Redshirting Your 5 Year Old

Christa, being that he is already past 5 1/2, I would still send him. I know a boy--he was in Jon's class. He entered K not knowing a single letter--and I mean couldn't identify them, couldn't make their sounds, zip, zero, nada. And this was a kid who had 2 years of preschool, in the school district, 5 days a week. He left K reading on a 2nd grade level (he actually had a late birthday and turned 5 during Sept. that year). I really don't think they would encourage you to pull him, but rather, he will probably be given more help to catch him up. It is amazing how much they grow during that K year! If he really can't do it, he can always repeat the year. There are a few kids in the boys grade that have repeated K and are none the worse for the wear.

 

As many others have said, I think it depends on the child. I think that Nikki is doing what's right for the girls. I'm sure they will blossom when they hit K next year. All my boys are summer birthdays (as am I and DH.) Patrick started K the same week he turned 5, Micah started about 2 months after. The babies, if they aren't red-shirted, will probably start a week, or so, before they turn 5. When the time comes I will assess each of them. I have had reservations as to whether Joseph would be ready but he will be starting school system preschool in about the next week so along with VPK next year I do believe they will both be ready.

Good for you, Nikki, for recognizing where they could use a little extra time.

 

I actually agree with Sharon here, Christa. If he's ready to learn, he'll be fine. Academics had nothing to do with our decision to redshirt any of our boys. It was more about emotional/social maturity, and all three needed the extra time. (DH accuses me of being overnuturing, which might be partly true, lol.) Sean had been reading for two full years by the time he started K!! People thought we were crazy for not starting him until I explained our reasons had nothing to do with academics. He was going to be bright no matter when we started him in school, at 5 or at 6. But we just knew he was not emotionally ready for school. He still had a hard time sitting and listening at 5. By 6, he had mastered that skill and could sit and focus for the time required in school. Ideally, if we could have started him in the second semester at age 5 1/2, that would have been the perfect time for him. 6 months can make a drastic difference in a young child. When Brian and Craig were of age to send them to school, we also knew they were academically ready to learn, but being identical twins, they were quite shy and dependent on one another, and we felt an extra year would benefit them also. And it did (and still is as they start all their honors classes in high school and have to have so much discipline to keep up with their heavy workload)! From your description, it sounds as if Grant just needs maybe a little extra help learning some of the skills he's behind in. I would still keep him in school since he is already 5 1/2. I'll bet you'll see an amazing growth during his K year. Of course, speaking with the teacher is always a good idea, but I think he'll be fine to stay in K now.

 

The cut off here is in Sept. as well and the boys will be 5 in December. They are back in Preschool this year. They wanted so bad to be able to go to the big school. Their preschool took a tour of the 'big school' as they call it last year and they were stoked! I am glad they don't have to go this year. I wasn't ready! They totally are though.

 

DS2 started 3 weeks after he turned 5 and didn't know letters or numbers (I had to teach him shapes and colors, even though he didn't want to learn those either, so that I could say things like "bring me the red shirt"). He very quickly learned it all and by the end of K was quite advanced. He had not had any preschool. K was an amazing year for him to soak up knowledge he had previously had no interest in. At age 15 he is in all honors classes, and 2 years ahead in math.

eta: typo

 

I just wanted to add that I was red shirted when I was a kid. My birthday is 10 days past the cut-off, so my mom took me to be tested by the district to see if I was ready for kindergarten. I had some attachment issues during the interview and the district recommended I wait a year to start school. It was the best thing for me, even though I could already read and do some basic math. Like other posters have said, it was about the social aspect, not the academic. If anything, that made me even more determined to do well once I went to school (we didn't have preschool back then). That was a loooong year to wait for a kid, but my mom helped by doing some "pretend school" stuff with me.

Once I started school I found out were 4 of us that had the same exact birthday and we were all red shirted.

 

I came across this article by accident this morning. I thought it may give some people something to think about. Basically, there have been two recent studies on "redshirting" kindergarten. These studies show that there is virtually no advantage to it. Basically, it says that the more prepared kids do better in school regardless of age.

 

Way back in the dinosaur age, my parents did the opposite of red-shirting with me! I went to a nursery school when I was 4, turned 5 at the end of June and started first grade that September. Where I grew up, high school was an accelerated program (it was changed in 1982, I believe) and one graduated after 11 grades. This was done by having all students do both algebra and geometry for each of the three high school years and trigonometry was added in 11th grade. One science was required every year also--though you could take more than one. If you didn't take 2 sciences, you had to take economics and one science- every year. Also a foreign language (French) was required every year of school. This was in addition to the English literature and language arts and other regular curriculum core classes. When you finished grade 11, you wrote school exams and then provincial public exams. It was intense.

I did just fine both academically and socially. I didn't know anything else and it didn't occur to me to even wonder. It was kind of funny not to be able to drive a car until I was in my second year at university (driving age is 17 in my hometown). But oh well- I walked everywhere anyway. LOL However, now that I'm a mom myself and I have seen that a "young" child can be at a disadvantage because of all the red-shirting that does go on, I'd probably red-shirt my summer baby today if I had it to do over again. He was my first child to start school in the USA---I had never heard tell of this before moving here, so it simply did not occur to me at all when he was starting school. He's been the youngest in his classes almost every year, and sometimes that was a bit tough on him (especially when the most sought teachers in the primary grades point blank refused to have summer birthdays in their classes! I couldn't believe that! ). Anyway, he had a few unhappy times, but he is a very intelligent and sociable young man. He adjusted, he is probably one of the most popular kids in his school, and he is a straight A senior now with numerous AP credits under his belt- heading (so he says at the moment) for pre-med and a surgical career. Yep, he wasn't able to drive all through high school like the older kids in his class---but that didn't slow him down because he is easy going and rides a bike more than the car even now that he does have his license.

 

Renee, I think you have hit the nail on the head here. The problem was created by so many people keeping their kids back. If everyone sent their kids on time--yes there are some exceptions (and those kids truly don't fit in with their age peers), then there wouldn't be this problem. Think about it this way. Now K teachers have a class with up to 1/4 to 1/3 kids who should be in the grade above by age. Sometimes they have a 2 year span among the kids! That 2 year span introduces a lot of different maturity levels, as well as academic readiness. I think it actually makes it harder to teach the group.

In our school system I have seen kids skipped a grade because their parents decided to "redshirt" them, and I have seen kids dropped back because the parents felt that since they "just missed" the cut off, they were ready to skip up a grade. If all those kids had simply gone to K when their time came, they wouldn't have had to move so many kids around mid-year.

 

My decision was not based on future academic achievement - it was based on readiness now. I had already read the article, as well as many others, when I was pondering my decision. The only issue I have with the article is the judgemental tone to the sentence near the end of the article that implies you are sentencing your 5 year old to a year of sitting around missing the opportunity to learn if you red shirt. I would never allow my kids to sit back learning nothing - the year was to be used to provide them learning opportunities other than what they would learn in the typical K.

That said, even though it will be a struggle to pay the tuition, & no one else was willing to contribute any tuition money at all, I enrolled the girls in 1/2 day K at the private school where they attended preschool last year. They have had a great week, they are clearly exhausted & on the verge of melting down every day when we get home, & I was right to judge that they would not do well in a full day program.

I am studying for my teacher certification to teach EC-6 grade - if I can find a job - next year. If I get a job, I will probably send the girls to a private full day school. The public schools are good here....I just want them to stay with the friends they have made & whose parents have been so warm & supportive to us.

 

That makes sense to me, given your individual situation. Good luck with getting a teaching job--it sounds ike that would be the ideal fit for you right now with the girls just starting the school years.

 

But the *official* date is so arbitrary - in Indiana the date has been June 1, July 1, August 1 and I think even September 1. So because this year it is August 1 and we have a DS who turned 5 on July 14 - he is considered "red shirted". But a few years ago he would have been too young with the July 1 or June 1 cut-off. With such a fluctuating date that says "Your child should be in K." - I think it is very fair for parents to make the call themselves - especially when they have a kid with a June, July or August b-day - so I don't really think that parents have caused a problem.

 

I have to admit, Sharon, I found this kind of annoying. Most people who red shirt do not have special circumstances like Nikki or a child with a serious delay of some sort. It has simply become more the rule than the exception, which is very hard on people who want to simply follow the guidelines and expect their children to be with kids more or less the same age and only 11 months older than they are at most. As I said, much as I disapprove, if I had to do it today, I would red-shirt my summer baby because doing the right thing actually put him at a disadvantage. Those parents who red-shirt are usually the first to say that other children ought to "get used" to learning how to socialize and get along with school challenges---even though by sending their too-old kids late, they actually create some of those very problems for the kids who are actually the appropriate age and maturity for K or first grade.

Red-shirting has made cut-off dates virtually meaningless---we may as well just say "7 years old for first grade" and be done with it! Except then some parents would start holding back those kids, too....

 

Well, you have to do what you think is best for your child---of course you do!

But I disagree about parents causing the problem. I think they obviously do. Whether or not it is avoidable is debatable, I guess. Parents will always do what they think is best for their children, even if that creates problems for other children. The bottom line is that parents really don't care about how their decisions affect other children. Their only real concern is making sure that their own Johnny or Susie has a head start. Is that a bad thing or a good thing? I"m not in a position to judge. I can only say how I feel about it-I don't like it, personally. :shrug:

 

Renee, I think you misunderstood my point. The culture has become so much of so many people redshirting, not for reasons like Nikki, where there are a reason, but a just because. I know people who decide the day their child is born, when born in the summer, that they will red shirt. They don't even allow for the child to develop first. And that is what has created this "culture" of red shirting. I said parents, because ultimately parents are the ones making the decision to redshirt. I do agree with Jori, that the changing dates depending where you live increase the issue.

For example, my niece was born in Atlanta, where the cut off was Sept. 1. Her birthday is Sept. 11. So, she went to "3 year old" preschool just before she turned 4. Well, after that year, she moved to Charlotte, which had a cut off of Oct. 1st, so my SIL felt like she hit the jackpot (didn't have to pay for another year of preschool) and sent her to K. This child was never prepped for K, and has struggled. Not to say she isn't bright (honestly, I don't know), but she is way behind where my kids were through K and going into 1st. In this case, she should have been red shirted, simply because she wasn't prepared to go to K. Will it work out OK, probably, but in the short term going on time wasn't to her benefit.

I have always believed it should be looked at at a case by case basis, and the best indicator is how the child acts with their peers of that grade level. I know at camp, I can easily pick out the ones who were redshirted that shouldn't have been, and that were sent who shouldn't have been, simply because they DON'T fit in with others of their grade level. The kids in the first scenario are always bored with the kids in their group, and tend to be looking for more stimulation. The kids in the second group are immature and almost always behavior problems because they just aren't "with the other kids".

 

I agree that alot of parents "red shirt" their kids so they can "get ahead". I think it backfires most of the time. But Nikki's situation is different. I do believe there are instances where waiting to put the child in K is a good idea. Although Nikki found a solution that meets her girls needs. Yay!

The fluctuating cut off dates make me crazy!! In MD the cut off was Dec 31st until my oldest started 2nd grade. Because she's a Nov birthday, she started K at 4. She flourished! There were several kids that were red shirted the year before and one of them turned 6 before she even turned 5. Overall she was with kids in that one year age difference and everything was fine. Now the date in MD is Sept 1, I believe. We moved to SC three years and the cut off is Sept 1st (has been for a long time as far as I know). So Megan isn't just one of the youngest, she is THE youngest by a good two months. And only a few kids in her classes have summer bdays so most of the kids are more than six months older than her with some that are two years older. For her it hasn't been an issue at all. She's in all GT, has plenty of friends in her grade and other than the fact that she's short you wouldn't be able to tell she's the youngest.

I do see legitimate reasons for red shirting some kids but in some circles it seems to be "the thing to do".

 

OOPS!! I should have said, "I found this annoying, TOO"! I was agreeing with you, Sharon---with the caveat that because of what others have done, if I had to do it over, I would feel forced to red-shirt so that I would not be making my son pay for what was essentially out of our control, even though it is annoying and I disapprove of what is going on.

I agree with you 100%. Case by case--- and there are far fewer cases where it is necessary than we are seeing.

Yep, ITA with you. I think Nikki's case is one of those cases and I am glad she has found a solution. Moving causes changes in dates and people can be squeezed by them---again, you have to do what is best for your child.

What bugs me is the last bit.

 

Whew, Renee! I thought we were on the same page, and then I was confused by that post! So, we are all having an agreement fest now

 

Yes, I've always agreed with you on this issue---and things you've pointed out (like above) round out the argument even more than my own very limited observations. Thanks.

What?!? Agreement? What is going on here? CURSES! (Runs off to think up a contentious new hot topic :girl_devil: ). :laughing:

 

Okay, okay - I'll be the voice of dissent! :laughing:

This was us. We knew as soon as we had a July 26 due date - that our child (especially if that child was a boy) would be "redshirted" until he was 6 years old. Sure, if he had proven to be an exceptionally mature child who just really *needed* to be in a full day K program - we would have adjusted our opinion. But, being an intelligent child and immature like most "newly turned" 5-year-olds, we knew and have pretty much always known that he would not go to K the year he turned 6.

My mom taught K for 38 years. Her best friend still teaches K (has been for 34 years). My dad was a teacher. Their entire social circle was full of teachers. My DH and I are both teachers - and our social circle is pretty heavily teacher dominated. I cannot tell you the number of times I have heard teachers at the elementary level refer to those students with summer b-days and how they really wish their parents had given them that extra year, allowed them to mature a bit more socially and emotionally, especially boys. Yes, it is making generalizations. It is definitely a statement referring to the young kids as a whole, not on a case-by-case basis. But teachers have those opinions for a reason, from experience with teaching 20 or more students each and every year. Based on this generalization, we (and others who I know who have also "redshirted")felt it better to error on the side of caution.

I just can't imagine pushing Lennon into K as a newly turned 5 year old knowing how intense the curriculum and standards are now. The DIBELS assessments, the push to be reading, the overall "climate" of K is much different now than it was many years ago - and honestly, I wanted my child to have one more year left as a preschool kid, without the pressures that now go along with K.

Was I looking out for the best interest of my child? Sure. I've never heard of a K, 1, or 2 teacher complain about how the older kids create such a wide gap among their students - but I have, many times over my 33 years of being surrounded by teachers, heard teachers complain about how so many of their "summer b-day" kids just aren't ready for school when they are sent.


Alright ladies, you are welcome. :rotflmbo: You now have someone to debate with!! :laughing:

 

By all means, if a child isn't ready, that is one thing. I actually asked my kids teachers, if you didn't know their birthdays, would you say they should go to K? The answer was a resounding "YES!" and my boys were born on June 27, and were 4 weeks early! You cannot pick out my boys as being summer birthdays--that is my point. If a child fits in seamlessly with their peers, then they should go. This should be a decision made as they approach K, not on the day they are born. I do know two people who actually had their child registered for both K and pre-K, so they could make the determination in August, not Feb. Both did decide to hold the children, and they do fit in with their current 2nd grade classes--both size wise and maturity wise.

 

No can do, sorry Jori... I do agree with what you are saying mostly, and you've even stated here (bolded) what the problem is.

K has become much more demanding--and I think that is in response to parental red-shirting!!

Parents hold kids out to give them more time--more and more parents do this until the mean age in classrooms is much higher than intended for K, and then parents start demanding more challenge for their too-old-for-K children. So the curriculum gets bumped up and made more difficult, and essentially becomes a first grade curriculum, leaving actual K-aged children at a terrible disadvantage, since K-aged children are not already fully social/fully ready for first grade. Helping kids adjust emotionally and socially to school was among the main original purposes of K! But parents wanted their children to enter K already ahead of that particular game so that they could get on with other things and excel. That's where my beef lies.

If that's what the majority wants (and it obviously is, judging by what happens in many school districts), then let's do away with K, have age 7 be the starting school age and get back to enforcing cut off dates except in very special circumstances.

But, somehow, I doubt that would fly....LOL

 

Or have parents responded to the increased pressure in K due to things like Standardized Testing and K Standards. Pressure from the Federal Government to be an excelling school, pressure from the upper grades b/c their kids have to take so many different standardized tests - DIBELS, NWEA, ISTEP (or whatever your states test is), AR Reading and AR Math, etc.

Kinda like the chicken and egg, which came first? :laughing:

 

I will make the final decision in the spring....but I will probably place my girls in K next year. The K program they are in this year is a half day, play based program. About half of the kids who finish the K at this school go on to regular K at another private or public school. I found it interesting that the parents who are redshirting their kingergartners are primarily upper middle class & highly educated. The family that introduced me to the school the girls attend sent their daughter to full day K after finishing the half day K - they would be the stereotypical redshirters - both psychiatrists, highly family centered, very involved in their children's lives & focused on education. If the process is so destructive to the kindergarten curriculum & structure....why are so many loving, educated, caring, affluent parents doing it? Surely they are not all selfish people who don't care about other children. Would less privileged parents keep their kids home another year if they did not have to pay for daycare or preschool? Is the starting age really the right age...or the age that meets the needs of most people so we believe it is best? If ALL kids started K when they were over 6 - wouldn't they all be better able to handle the responsibility & as a consequence spur each other on to greater academic achievement?

This is my second pass as starting a child in K. When my oldest dd started K in 1986 she was fully 6 years old - it was widely thought at the time that older children do better in K. I didn't even consider sending her to K at 5, nor did she go to any preschool. I also saw her go off the college at 19, rather than 17 or 18. I believe she was much more mature than most of her classmates, never went through the party stage, & just finished an amazing academic journey. The decision was right for her to start K at 6.

Of course, I am concerned about all aspects of the girls' school environment - but my highest loyalty goes to them. Personally, I think kids are adaptable...they do well most of the time no matter when they enter school. I will evaluate my girls for K or 1st grade next year when the time comes.

 

My ds's birthday is end of august less than 2 weeks before the cut off and I never considered holding him back. He is a bit immature for his age but very smart. He is in the top math group in his class and one of the highest reading groups. We had him independently tested this past year and he can out with an average of a 4th grade level (he was in 2nd grade). The teacher asked if he got into trouble at school for disrupting (he does) and we were told this is common for kids like him because they are bored and not challenged enough. I can't imagine him being a year behind where he is.

Now of he was a different child, I may consider holding him back but honestly it would have to be for very important reasons.

 

interesting discussion...

from the old school, i have a late november birthday and my parents started me in private school when i was five for first grade (I turned six in first grade) because academically i was ready. there were times i hated being the youngest in my class (when everyone was driving etc), but i loved being on the young side when i graduated college.

I don't know what the answers are...J and B have late December birthdays, so there is nothing to decide, they will start K at 5 and turn six halfway through the year. My nephew also has a Dec birthday and the last year was rough on my SIL because he was bored out of his mind.

As a parent, i don't feel I can keep up with my kids on-going needs for intellectual stimulation - when they are around me they are difficult to focus (esp. J) and it's sorta chaotic - so I'm glad they go to a daycare 5 days a week that has some of those learning activities. Honesty, i think they need more of a preschool and less of a daycare, but the choices are expensive and limited.

IMHO, that's another thing I find strange. Who decided 9-12 hours a week is all that young kids can handle in pre-school? Honestly it really frustrates me because it creates a problem for working parents. My kids do fine going 20 hours a week and I know other kids who do great 10 hours a day.

I would love to hear from some teachers on why pre-school is only 2-3 days a week?

 

That comes as absolutely no surprise to me. For one thing, as I've said all along, redshirting for us had absolutely nothing to do with academics (Sean hed been reading for two years before starting K, as I have pointed out) but everything to do with social readiness and the maturity to sit and pay attention and focus. There is no "advantage" other than the child being ready and prepared to learn and perform at school. So no great revelations in that article, imo.

Nothing pisses me off more than when some people think parents redshirt their children to "get ahead" or give them some sort of jumpstart on the other kids. How ridiculous! And if that is indeed what some people think they are doing by redshirting, then they will be sorely disappointed to find out that there is no such advantage. I know quite a few parents of redshirted children who would also take offense at that statement. As someone else pointed out, the cutoff dates are completely arbitrary and pulled out of a hat somewhere. Each parent needs to look at their own individual child and decide if that child is ready for the daily rigors of school. Giving them the benefit of added time to mature emotionally seems a small thing to do in preparing a child for a future of lifelong learning. I don't get why people have such issues with it. I honestly don't. We have never regretted redshirting our boys, and as I've said, with every passing year we are more grateful we did so.

BTW, what "advantage" would this be? The ability to focus and pay attention in school? What? Sean would have been just as academically gifted at 5 as he was at 6 so what "advantage" academically would he have had by starting later rather than earlier? Please enlighten me. (The same holds true for Brian and Craig.)

I will say our boys were never allowed to be bored in school (which they could have easily been at age 5 or at age 6) because they all had wonderful teachers who worked with them at their level of capability. So as a K student, Sean went to the 4th grade class upstairs to get reading books, and his teacher assigned him work at a higher, more indepth level than she did some of his peers. He was also in a combined K/1 classroom. B&C did not have the option here in TN of the combined K/1 class, but they did get the same individualized instruction to their level as Sean had. Really, this would have been necessary to keep them interested and learning at 5 or at 6 so that argument baffles me. Any child working above grade level needs to be instructed at least at his level or they will be bored. It should not matter how old they are.

 

Ditto and Ditto! The only advantage we are giving Lennon is the advantage of being a year older maturity-wise than he would be if he went to K this year. Is that an advantage over other kids? I don't see how. It is an advantage over his younger, more immature self. He'll be a student for many, many years to come - what, really, is one measly year of waiting it out?

 

Here's a crazy thought! Why isn't each child evaluated to see if he/she is ready for K? Or why don't they return K to what it was originally supposed to be - an introduction to being in a school environment, instead of First Grade Lite? If K was what K was like when I was a kid, I wouldn't even be contemplating red shirting my girls. Then it was a half day, and children were not expected to come in reading, writing, and counting to 100.

I am so not one of "those" parents, I think a lot of you in this thread have a feel for my parenting style. I honestly don't know what the heck we're going to do. A&B's birthday is August 12th. The cutoff here is Sept 1. They started preschool in the 2's-3's class when they had just turned two. At the end of that first year, the teacher recommended having them repeat that class next year. They did do pretty well last year and I think it was the right decision. So now this year, at having just turned four, they are in the 3's-4's class. So, next year, they will be just turning 5 and will either a) start Kindergarten, or b) go to Pre-K. DH and I talk about it every so often, and we just don't know what to do. I guess mid-year, we'll talk to their preschool teacher and see how they are doing. If they go to K on time, they will be going without the benefit of Pre-K. So not only will they be one of the youngest in the class, but they will also be at a disadvantage having not had Pre-K. I have a hard time picturing them in a year, getting on a school bus and going off for a full day of school, when all they will have had is preschool three days a week for 2.5 hrs, where I walk them into the classroom and give them a hug and kiss before leaving.

I would think that most parents that red shirt do so for some type of reason, not "just because". We all want our kids to do well in school.

 

Well since DD1's preschool teacher recommended redshirting her I hope I'm personally off the hook for selfishly ruining the lives of her future classmates and and putting an undue burden on her teachers. I've attached our districts' FAQ sheet for K. I've attached the whole list, but copied the three that are most relevant to the redshirting issue. There is nothing here to indicate that the school district or the community at large has a preference for sending them at 5 vs 6. Am I missing the part that says just because a child has met the minimum age to attend K that there is some type of moral obligation to the community to send them that year?


Kindergarten FAQ

How do I know if my child is ready for kindergarten?

If your child has attended preschool, talk with his/her teacher. An excellent resource to judge a child’s readiness is the Ohio Department of Education’s, Standards Guide for Families: Preschool Learning booklet.

​

May I wait to enroll my child in kindergarten until he is six?

Yes, state law requires compulsory attendance of children between the ages of 6 and 18.



​

What is the birthday cut-off for entering kindergarten?

Children who are 5 years of age on or before September 30th of the current year are eligible to enroll in kindergarten.



​

 

Oh, sure, pass the buck, Sheryl. :laughing:

 

I honestly think the issue of parents sending kids that really are not ready just to save on childcare expenses or get them out of the house is more of a concern than those choosing to wait a year. I hope your neice manages to have a successful school career despite such an unfortunate start. Just because a child is eligible does not mean they should start K that year!!

 

Sheryl, you rebel. BTW, Sean's preschool teacher was also the first person to recommend he be redshirted, knowing full well his exceptional intelligence and that he was a proficient reader already. Go figure!

 

Wow, this topic sure hits a nerve with some parents! :shok:

 

Yep it sure has. I wonder why?