Redshirting Your 5 Year Old

I do, too. Nobody here has quarreled with the fact that some children really honestly do need to be "red-shirted" for lots of good reasons. So I am wondering why anyone would be upset?

 

Hmmm no idea. Other than the suggestion that parents who redshirt are possibly seeking some sort of unknown mysterious "advantage" for their children over their peers. Silly me. I must have misunderstood.

What my child's age has to do with anyone else's child's success or lack thereof is beyond me. But the implication is there. Like it or not.

 

Not at all---that wasn't implied at all. It was outright stated (by me) as the motivation for parents who have no real reason to hold their children back. Parents who DO have a real reason to hold their children back should definitely do so, in my opinion. I've said that repeatedly. You knew your child could not handle K at age 5 and you held him back---that was the right thing to do, IMO. So again, not sure where the anger is coming from....?

 

Am I the one that sounded upset or angry? I'm not either, just wondering where the judgement and disapproval is coming from in this thread. I am confident we are doing the best thing for Rachel and we are well within the guidelines established by the school district making her neither too-old nor late in starting K at age 6.

I wonder why it would annoy others that I am making a parenting decision for my child that is within the school district guidelines? Which is why I posted them. Sending a child to K when they are 6 is not sending them late when the information clearly says you can send them at 5 or 6. I'm not asking for an exception or anything, so why the blame for the difficulties other children may experience or teachers may have on parents that are following the rules?

you are saying that sending them at 5 is doing the right thing, so sending them at 6 is doing the wrong thing? and that annoys you? 6 is not the appropriate age for K? what if the guidelines say you can do either?

I guess only obvious to some

 

Hmmm, well I gave my honest opinion on this issue and it seems that it has upset people. Once again, I'm a little confused by ithat---I've said repeatedly that if parents feel they have good reasons to red-shirt, then of course they should do it! Not sure how that makes me judgemental of the parents here who have all stated that they do have good reasons to hold their kids back.

I do question the policy of school boards which allows such a wide age-range to start K together. I think they ought to look at the trend, accept that parents generally do not seem to want to send their children to K at age 5, unless soon turning 6, and adjust the cut-off dates accordingly! It just makes sense for everyone if the classes are made up of only the normal range of abilities within one year of age, rather than trying to deal with the ranges of abilities of 2 years of ages. There is enough variation among 6 year-olds themselves, without throwing in 5 year-olds and almost 7 year-olds as well! I would have thought that the red-shirt parents would have felt the same about that, since extra challenges in the classroom could impact their own children's education as well.

I'm truly amazed that this makes people feel so defensive. :hush: Sheesh!

 

Once again, Renee, I agree with you. The issue has never been with people who have real reason to hold their children. It is the blanket statements that I come across "your child is a boy born in the summer, so you HAVE to wait a year to send them, because there is NO WAY they are ready for K." I stand by my point that each child has to be looked at individually, and the decision should be made as they approach K, not simply looking at their birthdate.

I have lots of anecdotes for holding or for sending. Last year, Jonathan had a rough group of boys in his class. One of the "rougher" boys, is a boy who was held a year, who plays football, and at 8 (in the second grade) is already built like an offensive liner. He is more mature than the other boys, and takes advantage of that by directing the more immature children to do "bad" things. He is easily able to manipulate the kids who are younger and smaller which causes discipline problems in class. If he were with he age peers, he is unlikely to manipulate the other kids so easily.

 

I think this is where some of the defensive reaction comes from. We held Lennon back b/c he was a boy, born in the summer, just a mere 17 days before the cut-off. As I stated previously, had he been some EXCEPTIONALLY emotionally mature child - I suppose we would have sent him. I don't think he is immature for his age, I don't think he wouldn't do fine in K this year. But, I think he'll handle the social and emotional challenges better next year, as an older and more mature version. So, see, I guess I don't see my reason as any different than many of those who choose to redshirt. Lennon doesn't have any learning issues. He's not immature for his age (unless you count the fact that he is just barely 5 and what (in general terms here) newly 5 year old isn't immature) - but he is immature, IMO, to begin the rigors of K. No special reason.

 

In the district we move from this is what the majority of parents were doing! And like another pp said (was it Sharon?), these children caused discipline issues with the ones of the arbitrarily chose "correct" age for the grade. Any parent who truly makes the decison based on what their child needs is doing exactly the right thing. It's this "get ahead" attitude that makes it an issue for me. If Erick doesn't grow emotionally and mature a bit more in the next year, I may redshirt him. He and Kayci are a June birthday and the cutoff is Sept 1st. He is super clingy and does horribly in new situations. I cannot imagine he would learn a thing or be able to even function in a classroom setting acting this way. Kayci has significant speech delays and if she doesn't make huge strides this year in speech therapy I may redshirt the both of them. But I will do what needs doing in order to meet each of their needs. The redshirting itself isn't an issue for me; it's the why behind it.

 

I am sorry I became defensive over the issue. (Honestly, I'm cranky because my dear aunt passed away yesterday at age 89, which has no bearing on this conversation but has put me in a foul mood.)

But it's this "parents who have no real reason" thing that is bothering me. No real reason to whom? Having redshirted and having had my boys in Fabulous Fives for that extra year of preschool, I know lots of parents who redshirted their children, and not one family had "no real reason" to hold their child out for that extra year. Who are these people that just don't send their kids because they have no real reason? I've yet to meet anyone who made the decision to redshirt their child without a valid reason. And what constitutes no real reason? Also, there is no such thing as "getting ahead" by starting the child later. It doesn't happen, and if parents do mistakenly think it will, as has been said they will be very surprised when it does not become reality.

I'm not upset this morning when I read this, just baffled by the comments. Why should or does anyone care if children are redshirted or not? We did what was right for our boys and have no regrets. OTOH, Sean has a good friend who is exactly one year younger than him. This young man's mother has commented to me on numerous occasions that she wishes she had held her son out that extra year because emotionally he just has not been prepared for school. He's a bright kid but had a difficult time from about 3rd grade on due mostly in her estimation to emotional immaturity. Knowing him quite well myself, I tend to agree with her. Of course, not every child is going to have these difficulties but if there is any doubt a child is not emotionally ready for school, why not give them the benefit of time?

Academically, all of our boys would have been fine to start K at 5. We knew that before and we know that now. Like Jori, we decided the extra year of maturity could only benefit them in the long run so we held them out. No "real" reason. It was just the right thing for our boys at the time and we continue to see the emotional benefits of having held them out as they go through middle and high school and on to college. However, I can tell you from experience that having held them out an extra year has not given them any advantage or jumpstart on their peers. That is a fallacy that is perpetuated by some and it just is not true. Bright kids are bright kids and will be bright at age 5 or at age 6.

 

Most people I have heard of redshirting do it when their child has a birthday near the cut-off, so I don't see how that is skewing things SO grossly out of proportion. Why do we assume that every parent (except those here that are able to defend themselves) that redshirts does it for bad reasons?

If I send them on-time, assuming school here starts again Aug 25 next year, they will be 5 and 13 days. If I redshirt, they will start at 6 and 13 days. How is that vastly skewing the age range? There will be kids with Sept birthdays who are turning 6.

I honestly just don't know what to do!

 

Because I sent my girls to K on-time. They were born 2 days before the cutoff. I sent them, because I didn't have any reason not to. The principal & their Pre-K teacher advised sending them. However, because of redshirting, they could be 12-16 months younger than some of their classmates. That puts them at more of a disadvantage than they would've been by being young, anyway.

I don't think everyone who redshirts does it for selfish reasons. I do believe doing it so your child can have the advantage of being the oldest, instead of being the youngest is a little selfish. Once everyone starts redshirting summer birthdays, what happens to the April birthdays? Do they get to be the youngest, or should they be held out, too?

Just to reiterate.. I don't think that every parent that redshirts does it for the wrong reasons. I just think it makes it harder on those parents who do follow the guidelines, and trust that others will, too.

I stay home with my girls, and I really wanted them with me one more year. I just couldn't see keeping them home, when all the friends they thrived with in Pre-K were moving on.

 

I think that the subject of red-shirting (not just this thread, but in real life also) has become another parenting subject where it's hard for other parents to see another's point of view. I think it's also become a difficult subject because even just sitting at the park this summer, this would be a typical conversation.

"Do they go to school in the fall?"
"Yes."
"Are you going to hold them back because they're twins and he's a boy?"
"No."
"Well, when is their bday?"
"Jan 17."
"Oh, I guess with that bday, you wouldn't need to."

Honestly, I'm not finding many parents in own experiences of chit-chatting at the park who are making red-shirt choices based on much else other than it's a boy and he has a summer bday. I totally understand looking at emotional maturity for a reason. I'm not sure that Timothy would have had it at 5, but at 5.5, he does and he's doing great. I think other parents get a negative take on red-shirting when they constantly get asked about whether they'll do it "because they're twins" or "because he's a boy" or "because they have a summer bday". (Mine is August 22 and I was usually the youngest in my class.) I think sometimes we see things like Sharon has mentioned where kids were red-shirted "just because" and they lead to discipline problems because of boredom.

I'm not against red-shirting for reasons. Kids will develop at their own rate and things do happen like moving that can just cause the kid to need an extra year. And I'm happy that our system generally allows parents to make those choices and those descisions. I'm not happy that there is becoming a list of "just because of a,b, or c" reasons kids automatically get red-shirted and you get looked like as the mom with 3 heads at the park if you do decide to send a child to school with the cut-off dates as is. There are reasons to send, and reasons to wait.

Marissa

 

This happens no matter what/when the cutoff is. Your girls were born two days before the cutoff and there are going to potentially be children in their K class that could have been born two days after. They are still at least 12 months apart, right? How does this put them personally at a disadvantage? Disadvantage for what? If they are ready for K maturity-wise, then they are ready for K. There is no advantage or disadvantage to them. I also have a summer birthday and started school shortly after turning 5. I graduated HS at 17. I had no disadvantage personally by being the youngest just as my peers, some of whom were close to a year older than me, had no advantage over me because they were older. My maturity level was such that I coped quite well with school at a younger age. Knowing my boys as well as I do and taking the advice of their preschool teachers, I knew they would benefit from the extra time to mature.

 

But this makes it sound like those of us who choose to "redshirt" our kids are not sending them "on time" and therefore doing something wrong.I'm sending Lennon on time - as a 6 year old. What is the rush? Like I said in a previous post, those dates are *very* arbitrary. I don't know how they choose June 1 one year, August 1 another year, and July 1 yet another year. So, why should I send my child just b/c the school has set a MINIMUM age requirement of a birthdate on or before August 1? What is really so different between a child born on July 31st and a child born on August 2nd?

So many of these posts make it seem like those of us who choose to "redshirt" are doing so at the expense of costing other students a good education, making the gaps larger in student skills, maturity, etc. I'm doing it so that my son is on a more level playing field maturity-wise, with the kids with the late summer, fall, winter, and early spring b-days. Which is why many people "redshirt". In other words, he'll be more mature and able to succeed with his peer group - not be more socially and emotionally immature than the rest of the students in his class.

 

Well, I think that part of establishing if they are ready for K, is knowing what age group they are going to be in class with. If they are going to be in a class with 5 year olds that are turning 6, then yes they are on target. If they are going to be in class with 6 year olds who are turning 7, then that's a different story! Yes, they are going to be the youngest in class, but having a few kids who are 12 months older, and having half the class at LEAST 12 months older are two different scenarios. Not to mention, redshirting is basically diminishing the age group they would have been close in age with.

I don't think you are sending on-time. Our school guidelines say that if you are 5 on or before 9/1, then you should be in K. To me, if you meet that requirement, and you DON'T send, then you are choosing to send them "late". I'm not saying you don't have reasons for not sending, I just don't see it as sending them "on-time". I don't agree with schools allowing a general two year span for kindergarten ages. I don't think it's fair to the teachers or the students.

Trust me, I'm not in a rush! If they came out & said you had to be 6 on or before 9/1, then I would dance in the streets. I would know they were still going to be the youngest, because with an 8/30 birthday, they just are. Even then, I believe there would be some parents (not you!) who would choose to keep their children out so they wouldn't be the youngest/smallest/most immature.

Again, I promise, I'm not saying anyone here who redshirted did it with anything but the best intentions at heart. I'm just saying, I don't think everyone has the best intentions - and it makes things harder on us parents who choose to look at the date for what it is, and follow it - unless we have reason not to.

 

I couldn't agree more. Thanks Jamey

And I totally agree with you, Marissa

You're right, Kim, it will happen around a cut-off date no matter what, but if all parents honored the intended purpose of the cutoff date (ie. to keep classes full of children no more than 12 months apart in age), the environment would be more positive for all for many reasons.

As far as "advantages" and "disadvantages" go, I really think you are being a little disingenuous on this question. People have repeated that they are not talking about academic or intellectual advantage, yet you keep throwing that red herring out there--not sure why? The issue is that parents who trust that educational experts have set what they believe to be an appropriate age for K, and whom they believe also set an appropriate curriculum for children of that age, send their children to K if they turn 5 before the cut off date. Then, they are thrust into classes with children 12, 14 or even 18 months older than they are--which is a significant gap at ages 5-7. That causes headaches for teachers (resulting in the bumped-up curriculum in response to red-shirting, as a way to keep the older kids challenged so that they won't resort to inappropriate behaviors in the classroom) and the actual K-aged kids are then further disadvantaged with a too-challenging curriculum for their age. Later, if issues crop up on the playground with (usually) younger kids being bullied or cut out of social groups by these older kids, the same parents sniff that those kids should just learn to get along---or maybe should have been red-shirted by parents who obviously couldn't wait to be "rid" of them.

I guess what this really says about society and parenting is that parents want a just and equitable system and great schools in theory, but in practice they really want their Johnny or Mary to have greater advantage within that system, no matter what, even if that means starting or continuing a trend which makes a joke of education guidelines and disrupts the curriculum that was put in place. I get that, because we all lose perspective when it comes to our kids, but I don't have to like it!

As I said, I come from a culture where parents respected that experts in the field had designed the curriculum to be appropriate for children in a certain age-group and we therefore felt comfortable working within those cut-off dates, unless there were pressing reasons not to do so. I admit, it was a culture shock for me to wake up one morning in Ohio in October and realise that my little boy who was born nearly 3 months before the cutoff date (mid-June for Sept 30 cutoff), was the youngest child in his class by at least another month (the next youngest child to him was born in early May). We are not talking about a week or two here. Parents hold back kids for 3-4 months before the cut-off date and will continue to move that date back as they sense that other parents are doing it--and I am convinced it is to gain age-advantage. There is usually no other reason: it's as simple as that.

In response to that reality, I think the school systems around the country should eliminate the cut-off date for K altogether and simply give a minimum and maximum age for entering 1st grade--both to protect children who might be sent too early and to protect children from being sent too late. I'd say, instead of just making it law that a child must be 6 before entering first grade, perhaps they should say something like - a child must be not younger than 6 and no older than 7 at (date of school opening) to start first grade, except in special (documented) circumstances. That would allow the parents who strongly wish to "red-shirt" 5-year olds to simply do something else for that year without the stigma of "red-shirting" and allow all parents to work within a truly realistic guideline for age range, which doesn't focus on K so much.

Well, I would say that it sounds like what it is--if people send 6 year-olds to K, they may not be breaking any laws, but they are ignoring the spirit of the law. The law says (in most states and provinces) that a child must be 6 before some cut-off date to enter 1st grade--in most places K is not even required by law, but children are required by law to be in school by age 6. Parents who red-shirt for reasons other than serious cognitive/physical or psychological disabiities or delays in essence do not send their children "on time", though of course they can and do argue that there is no law so no real "right time".

I would argue that in some other circumstances (eg competitive sports) many of these same parents would be pretty bent out of shape if their Johnny or Mary had to compete against other kids 13-18 months older than their children, when they understood and expected the cut-off dates for age to actually mean something.

But you are right--there is no actual legal age that children must be in K---and I suggest that there should be no age cut-off at all for K unless mandatory K is the law in your area--just for first grade, as I outlined above. Then, let parents decide for themselves and let schools reorganize K as needed (perhaps with 5 year-old K and 6 year-old K).

 

Again, thank you, Jamey! You've said beautifully exactly what I think! We were posting at the same time, but I could have saved myself the effort as you've said it all right here.

I don't think anyone is judging anyone else---we are ALL trying to do what is best for our children! But, I guess I feel that either we allow cut-off dates to be meaningful and work together within those dates, or we maybe have to take a whole new look at education and society.

 

This is a very interesting thread, and it reminds me of how very much I have to look forward to in the decision-making department!

My birthday is in July, and I started K in late August, having just turned 5. For me, that was the right decision. I never had any problems, and I was always at the top of my class (interestingly, something like 8 of the top 10 in my class throughout school were late birthdays (July, August, and September). I started college having just turned 18, and I graduated at 21.

I think for us it will be a non-issue. The babies were born in February - way after the cutoff date. So, I expect to start them when they are 5 1/2 unless I judge at the time that it is too soon.

 

Can I just say how utterly unhelpful this thread has been? It's done nothing but add another stress to an already huge decision we are facing (You're going to ruin Kindergarten for EVERYBODY!). Thanks.

I guess my kids are already ruining preschool for everybody, as they were essentially redshirted by having repeated the 2-3's class.

I was glad to see this thread and was hoping for some input, but now not so much.

 

Kelly, if they are fitting in with their current class to the point that you can't tell that they are older than many of the kids, then they do need that extra year of Pre-K. If it looks like they are "above" their peers, then maybe they are more ready for K next year than you thought. Believe me, even at 4, it is pretty easy to pick out the kids that don't fit in, both should be higher and lower (in grades). Also, the big key is--Talk to their teachers! They see these kids every year, and really do know who is ready and who isn't.

 

If you had made the decision, in utero that you were going to redshirt your kids through preschool so they could be the biggest, best, shining stars - then that would be a true statement. If you made the decision AFTER seeing your girls in their peer group, and deciding THEY fit better with another age group, then NO, I wouldn't say ruining kindergarten/preschool rested squarely on your shoulders.

I was at a swim party in July. I was talking to another mom with ID twin boys born in June. I asked her if the boys were going into K in the fall, and she said "No, it's been the plan since they were born, that we would wait an extra year to send them". Really? You knew since they were born they would be too immature for Kindergarten at 5?

 

I'm really sorry that the discussion is making you feel that way, Kelly. :hug:

To be honest (and I've already said this several times, too), if I were you, I wouldn't hesitate to red-shirt in the current environment. The K "system" (if that is even a possible descriptor) is already broken by this practice, so at this point, it would probably be really wrong for a conscientious parent NOT to red-shirt her summer baby(ies). Cut-off dates mean nothing anymore and the true mean age for starting K is more like 5.8 or older. Today, I would never send my June baby, even, at 5 years-old, in spite of the fact that I don't like what has happened.

I wish there would be a general overhaul so that we could get back to some sort of reliable model within which to make decisions instead of this flying-by-the-seat-of-our-pants every-parent-for-herself (and her child) situation that we have now!!

 

Really? I have not one time heard a teacher complain that the curriculum/standards have increased due to all of the redshirted kids. I have heard teachers complain that the state and federal government keeps raising their expectations of what students are forced to learn in order to meet the guidelines set forth by the government. I have heard teachers complain that the younger students just aren't ready for the way the K classroom is run now. K curriculum is not so much more intense b/c a few students each year are redshirted. K curriculum is more intense b/c 1st grade curriculum is more intense, 2nd grade is more intense, etc. I cannot imagine that our nation's educational standards have changed based upon *all* those redshirted kids!

And again, I (and anyone else I know who has or will be redshirting their kids) am *not* redshirting Lennon so he has an advantage. I'm redshirting him so that he is ready, emotionally and socially, like he should be. I'm not making a joke of the guidelines set forth. I'm considering them for what they are, totally arbitrary when it comes to June, July, and August birthdays.I'm leaving it up to my discretion, as the parent. If Indiana had some fantastic research that said ALL kids born before August 1, but not born on August 2nd were ready for K when they turned 5 - then great, show it to me. But they don't. The dates are fairly meaningless when you're talking about ever-changing dates.

 

Kelly, when we were struggling with this decision with Sean, we read this book on the recommendation of his preschool teacher:

Summer Children: Ready or Not For School

It's twenty years old, and not in print any longer, but your library may have a copy. It was helpful to us in our decision, although I will say Dr. Uphoff is biased and feels no child should start K before the age of 5 1/2. I'm not sure I agree with that, but it still helped us get a handle on why we should consider not sending him to K as a young 5.

I hope it's helpful!

 

Thank you, Jori, and thank you Kim for the book recommendation. I don't know if it's just because I don't know a lot of parents with school-age children, but I've never heard of redshirting being a big problem. If anything, I felt "stigma" being the oldest in the class all the time as a child, so I don't really see how it's some big, huge advantage to be older. My birthday is Jan 3, and back then the cutoff was Jan 1.

If K was half a day, I would have absolutely no issue sending A&B next year. We're still very undecided and will be talking to their preschool teachers throughout the year.

 

If what you are saying is actually true (I haven't heard anything like that, but I also do not have any primary-school aged children anymore), then as I said, it is definitely time to overhaul the entire K "system" and simply up the cut-off age significantly once and for all! Do you agree? If red-shirting is in response to a general feeling that K is too challenging for 5 year-olds, and not to give an age-advantage, then everyone ought to be happy with a later cut-off, right? :umm:

 

You're welcome, Kelly. FWIW, relax right now. In 6 months time, kids at this age can and do change dramatically so come spring time, you may have more of an inkling if they will indeed be ready to start K in the fall. It's good you are thinking about it, though, just don't dwell on it. As you get closer to K roundup time, and can assess with the help of their teachers their readiness, you'll be prepared to make whatever decision is right for them. I am confident of that!

 

Huh, I had a Kinder teacher look at my ds to let me know if he was ready for school being that his b-day is 9 days before the cut-off and she said just that! I also beelive I have seen teachers on this site say just that too.

We did not red shirt him as she said he was ready and has done great. I think that red shirting on the sole reason that a child is a boy and born in the summer is not giving the child and the school system enough credit. If they are immature for their age or have other issues, that is something different.

 

Hmmm. I see both sides to this argument. On the one hand, there are good, concrete reasons not to send some children to school at age 5 -- as I mentioned earlier, Nadia's private school has extensive testing for admission, and they've generally found that boys with summer birthdays are NOT mature enough/ready for kindergarten there. Even with girls, it's rare to be admitted with a summer birthday.

But, it is definitely decided on a case-by-base basis. For example, there is a girl in Nadia's class who just turned 5 in July, and there is a boy who just turned 6 in June. (Ironically, he's the son of the lower school admissions director!)

When talking about public school, however, I can understand why people get upset that red-shirting has become the norm -- and that's for the reason that Renee (I think?) mentioned. I think it's reasonable to expect that the other kids in kindergarten are, at most, only 11 months older than your child. But now, those kids could be up to 23 months older, which I feel does put young 5-year-olds at a disadvantage, even if those other kids were red-shirted for specific maturity reasons.

I agree that if a good percentage of 5-year-olds today are not ready to start kindergarten, then we should just make the cut-off 6 years old instead.

 

This is also what I have heard from numerous teachers both on TS and IRL. Not saying that what Jori wrote is false, just that I have never heard that except from her, here.

As I mentioned earlier, the school my DS1 started in actually had a senior K teacher who refused to take any summer birthdays in her classes anymore given the new curriculum guidelines which were tailored to older kids. She was explicit about her reasons at the time, saying that parents had taken the age range into their own hands (red-shirting), and to level the playing field, she could not have much younger children in her classes. Interestingly, there was a lot of resentment among the parents of children in her class for this elimination of younger children from the class---could it be that they would have preferred a class with a higher proportion of younger children than that teacher would allow? For what reason, I wonder? I think I know, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they were not angling for an age advantage for their children, but just that their children were so delayed and so at risk emotionally, socially and what have you, that they actually red-shirted with the honest intention of having their children be the oldest in a young class just so that they could keep up.

Perhaps we were just unlucky enough to land in the single, most competitive school district in the country. <_< Or, maybe, once in awhile, the reasons why some parents everywhere chose to red-shirt are not so clear-cut developmentally.

Anyway, it's become the norm, now. If I were a parent of toddlers or pre-schoolers today, I would ignore the cut off date (which is meaningless in this environment) and simply ask the principal at the school what is the average age of the new Ks, what is the mean age and what is the usual youngest birthday. If my child seemed to be in a good place in that group, I'd send. If not, I'd red-shirt. Simple. It's all that a parent can do today because all official guidelines are meaningless, now. Unless we protect our children, they will certainly be put at a disadvantage somehow in this competitive environment.

Eventually, it will become so ridiculous that education reform will have to be made to address it--and I hope it will be reform along the lines of what I suggested above. However, until the correction is made, parents are on their own and should not trust the guidelines anymore because red-shirting has made them useless. JMHO

 

Maybe that is what has happened and maybe the guidelines do need to be changed. But in the meantime, parents do need to look at their own child and make an informed decision based upon input from educators, which is exactly what we did when making the decision to redshirt. I don't think it's ridiculous to make a decision that your child is not mature enough for the rigors of school yet and to give them the benefit of time to mature and catch up to their peers so they are able to learn and function in a school environment.

FWIW, I only know personally of three kids older than Sean and B&C who were redshirted. (Sean's birthday is June 30, B&C's July 6.) Most people of kids in our area with birthdays earlier than late June have opted to send their children to K at 5 and I have not seen that trend change much (or heard it has changed much from friends on staff at the boys' elementary school) in the past 13 years since Sean started school. I have no idea if that's true for other areas of the country.

Additionally, Sean had no children younger than 5 in his K/1 class (all were 5 or older), same for Brian. Craig did have one girl in his K class who was 4 at the start of school (early August for us) and she turned 5 a few weeks into the school year. So the largest age gap between students was about 14 months. Still a large gap but not the 23 months Becca suggested was possible. (ETA: I cannot remember right now when the cutoff is here. It's either Sept 1 or 30 and it was similar in OH when Sean started K.)

Did anyone else ever have a school that had Transition? Craig's 1st grade teacher taught Transition at the boys' school before she moved to 1st grade. Transition was a boy-heavy class composed of mostly summer birthday children between K and 1st grade. It was designed for those kids who were not quite ready for 1st grade after K. (I worded that poorly.) But for example, two of my neighbor's sons, both with summer birthdays, were sent to Transition after completing K (one is now 22, the other is 16). Did anyone else have this at their child's school? I'm just curious to know if that was unique to our school or something that was common nationwide? I think they dropped the class once a lot of people stopped sending their summer birthday kids to K at age 5 as there was no longer much of a need for the program.

 

But... Are people redshirting kids with birthdays after the cutoff? For example, would someone red shirt a child with a Sept 30 birthday when the cutoff is Sept 1? My understanding is that people do it when their child's birthday is close before the cutoff (like Ainsley and Bea's August birthday). I don't see how people red shirting close to the cutoff is making the age spread that great.

 

Anecdotally at least, I don't see how redshirting would automatically provide an academic advantage. My only personal experience is myself, but like I said, the top people in our class were all the youngest - all kids who would have been redshirted today or not even eligible to start because cutoffs keep moving up. So, academically, the older kids in my class did not do better? Of course, this was 28 years ago, so a different world. Maybe they were bored because curriculum hadn't caught up?

I find this to be an interesting discussion. Maybe because I'm not personally invested in it yet...

 

I don't really think there is a correlation between age and academic performance overall. I was one of the youngest in my class and graduated tenth out of 350 in the rankings, yet my best friend was one of the older students in our class and she was also in the top ten. As I said, if you're bright, you're bright, and your age is not going to change that. But that's just an opinion, not scientific fact or anything. :lol:

 

I think MOST red shirtting is done for summer birthdays BUT the trend has grown so much (at least around here) that red shirtting is happening for March and even January birthdays. This is where I believe some of the problems occur. IT is this practice where the age gap gets really big.