Redshirting Your 5 Year Old

Kelly, if your childs' birthday is after the cut-off, then you are sending them "on time" by waiting a year. But, look at what Amanda said way back. In her district, people will red shirt boys whose birthdays are after Feb. Which means that if you send a child with an August birthday on time, so, that child turned 5 in August, there could be a child in the class turning 7 in Feb. That is just a huge range. Think of how much your child changes in only 6 months, putting children with 18 months difference in age is a big difference.

Red shirting a child with a Sept. birthday really doesn't make a big difference in that they are really only a few weeks older than the kids who just missed the cut off the previous year. The problem is occurring because people are red shirting kids with earlier and earlier birthdays creating bigger and bigger gaps. No, 23 months isn't the case, but up to an 18 month difference is realistic in some areas.

 

OK, now I see what others are talking about. That is seriously pushing the envelope, imo. I'm glad that does not seem to be the trend here. As I said, Sean has a June 30th birthday and I know of only a few other kids who are older than him (but still with summer birthdays) who were redshirted. Maybe that is why some of us seem to be on completely different pages here! Lightbulb moment!

 

I don't think that is ridiculous either, and it is not what I was calling ridiculous. If you will look at my post again, you will see that I was referring to the continual shift of (real class birthday) dates earlier and earlier as parents hold back older and older kids; It started with just kids born within a few weeks of cut off dates, but then it was all of the last month, then all of the last season (summer birthdays for September cut off dates, fall birthdays for December cut-off dates) and eventually, people will be holding back April babies, then March babies, then January babies and soon it will be all the way to the beginning --in other words, ridiculous. The present guidelines (cut-off dates, for example) have been made meaningless by this practice, yet we still have them, which is what I think is ridiculous. Sorry for any confusion. It's hard to discuss this calmly if everything anyone says is going to be taken incorrectly and assumed to be an insult by those who disagree.

Not usually, I would think. But as I said above, it started with just birthdays a few days before the cutoff, then a few weeks, then a month, now a couple of months-six months! My children are/were all in classes with an age-spread of at least 1-18 months. For my summer baby, who was nearly 3 months older than the suggested cut-off date when he started K, the age gap was 13-19 months. His closest-aged classmate was born on May 5 of the year he was born--he was June 18. He was fine because he didn't have emotional or social issues which would handicap him like others have mentioned, but it did make it uncomfortable for him at times and he didn't enjoy school as he could have done because of that.

I'm not sure if there was ever a child fully 2 years older in a class with my children (maybe someone with severe developmental delays at some stage), but 18 months older was not unusual.

Rachael, I don't think the discussion is really about academic advantage. In fact, most of us agree (and Sharon even posted a study supporting this), that academic advantage is not the issue with red-shirting.

 

Relax, Renée. I was agreeing with you and did not take what you wrote as an insult at all. I feel pretty calm today.

Seriously, I had no idea people were holding back kids with birthdays in the Jan-April range. I honestly do think that is getting a bit ridiculous unless there are extenuating circumstances. For example, one boy in B&C's Fabulous Fives program had a February birthday but he had spina bifida and was confined to a wheelchair and had some learning issues as well. Otherwise all the kids in the program had June-Sept birthdays. Thankfully that trend has not changed much here.

Which brings me to another point. School districts have been pushing up cutoff dates for their guidelines in answer to this issue so I do sort of see why parents are mistakenly thinking they should redshirt if the eligibility cutoff date is now June 1st and their child was born in May. But they, imo, are not really looking at the reasons for the district pushing that date up and are now just reacting to the date and not observing school readiness issues in their child. I could be wrong. School district's probably should just pick a date and stick to it (common dates seem to be Sept 1 or 30) or we're going to eventually have 10 year olds starting K!! :rofl: I do get that and understand your reference to ridiculous, Renée!!

 

I'm glad redshirting isn't a big deal where I live. That heavily influenced my decision to send my girls on-time. I'm just concerned about the areas where redshirting IS the trend. What about the kids who are sent on-time, because their parents can't afford to keep them home/in daycare another year? I'm talking about "at-risk" kids who already may not be receiving a lot of parental guidance with their education. Not only were they already at a significant disadvantage with their same-aged peers, now they are going to schools with kids 18 months older, with amazing resources at their fingertips. What kind of problems is that going to cause?

 

I meant like, if the cutoff is Sept 1, and your child's birthday is Sept 30, and you wait a whole year, then your child is 6-going-on-7 starting K. And I don't think anyone is really doing that, making the hypothetical 23-month age range that was mentioned.

I admit, I did not realize people are doing it with Feb birthdays, that's a bit ridiculous, unless there is some compelling reason. I've only heard of doing it with birthdays close to the cutoff.

 

Now this I can see where there would be significant issues due to the vast age difference. I do not know of anyone who has "redshirted" a child who had a Janurary through April b-day. Around here, it seems to always be the summer birthdays - and mostly boys.

Maybe its a regional thing.

And Renee, I think it would be a great idea to bump the cut-off date back a few months. Every teacher I know would agree, too!

 

Sorry, but I don't think K should be seen as a free alternative to daycare

edited to add free, which I get is an incentive to send for some, I just don't agree with it

 

Maybe it is just a regional preference? I can tell you that in all of my years growing up around teachers and now teaching at an elementary school - I have only ever heard teachers say they wish that students (as a whole, not saying that some students aren't ready) with summer b-days would be held out a year and sent when they are 6.

I can hear my mom's voice in my ear always commenting on how immature and socially/emotionally unprepared her summber b-days boys were - in general terms. I tend to take what she said (and what many, many other teachers I know say)with some truth. Of course, she is generalizing. But like I said before, I'd rather error on the side of caution.

 

But, schools are not going to allow children to repeat K, "just because". I actually think this is a good thing in that it is giving the child the opportunity to see if they are ready for K. If they are not, the parent is already OK with retention.

 

Wow, a lot of interesting stuff in this thread. I'll tell you this, I'm feeling like J&B will no longer be the oldest kids in school with their late Dec birthdays! A few notes below, all hypothetical at this point since we have a few years.

Two comments....one about whether we as parents are always the best people to evaluate our kids needs? It's probably a spin-off, but I know as a parent I have to be so careful not to project my issues on my kids. Kim, I'm not picking on you and I just happened to quote you - but many folks are saying the same thing. We all have strong mama bear instincts and I think that can get in the way of our evaluations. Add to that people who do red-shirt because they think it will provide an academic advantage, you can create the range of issues and emotional maturity that folks have commented on in this thread.

On the academic side, there is always a challenge in the classroom to stimulate the smartest kids and help those who struggle to keep up. This is where red-shirting in K would concern me...those kids end up ahead of the other kids. and then you run into the problem in high school where maybe they need a higher level of math..and where does it end? Where is normal? I had a friend or two in H.S. who were quite advanced and they took math classes at the community college. Not an ideal situation, but the public high school couldn't meet their academic needs.

I agree with much of what you are saying, particularly on respecting experts. I know the experts don't know everything, but sometimes parents can't see the forest for the trees when it comes to their kids. I AM NOT SAYING THAT IS THE CASE FOR EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD

I also think that having a minimum and maximum age works.

Kelly, from my point of view, you are in a different situation in that B&A's teachers suggested they repeat a year. I wouldn't beat yourself up. I think it was Kim who said, your point of view may be very different in 6-8 months.

Which brings me to another rant...the way enrollment works here in LA, if you want a private school you have to be on the bandwagon ahead of time. It's like the preschool crap out here. So you can't just wake up in May and say, you know what, I was wrong, little Jane is ready for K even though she won't be five until just before the cut off. Chances are, that Kindergarten class is already full. So much of parenting in LA is about an offensive strategy because of the crapola school system that it's hard to even make informed decisions because you feel boxed into a corner.

 

Just to play devil's advocate -- kids mature at different rates, so it's entirely possible that my February birthday kid is a lot less mature than your July birthday kid. So, why would it be okay to hold back the July birthday, but ridiculous to hold back the February birthday? And then, if February is okay, why not the previous November?

I think this is why it can spiral out of control.

 

Yep. Nadia, with her late January birthday, is among the youngest in her kindergarten class -- with one notable exception of a summer birthday.

And private school is like that here, too. (Probably not as bad as LA, though!) We had to start with psychological testing last fall, and applications were due mid-January, complete with parent essays, transcripts from preschool, teacher recommendations, etc. For kindergarten!

 

I didn't say the parents *wanted* them to repeat K, the parents are sending young 5s with doubts about their readiness with an "oh, well, it's free, they can always repeat for FREE so I'm sending them just because I can" attitude. Again, I don't think K should be used as handy dandy free childcare. Others clearly disagree.

 

I disagree with this.

I sent my 5y/o (by 9 days) on time and thought, well, if the school feels it is too soon, they can hold him back and do kinder twice. It was great since I was paying $325 a month for 2 mornings a week of Spanish preschool and I was getting full day Spanish kinder for free. Why would I pay that for 2 days when I can get full day for free. That would be a bad financial decision too. Plus, the kids are supposed to go to school as they are 5 y/o. It would be another story if the parent was trying to send a 4 y/o early so they could go for free.

 

I know you weren't specifically picking on me when you talked about parents not being the best person to necessarily evaluate their child so this is not me getting my panties in a wad as some might suggest. :lol: You may have missed the places where I stated in this thread it was not our idea initially to hold Sean out of K for a year. His preschool teachers were the ones who recommended we consider it (knowing full well he was reading proficiently already) and this is when we began researching the "whys" of such a thing. Prior to that we had just assumed he would start K because we didn't know we had the option not to send him, and well, considering he read and comprehended my Compaq computer manual at age 5, we thought it might be crazy to keep him out, but we still did it and have realized what a gift that we gave him, the gift of time to mature! As far as high school, I can assure you Sean (and now B&C) was challenged and even though he is intelligent he still had to work hard and classes were not too easy for him nor his peers. There are a few very bright students (I don't know their ages) who as seniors took math at UT but other than that (those were out of the ordinary) being sufficiently challenged at our high school is not an issue. The curriculum is rigorous, as it is at most high schools these days.

 

I couldn't quote myself, but when I mentioned you telling Kelly she may have a different pov, it was in regard to how much kids change in 4-6 months. I realize it seemed confusing.

And yes, I did forget the part where the whole idea of holding Sean back started with his teachers....

I must confess, I do some thread skimming.... :angel:

 

BTW, did anyone see my question about Transition class? Has anyone else ever known of a school who offered this or was this just a pilot program at our elementary school?

 

No worries, Kim--I wrote that post before your later post today---so my remark was aimed at more than one person who took exception to what I was saying, although I used your quote for simplicity.
It's Labor Day and we are cooking out---I'm relaxed! :bubble:

While this may be true for some people, just as red-shirting just for advantage is true for some, I think the likelihood of this becoming a "norm" is like saying that women have abortions as a casual form of birth control. I think that is a stretch. It's also insulting (the repeated suggestion that people who send their children on time according to school guidelines are somehow sending them early and can't wait to be rid of them)--but I think maybe that is your intention? Please do correct me if I am wrong, but I think you feel insulted at the suggestion that there could be anyone who red-shirts may not have the purest motives about that, so you are countering that people who send children on time likewise are opportunistic. Hmmm. It's a debating strategy, but I'm not sure if it will move understanding forward or contribute to solutions. No one here has suggested that all parents who red-shirt have evil intentions, and again, I would like to say that I think running away with just that bone to pick really undermines any chance of a productive debate.

And yes, I do think my statement gives people the benefit of the doubt--nearly everyone who red-shirts will tell you that they knew their children could not handle K at age 5 and feared that starting on time would have lifelong emotional or social repercussions for them. A very few will admit to wanting their kids to have an advantage (either of size or maturity so that the child would start out school at the top of the social pecking order). I choose to give most good parents the benefit of the doubt and believe that they sincerely think the first scenario fits their situation when they adamantly deny the second motivation.

I agree.

Exactly!

 

The cut-off here is Jan. 1st. In other words, you have to be 5 on Jan. 1 in order to start K the following Sept.

My boys (Sept. birthday) were too immature to begin K at 5, so we held them back a year and they started at age 6. We did it because, at 5, they weren't able to sit still for 10 minutes and concentrate. Something that is a big part of Kindergarten here: lots of sitting and paying attention. When I was in Kindergarten, it was almost all playing and physical games. Kindergarten has changed (in my experience). We are really happy with our decision to hold the boys back. I firmly believe it should be a decision that is made on a child by child basis.

There were kids who were 4.5 in S&K's Kindergarten classes (who turned 5 close to the Jan. 1st cut-off). It may have been coincidence, but those kids were the ones with the behavior problems. Were they behavior problems or just age-appropriate behavior from kids too young for the classroom expectations? The parents were following the guidelines, but if the school is going to change the curriculum, they may need to change the guidelines too.

 

No, I've never heard of that. It could have been around in other schools in our area, but I was focused on our own school, so I can't help you.

 

Kim, at Nadia's school there is a "pre-first" class, which is exactly what you mentioned -- a transition class for those kids who finished K, but aren't quite ready to move to 1st grade. It's a small class, usually only about 10 to 12 kids at most.

But, we don't have it at public schools here, as far as I know.

 

Thanks, Renée and Becca. I just was curious to know if other schools had ever implemented such a program.

Ellen, how you describe S&K is exactly how Sean was!! He could not sit still to save his life and that was part of the problem. Once he got just a bit older (I have repeatedly said his optimal age to start K would have been at 5 1/2) he matured enough to be able to sit and listen, a skill sorely needed in K at our schools. B&C were much the same. They just had to squirm and wiggle and fidget for an extra year!! :rofl: The child I mentioned in Craig's K class who was still 4 at the time K began (turned 5 a few weeks later) was also a huge disruptive problem for the class. But this child was ADHD (although extremely bright) and would have been a handful at any age (and pretty much was all through elementary school), so in this case it was not the child's age but the ADHD which was the problem.

 

I'm confused...how could there be kids that were 4.5 if you have to turn five that January...would that mean the youngest would be 5 years 9 months?

 

Oops, you're right, that didn't seem right when I was typing it, either. :blush: I said that backwards. You have to turn 5 before Jan. 1. So, if your birthday is Dec. 25th, you can start Kindergarten at age 4 years 9 months. Not exactly 4.5, sorry!

 

I admit, I would prefer than Lennon be more one of the more socially mature kids in his class versus being one of the most socially immature. Does that mean I want him at the top of the pecking order? Not at all. I want him to be confident in himself, his ability to make decisions, complete schoolwork, follow rules, attend to the teacher, etc. I hope that he won't be a follower and I think social maturity will help him with that.

But again, it has nothing to do with him having some sort of advantage over the other kids. It has to do with him having an advantage over his 5 year old self. It just sounds like you are implying that even though parents say they are doing it so their child is more mature, you are doubting their motivations.

 

We also have a Jan. 1st (actually Dec. 31st) cut off date. But I haven't heard of anyone holding their kid back. One of our neighbor girls goes to the same school and B and G, her birth day is Dec. 28th and I asked them a week before school started if they were going to put her in 3rd or keep her in 2nd another year (Preschool has three grades here, 1st, for 3-year-olds, 2nd, for 4-year-olds, and 3rd for 5-year-olds, you go from there directly to 1st grade of primary school.) They were taken aback by the question. It never even occured to them it was possible. The regulation is the regulation.
While I agree that there are a lot of good reasons today, for keeping a kid out of K for one more year. Maybe the problem lies in the K curriculum, rather than the kids? I also think if parents are free to make the decision without any consultation (not saying that is what is happening) then it could easily spiral out of control. Yes, the decision should be made on a case by case basis, but parents should consult with an early childhood educator when making the decision.

 

That's why I said "unless there is a compelling reason". If the Feb birthday kid really is behind emotionally/physically/socially/academically, then yes, redshirt him.

I don't think people redshirt their kids to be the most mature, the biggest, the best; they do it so their child will be on the same level as the other children. So by "advantage", I take that to mean giving him the advantage of waiting a year to be at the same level as the other kids. I don't see how my girls being 6 yrs 13 days will have some huge advantage over a child with a Sept 1 birthday being just-turning 6.

 

Ugh, for the last time---I am AGREEING with you!!! :gah:

 

I am curious, for those of you who decided to red-shirt your summer birthday kids -- did you think your kids were really *behind* their peers, in terms of maturity? (Or ability to sit still, or whatever)

Or, did you just want them to have an extra year of maturity, for their own benefit?

Sorry, I know we've been round and round about this, but I think there is a difference between those two.

I'm wondering what is truly expected of 5-year-olds these days, in terms of sitting still. I know Nadia's class barely sits in their seats at all -- they have centers, and then learning to read is all touch-based (Orton Gillingham), so they stand up and do a lot of it -- then, they have two recesses every day and P.E. four days a week. (Frankly, I have no idea when they do any book learning, as they also have Spanish and art and computers, etc.)

I'm really just pondering this, as I'll be faced with it when K&K start school -- they have a June birthday.

Also, did your child's physical size have anything to do with your decision? Karina is HUGE, and I worry that holding her back a year would really damage her self image, if she towers above everyone else in her class. (She already will, even without that extra year.)

 

I did not notice Sean was behind his peers maturity-wise until the preschool teachers pointed out his lack of maturity in certain areas. I honestly was dumbfounded. I knew he was "active" but did not realize he had the classic telltale signs of a "young" child. I just assumed because he was very smart he was ready for school until they pointed out his shorter attention span, inability to sit and focus, etc., were hampering him and could hamper him in school as well. It then became apparent what they meant as I started observing his behavior and getting regular reports and noticing the kids who were quite a bit older did not seem to have the same level of fidgetiness as he had. Honestly, it was amazing how much that changed in just 6 months time. B&C were much the same, maybe not quite as fidgety as Sean, but they definitely exhibited many of the same attributes and their preschool teacher also suggested we might want to do Fabulous Fives for a year before sending them to preschool. Since we had given Sean the benefit of the doubt, we followed suit with them as well.

As far as size, Sean was always in about the 90th percentile for height and 50th for weight. He was born tall and thin, lol. So no, size was not a factor for us. B&C are always average middle of the pack for both height and weight so it was not a factor in our decision for them either.

Good questions!

 

We don't have a transition year, but we do have summer school for rising kindergartners. We couldn't afford preschool this past year, and we're not the homeschooling types. So after 2 years of preschool in Ecuador, they were "just home" with Daddy. So we sent them to summer school to get back into the routine. It's targeted at kids who haven't attended preschool. It was practice at riding the bus, separating from your twin, being in "big kid" school, etc. It was fabulous! Aaron was anxious the first few weeks, but he quickly got into the groove. I think it will save us some heartache when K starts this week. Plus, summer school was dirt cheap. $52/child for the entire 4 week program.

Strange side story. When we went through our local school last fall for speech therapy, they messed up the paperwork - and listed Jacob with an August birthday. Imagine their confusion of two boys, with birthdays just a few months apart. Twins? :huh: I remember at that first meeting the administrators nearly took our heads off that Jacob wasn't enrolled in a special preschool program for red-shirted 5 y/o. Ah, first off, you suck at record-keeping. He's only 4 and missed the K cut-off date. And second, K isn't required by law, so where do you get off jumping down my throat? I said this all in my mind as I corrected the b-day. I wonder if this was a reaction to a red-shirting trend?

 

<P>AHH!! I just lost a huge long post, twice. Don't have time to retype it, but I did just want to say <EM>my opinion</EM> is that under 5.5 is too young, 6 is ideal. Our guidelines say you can do either so I really don't get the whole "6 is late" arguement. That's all I was trying to say - didn't mean to offend anyone!!</P>

 

Here's the general summary of why we "redshirted" Lennon. It is a combination of him being less emotionally mature than some of his peers and our belief that he would benefit by just being more mature (regardless of his peers' maturity levels):

1. He's very sensitive, cries easily, gets his feelings hurt easily, etc. - IMO, a bit more "emotionally immature" than his peers, especially the ones 6+ months older than him.

2. He makes a lot of sounds, fidgets like Kim's boys, etc.. I see 1st graders with summer b-days, so just a year older than him, doing these same things. I don't see it as much (at our school) in the older boys.

3. He tends to let other kids "boss" him around. They are the Captain while he is the Matey. They are Indiana Jones while he is the little boy. They are Batman, he is Robin. You get the picture. He doesn't have the social maturity (IMO) to assert himself and let other kids know when he disagrees or prefers something else. He goes with the flow, which is great, but he needs to learn more about asserting himself, sticking up for himself, etc. - something that will come with a bit more maturity and experience in a full day preschool.


His size had nothing to do with it. He's 50th percentile across the board, so we never even thought about size.

Anyway, hope that helps some, Becca!