School closures/delays?

Quick question here...
Is it actually true that if you defer school enrollment and just keep your kid in preschool for another year, the daycare becomes free so you don't have to shell out any cash?

Harold Cook2 said:Quick question here...
Is it actually true that if you defer school enrollment and just keep your kid in preschool for another year, the daycare becomes free so you don't have to shell out any cash?

First time I'm hearing that... I know a few parents who asked for a deferral, but they’re still paying their full tuition every single month.
I don't get the logic here—what kind of crazy loophole would even make childcare free just because they skipped a grade?

Sent from my iPad using Reddit

shadowcrane91 said:First time I'm hearing that... I know a few parents who asked for a deferral, but they’re still paying their full tuition every single month.
I don't get the logic here—what kind of crazy loophole would even make childcare free just because they skipped a grade?

Sent from my iPad using Reddit

Look, I don't get it either, that's why I'm asking. A teacher friend of mine mentioned you might actually be eligible for free preschool, but apparently nobody wants to volunteer that info unless you go digging for it.
Honestly, I have zero clue who I'd even talk to about this.🤔

I work at a daycare too (it’s private, though) so I haven't heard anything about that yet...
Honestly...
I’m actually gonna hit up a friend of mine who works for the city school district to see what's up.

Sent from my iPad using Reddit

Preschool isn't the same thing as kindergarten, and it’s definitely not mandatory... only that final year of preschool—you know, that "little school" phase—is required. My take? You don't pay extra for it if the kid is just doing that one year... but if they're already in daycare, it's usually bundled in so they get it done while they're there anyway.

So yeah, you basically just pay for daycare for as long as the kid is enrolled.

Yeah, I think Melissa Wright79 is totally hitting the nail on the head here.
It’s only free if the kid is actually enrolled in a public daycare center, you know? I haven't really looked into whether the private ones offer anything similar...
And since elementary school is mandatory now, you end up getting an official certificate of attendance anyway...

Honestly, sounds way too good to be true
The girl who told me this is actually working on school enrollments right now, and she’s swearing it's legit
To me, it smells fishy as hell
I'm gonna grill her about it a bit more once I run into her

Harold Cook2 said:Honestly, sounds way too good to be true
The girl who told me this is actually working on school enrollments right now, and she’s swearing it's legit
To me, it smells fishy as hell
I'm gonna grill her about it a bit more once I run into her

But you know, that mandatory preschool program for kids who didn't attend daycare? It doesn't take up the whole workday...

Harold Cook2 said:Quick question here...
Is it actually true that if you defer school enrollment and just keep your kid in preschool for another year, the daycare becomes free so you don't have to shell out any cash?

To me, that would only make sense in a specific scenario where an assessment during enrollment determines a child isn't quite ready for kindergarten, even if they technically meet the age requirement. 🤷

From what I gather, the only way to get a deferral is to actively request it. So, what logic would dictate that a parent's choice to delay school suddenly makes preschool free of charge?

Look, preschool is free if it’s just part of the standard kindergarten prep program at the daycare center, but if you're sticking with the same facility and they're running a separate preschool track alongside their regular childcare, then yeah, you've gotta pay for it.

Sent from my iPhone using Reddit

Thanks for the reply...
Look, I don't have any clue what the logic behind this would even be, which is exactly why I'm hanging out here asking questions. I heard this rumor floating around and honestly? It was the first thing I'd ever heard about it, so it totally caught me off guard.

I find these delays a bit surreal sometimes—most kids are perfectly ready for school by age six and a half, and the system is built for them. Pushing it back to seven or eight feels like gaming the system, honestly. A kid turning eight in late autumn has such an massive advantage over a typical six-and-a-half-year-old. That gap just widens when you compare a twelve-year-old to someone nearly fourteen. In my view, delaying should be reserved for actual developmental needs—concentration issues, speech delays, processing struggles—things like that. Using it just because it’s easier for Mom? That feels like unnecessary rule-bending. No reason for it. You won't believe this, but based on some specific professional criteria, school start dates were set. My oldest started right on time—she was born in January and was the youngest in her class. It seems like everyone born in February, March, or April opted for a delay—I don't get the logic. My younger one was born in July, and I actually considered enrolling her early since she has the potential, but the school psychologist advised against it. Apparently, so many parents are asking for delays now that if she started "on time," she'd be almost two years younger than her classmates?!?? It clearly feels like a trend—avoiding the standard school commitment without any real cause. The worst justification I've heard is "so they can enjoy themselves while they can," implying that once school starts, life is essentially over.
What is "over"? Does learning basic things between ages eight and eleven mean everything in life is finished? That there's no more play? That they've been swallowed by adulthood? That is such a terrible educational message to send—making kids resent school before they even step foot in it, for no reason. Honestly—the curriculum isn't even that demanding compared to what we went through. I had girls in my class who were barely six by August, and they ended up being some of the top students. Nobody thought it was weird at all.

Jack Rivera87 said:I find these delays a bit surreal sometimes—most kids are perfectly ready for school by age six and a half, and the system is built for them. Pushing it back to seven or eight feels like gaming the system, honestly. A kid turning eight in late autumn has such an massive advantage over a typical six-and-a-half-year-old. That gap just widens when you compare a twelve-year-old to someone nearly fourteen. In my view, delaying should be reserved for actual developmental needs—concentration issues, speech delays, processing struggles—things like that. Using it just because it’s easier for Mom? That feels like unnecessary rule-bending. No reason for it. You won't believe this, but based on some specific professional criteria, school start dates were set. My oldest started right on time—she was born in January and was the youngest in her class. It seems like everyone born in February, March, or April opted for a delay—I don't get the logic. My younger one was born in July, and I actually considered enrolling her early since she has the potential, but the school psychologist advised against it. Apparently, so many parents are asking for delays now that if she started "on time," she'd be almost two years younger than her classmates?!?? It clearly feels like a trend—avoiding the standard school commitment without any real cause. The worst justification I've heard is "so they can enjoy themselves while they can," implying that once school starts, life is essentially over.
What is "over"? Does learning basic things between ages eight and eleven mean everything in life is finished? That there's no more play? That they've been swallowed by adulthood? That is such a terrible educational message to send—making kids resent school before they even step foot in it, for no reason. Honestly—the curriculum isn't even that demanding compared to what we went through. I had girls in my class who were barely six by August, and they ended up being some of the top students. Nobody thought it was weird at all.

I mean, if the cutoff is March 31st, what’s the deal?
It basically means kids born in April follow the standard track, so they start school at 7 years and 5 months old, which is how the law works. If they were actually asking for an extension, it would imply the kid wouldn't start until they were over 8.
So, if parents want their April-born kid to start before they hit 7, they aren't looking for an extension... they’d actually have to apply for early enrollment.

Jack Rivera87 said:I find these delays a bit surreal sometimes—most kids are perfectly ready for school by age six and a half, and the system is built for them. Pushing it back to seven or eight feels like gaming the system, honestly. A kid turning eight in late autumn has such an massive advantage over a typical six-and-a-half-year-old. That gap just widens when you compare a twelve-year-old to someone nearly fourteen. In my view, delaying should be reserved for actual developmental needs—concentration issues, speech delays, processing struggles—things like that. Using it just because it’s easier for Mom? That feels like unnecessary rule-bending. No reason for it. You won't believe this, but based on some specific professional criteria, school start dates were set. My oldest started right on time—she was born in January and was the youngest in her class. It seems like everyone born in February, March, or April opted for a delay—I don't get the logic. My younger one was born in July, and I actually considered enrolling her early since she has the potential, but the school psychologist advised against it. Apparently, so many parents are asking for delays now that if she started "on time," she'd be almost two years younger than her classmates?!?? It clearly feels like a trend—avoiding the standard school commitment without any real cause. The worst justification I've heard is "so they can enjoy themselves while they can," implying that once school starts, life is essentially over.
What is "over"? Does learning basic things between ages eight and eleven mean everything in life is finished? That there's no more play? That they've been swallowed by adulthood? That is such a terrible educational message to send—making kids resent school before they even step foot in it, for no reason. Honestly—the curriculum isn't even that demanding compared to what we went through. I had girls in my class who were barely six by August, and they ended up being some of the top students. Nobody thought it was weird at all.

Or maybe they weren't actually born in those months. It's been common knowledge for years that kids born then can't get into preschool easily, and it’s just not practical for parents to take unpaid leave or rely on childcare from February all the way through August.🥳
Everyone knows when to plan for a baby; you aim for a birth date before August 31st, but definitely not before June 1st.🐔

Honestly, I think focusing solely on the birth date is pretty misguided. You really need to look at what the child is actually capable of.
For instance, a kid born on April 1st, 2009, who didn't ask for early enrollment, would be 7 years and 5 months old when they start school. Meanwhile, a kid born on March 31st, 2010, who is also required to attend, would be 6 years and 5 months old. That’s a full year difference!🥳

In my experience, it's much easier to request a one-year delay for school than it is to try and push for early enrollment.

Susan James said:Or maybe they weren't actually born in those months. It's been common knowledge for years that kids born then can't get into preschool easily, and it’s just not practical for parents to take unpaid leave or rely on childcare from February all the way through August.🥳
Everyone knows when to plan for a baby; you aim for a birth date before August 31st, but definitely not before June 1st.🐔

Honestly, I think focusing solely on the birth date is pretty misguided. You really need to look at what the child is actually capable of.
For instance, a kid born on April 1st, 2009, who didn't ask for early enrollment, would be 7 years and 5 months old when they start school. Meanwhile, a kid born on March 31st, 2010, who is also required to attend, would be 6 years and 5 months old. That’s a full year difference!🥳

In my experience, it's much easier to request a one-year delay for school than it is to try and push for early enrollment.

I agree with the bolded part.
My little one was born in mid-April. We didn't seek out—nor did anyone suggest—early enrollment. At her preschool, it was considered perfectly standard for her to spend one more year in daycare. She started elementary school at 7 years and 5 months; she’s likely the oldest in her class. By age, sure. But by maturity? She's among the younger ones 😬.
We didn't want to push for early entry (though we debated it because starting at 7 and a half felt odd), but we could see that an extra year of play would do her good. It would let her mature.

There seems to be a certain "trendiness" to requesting a school delay these days. You have plenty of parents clinging to the "let them just play" philosophy, but then you have others who refuse a delay even when it becomes glaringly obvious—once the child is already enrolled—that they should have listened to the experts. There are children who truly need that extra year to reach emotional maturity and prepare for the grind, whether that's mastering phonics or sorting out speech issues. There is absolutely nothing wrong with giving a child more time before throwing them into the meat grinder of the American school system.

If a child is emotionally ready, possesses solid pre-reading skills, and doesn't have any lingering issues that a single year could fix, I wouldn't be asking for a delay.

Just wanted to add that even gifted kids can get bumped to a later start if enrollment gets too crowded—at least, that’s what one child psychologist told me.

Robert Rodriguez9 said:Just wanted to add that even gifted kids can get bumped to a later start if enrollment gets too crowded—at least, that’s what one child psychologist told me.

Wait, what kind of delay are we talking about? 😕
And what happens if there's a huge surge in applications next year too? Does that mean they just skip school until there aren't enough kids left?
Or maybe once they finally enroll next year, they just jump straight into second grade to catch up? 🤔

I know people usually suggest that gifted kids look into less crowded schools or specialized magnet programs, but suggesting they delay their education entirely feels like a pretty radical first step, 🤷

But what happens if some kid with actual talent grows up in a tiny little town that only has one single elementary school? Are they seriously expected to just pack up and move to a bigger city like Chicago or something just to get a decent education? 😁

Man, this is the first time I’ve even heard anyone bring that up...

That's what she told me. I didn't push for details.

My daughter was born late in March, and she started school at six and a half. I really wanted to hold her back, thinking once all those school psychologist evaluations were done, we could easily push it off since she was right on the line. But she started convincing me! She’d tell me how she aced the tests better than the whole group, or how she preferred working solo, and how staying in preschool for another year wouldn't be good for her development...

And honestly? She talked me into enrolling her, and now I can't tell you how much I regret listening to her. She was just too playful and didn't take any responsibilities seriously... Even though she's totally ahead of the curve academically, first grade was a complete nightmare for my nerves.😵😵