

Tell me why they get special rules. What is it about their situation that means they deserve a separate system?

I can tell you’re triggered being reminded that you live east of the park.

Do you get free after care?

These people are comically horrible! No surprise at all that DCPS wants to punish them now (by... making them follow rules). So satisfying to see this all play out, to be honest.

Anonymous wrote:The notion that "'redshirting" is some trick that rich people use to get an unfair advantage for their kid seems utterly and completely ridiculous. It's not going to give them a leg up academically or athletically. If anything, it's going to give the kid a complex about why he or she is older than everyone else. But if the parent sees some problem that will be exacerbated by pushing their kid along, then I don't know why we don't give the parent the benefit of the doubt. They know their kid better than anyone else.

This is some Pollyanna nonsense. Redshirting is a thing in sports precisely because being a year older gives a huge advantage. Looking for an academic edge (over others, though they don’t say the quiet part aloud) is why some parents do it for school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re still at it

https://wapo.st/405wrSF

Avra Siegel needs to consider either private school or home-schooling. She clearly has the means, and clearly is staying with DCPS solely to pick fights at this point. She's doing no one any favors with this pointless crusade, including her own kids.

+1

She received a benefit that she wasn't entitled to. If she's unhappy with DCPS, then she (and others like her) should make other arrangements.

Or - you know - advocate for what you believe in and for change you think is necessary?

But wait because they live west of the park that’s not allowed?

I say this as a WOTP DCPS parent: go away.

Oh please. This entire thread has been slamming “rich” Lafayette families (including children) and my post is the problem?

No one is "slamming" children.

The thread isn't about all Lafayette parents. It's about a few specific, extremely entitled Lafayette parents. Who have kindly identified themselves and keep going out of their way to explain to the public and the media how entitled they are.

This is your opinion and I disagree. They’re advocating for something they believe in and advocating for their child. In any other scenario this would be praised. Public Schooling should be a cooperative effort between families and the city. Not adversarial.

So why didn't these families discuss delaying kindergarten with the school a year ago? Cooperative effort? Really? Nope.

This. All of this. They didn't ask they assumed and then they assumed that even after they attacked the principal publicly for other things she'd be happy to give them what they wanted or at least if she didn't DCPS would. It didn't happen and now they are losing their minds and, if it's them on this board, saying some truly repulsive stuff.

Anonymous wrote:The notion that "'redshirting" is some trick that rich people use to get an unfair advantage for their kid seems utterly and completely ridiculous. It's not going to give them a leg up academically or athletically. If anything, it's going to give the kid a complex about why he or she is older than everyone else. But if the parent sees some problem that will be exacerbated by pushing their kid along, then I don't know why we don't give the parent the benefit of the doubt. They know their kid better than anyone else.

If a child has special needs they should be required to provide an evaluation and therapies to support those needs. A typical developing child, no.

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re still at it

https://wapo.st/405wrSF

Why are these people getting so much press? This applies to like 10 children (per the article)?

Why is DCPS digging in if this isn’t a widespread problem? What kind of resources are they willing to commit to fighting so few students enrolling late?

DCPS isn't "digging in." They are finally enforcing a two-decades old policy that the entire rest of the city follows, at the small handful of upper NW elementaries that imagined themselves somehow exempt from this policy.

Also, the policy doesn't say that a kid will never be allowed to do K at 6. It's just that in DC, parents are not allowed to unilaterally make that decision. You have to do it through the school. This is the rule every other family in DC follows. That 10 families at wealthy schools in the city's richest neighborhoods somehow think it's "unfair" for them to follow it does not mean DC is "digging in." They are following the rule.

I live in another ward, have a kid with a summer birthday, and I had zero opportunity to redshirt. But these Lafayette parents should get it because.... they are richer than me? They can afford housing in more expensive neighborhoods? They can afford extra time in private PK whereas I relied on DCPS PK for financial reasons?

Tell me why they get special rules. What is it about their situation that means they deserve a separate system?

I can tell you’re triggered being reminded that you live east of the park.

Do you get free after care?

Truly a wonder no one wanted to deal with these families for an extra year with their totally charming personalities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re still at it

https://wapo.st/405wrSF

Avra Siegel needs to consider either private school or home-schooling. She clearly has the means, and clearly is staying with DCPS solely to pick fights at this point. She's doing no one any favors with this pointless crusade, including her own kids.

+1

She received a benefit that she wasn't entitled to. If she's unhappy with DCPS, then she (and others like her) should make other arrangements.

Or - you know - advocate for what you believe in and for change you think is necessary?

But wait because they live west of the park that’s not allowed?

I say this as a WOTP DCPS parent: go away.

Oh please. This entire thread has been slamming “rich” Lafayette families (including children) and my post is the problem?

No one is "slamming" children.

The thread isn't about all Lafayette parents. It's about a few specific, extremely entitled Lafayette parents. Who have kindly identified themselves and keep going out of their way to explain to the public and the media how entitled they are.

This is your opinion and I disagree. They’re advocating for something they believe in and advocating for their child. In any other scenario this would be praised. Public Schooling should be a cooperative effort between families and the city. Not adversarial.

So why didn't these families discuss delaying kindergarten with the school a year ago? Cooperative effort? Really? Nope.