Redshirting Your 5 Year Old

Shhhh!!! Ellen don't tell everyone Caleb's still on formula! It's my plan to have him rule the world! Between (maybe) redshirting the girls and this, I'll have a bunch of world leaders on my hands, won't I?

 

I apologize. Disservice wasn't the right word. It wasn't really what I meant. I guess I meant that I don't think you aren't giving your kids the benefit of the doubt. I think most kids are unprepared for kindergarten. School is new to all of them. And I imagine that if given a month or two, they will be at the same level as all the other kids in the class. Some just show up slightly more prepared on day one, and some aren't. But from the teachers I know, most will be at the same place maturity-wise after a month or two in the K environment.

So no, there is no proof either way that it makes a different. Your kids that thrived after being redshirted may have thrived exactly the same had they not been. So you wonder, if the redshirting really helping the kids, or is it just making the parents feel better? I don't know the answer to that question. I can't imagine you really can test it out.

I would be curious to see how many more parents redshirt their kids who are SAHM vs kids that are in daycare full time. I mean, my kids currently "got to school" (as I call it) all day every day. So does that mean they will automatically be more prepared for kindergarten than the child of a SAHM? I never really thought that would be the case. Is it an advantage to my kids that they will be in full day preschool prior to going to half day kindergarten? I imagine not. I imagine that kindergarten is a change for ALL kids. Which is why I wonder if ANY child is fully prepared? Maybe ALL kids should be redshirted? I guess I just don't understand the reasons behind doing it. It seems it comes down to maturity and being able to sit still. And I can't imagine that ANY 5 year old (or 6, for that matter) walks into K on day one, sits silently, never gets riled up, etc. I don't know. I'm just speaking outloud.

 

Erica, in our school, they use a "ticket" system for behavior management. I remember Jon's Kindergarten teacher telling us not to be concerned if the kids come home at the beginning of the year talking about getting tickets. She expects it. She told us that it wasn't a concern, and if it was something to be concerned about she would call us directly. So, I agree with you, in that the kid will learn how to sit, etc. just by being there.

 

I just wanted to add that maybe things have changed since I was a kid. I remember a guy that got his license our sophmore year (he turned 17 at the end of May). We all thought he must have been dumb and been held back, because why was he in our grade? He wasn't dumb, he wasn't in honors classes ... probably just an average kid, but he "technically" didn't belong in our grade ... and a lot of people made the assumption that he was held back ... or not a smart kid, because his parents didn't put him in school when they should have. So, while he may not have been mature enough to start K on time, it wasn't like kids realized that years later. All they knew was that he was older than everyone else, but in our grade. And people wanted to know WHY, and made assumptions about the reasons.

I guess if it becomes more common place, kids will get used to being 15 in a class with 17 year olds ... but because it is not something I am used to seeing, it seems odd. And I'm honestly surprised by how many parents due it based solely on when the birthday is.

 

Look around at your kids peers. Are they all talking exactly the same? Equally coordinated? Socially outgoing? Probably not. Same goes for 5 year-olds.

 

This is what I think too and said earlier... I wonder how it's possible to know without trying first. Still, if parents are making decisions with an expert opinion to go with it, then what can be said really? I don't doubt that redshirted children have thrived like Kim's and others.. and I don't really think they ALL have an advantage over the younger kids, some maybe, but I've yet to face a big problem with that (have some minor issues at the moment with B getting bullied). Time will tell.

 

And can you not see past the people who are redshirting their 5.5 year olds to see that many of us on here are simply in agreement that parents should have the right to redshirt their children with birthdays that are so arbitrarily close to the cut-off. Cut-off dates are different in every state, they vary year to year within the same state. Why are the dates of such significance to everyone?

I think most of us on here agree that redshirting a Jan, Feb, March bday kid seems a little over the top unless there are extenuating circumstances. Is this happening frequently? Are there suddenly a bunch of kindergarten boys who are 6.5 years old when school begins? This is *not* the case in school districts that I am familiar with. Redshirted kids here are almost exclusively kids with a June or July birthday (and some May b-days occasionally). So, when you say that THE ENTIRE PRACTICE OF REDSHIRTING is what you have an issue with - are you really concerned about what, in many areas, refers to a small group of summer-born kids? Or do you have a problme with people who abuse the "system" by redshirting their 5.5 year olds? Don't YOU see a big difference in those two practicies? I sure do.

And let's be frank, a lot of things put the at-risk kids at a further disadvantage:

poor nutritional habits
socio-economic status
poor healthcare
lack of adequate basic needs
developmental delays
family stability (or lack of)
increased academic expectations


Are those few "redshirted" kids really causing that much hardship on the younger, at-risk kids? Aren't there much BIGGER issues than a handful of redshirted kids?

 

It isn't really. But I know we were not willing to take the chance with our children and we gave them the benefit of the doubt by allowing them extra time to mature. Perhaps they would have been OK and perhaps they would not. So we erred on the side of caution.

Erica, to answer your question. My boys all were 6 on the first day of K and still 6 on the last day of K. How is that so much different than their friends with fall birthdays who started K at age 5 years and 10 or 11 months, turned 6 in say September or October, and ended K at age 6 as well? It's not. And if you were to ask them or their peers, they would not feel stigmatized because they really are the same age as their classmates. Their classmates are almost all turning 6 sometime throughout the school year as well and so on and so forth down the line to graduation. Sean was 18 when he graduated high school as were the majority of his classmates.

I liken this discussion to separate or together for twins in school. Personally, we separated our boys because it was right for them. Other parents may choose to keep their twins together. Again, we took teacher's recommendations into consideration in this decision as well. There is not necessarily a right or a wrong here.

 

I don't think the motives are always pure. I also don't think it's always about being more mature, as it is about being the most mature, or at least close to the top. If the dates were moved back, to ensure everyone was 5.5 when they started K, then those that were just barely 5.5 would be at a disadvantage, and the cycle would just start over. That's what I have a problem with.

 

Fair enough... I can understand where you're coming from. I'm smack dab in the middle of this whole issue right now IRL so it's interesting to me... Although, I'm not seeing any problems as such as to my kids being at a disadvantage.
Thanks for the points of view based on personal experience. :friends:

How so? Do you mean academically?

 

Thanks, Anne!! I appreciate that.

 

I was going to just walk away from this incredible thread, but the posts today from some new people who gave qualified support to the minority POV has cheered me up immeasurably. So, here is what I was going to post this morning after the above posts :


Hmmm..so it’s a hyperbole contest to see who has been victimized the most, is it? OK, here goes with my over-the-top, crazy generalization:

It looks like the minority in this thread (especially me, Jamey and Sharon) must single-handedly have ruined K with our "disruptive" ,( yet officialy "on time") kids whom we couldn't wait to be rid of, and of course we’ve also spent the entire thread demonizing each and every horrible, selfish red-shirter!

I don't know why not one of us could ever have had the grace to say, "Gee, we think sometimes red-shirting really is warranted!".

Wait---every single one of us did say that! Over and over and over again! :gah:

This is one of the most ridiculous threads I have ever read! WTH is going on here? No one here was slamming any red-shirting parents here nor any red-shirting parents with good reason to do it IRL, either! You all said you had excellent reasons why you felt your kids could not handle K at age 5 and that has been completely understood and supported!

Even more to the point, I think (and have said so-more than once) that the parents whose children are only days from the cut-off date actually should red-shirt, because not to do so in the current environment would probably be harmful to their 5 year-olds! I completely support Jori and Kelly in their decision, because their children truly are caught in a terrible squeeze thanks to this overused practice.

Regarding the claim that it is not really common at all, may I just throw one thing out there: Fabulous Fives Pre-school programs. A rare and uncommon practice, which only identifies children with significant delays and problems, hardly accounts for the proliferation of FF programs all over the country. So, let’s not pretend that this practice is not widespread nor that abuse does not go on; we all know that it does and that it has made K guidelines by schools worse than useless. For an inexperienced parent, or a disadvantaged parent or a parent transferring in from elsewhere who is unfamiliar with this culture, the meaningless guidelines, universally ignored, are actually an unintended nightmare.

In response to Sheryl, if I may: I barely even noticed you were in this thread until you chose to single me out (with quotes) for some sarcastic eye-rolling. I don’t have a dog in your particular fight; I neither red-shirted nor did I send my child to school “early” to take advantage of “free daycare” –I am a SAHM and I paid tuition at my child’s parochial school. But I do care about fairness and consideration—and I think you do, too.

My remarks that you quoted were an attempt to get you to look at what I thought was your “way out of line” slam of parents who send their children to K according to the school guidelines, many of whom have few or no other choices, even if they are anxious about their child’s readiness to go, as Nikki is. I can’t speak to the people you said you know (but if this thread and general human nature is anything to go by, I think it is safe to say that such callous disregard for their children’s well-being is extremely rare). Most people agonize over trying to do what is best for their children, as Nikki was agonizing over what to do for her little girls. And far too many do not have the means to easily choose to red-shirt. I am utterly shocked that you took that approach given the circumstances of the OP, and rather than call you out directly as “out of line”, I tried to ask you to consider something that you may not have thought too much about, especially in your obvious anger at me and others in this thread. Apparently it is not out of line to thoughtlessly (and I am sure, unintentionally) make snide and elitiist remarks when one begins to feel uncomfortable about the subject of a debate, but it is out of line to be called on it?

The practice of red-shirting is the privilege of those with the means to provide their children with an alternative to K at age 5. We all know this is true. The purpose of K was to provide a public venue for all children to complete the maturation process necessary to ready them for full time school (first grade). That is why K is not mandatory, and that is why children entering K are meant to be 5 years old, not fully 6. Most states expect children to be in mandatory school (first grade) by age 6 and the clear and obvious intention behind K was to prepare 5s for that. Parents who choose not to allow their children to prepare for first grade in K with their age peers, and who have the means to provide an alternative setting for that maturation to take place, should certainly be able to do so, IMO. However, if that is the real reason, honestly, then logically those children should then enter first grade the next year with their age peers at age 6, unless they have significant cognitive, physical or emotional issues.

I genuinely believed that we were in a discussion here, not a slamming match. I think the slamming that went on by a few red-shirting parents because of their obvious discomfort and insistence on taking the discussion personally was way out of line. The one or two people who disagreed with them tried to explain that we were not talking about you, personally, since you all said you had good reasons to hold your kids back, and I for one certainly did not doubt it! However, I think it is unreasonable that another point of view could not even be expressed without things turning ugly.

The vehemence and defensiveness that came out in this thread truly shocked me. Frankly, although I started out in this thread never even dreaming that my remarks might have anything to do with the good parents I know here, the truth is, this kind of nasty reaction actually makes me wonder if some people maybe recognized themselves and their unconscious motives in some of what has been discussed. That is usually the reason why people grab onto remarks that were never directed toward them.

 

Still those of us who redshirted to begin with are just part of the overall problem, aren't we? That is the general gist of the whole thing. I would venture to say Jori and Sheryl would both agree.

The only shocking thing I have seen in this thread is people being extremely critical and judgmental of other's parenting choices. If it were any other discussion, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, CIO, you name it, you would see the same defensiveness. Your comments specifically have not upset me (nor have Sharon's or the people who realize we did the best we could for our children on the advice of teaching professionals) but some others' comments have been less than flattering and downright dismissive. Excuse me for being human and taking offense. I'm sorry. When someone tells me I basically have ruined school for other children who are young and not redshirted, I take offense. Admittedly, I am a Mama Bear. So if I'm catty in my replies, I apologize. The whole circular argument is just ridiculous and where else can you go but sarcasm? :lol: I'm upset and with very good reason. (Not upset with you personally, Renée, just upset in general.) I apologize to everyone who is honestly being sincere in their understanding.

BTW, I think Jori, Sheryl, and I feel we are the ones being raked over the coals and in the minority here. All a matter of perspective I guess. I just don't see why we are being chastised for a discussion that is very much a two way street.

 

Very well said, Kim. I, too, was under the impression that Kim, Sheryl, and I were the minority view. I've not noticed many others who were supporting redshirting. Some people use sarcasm when they are out of explanations. I do apologize to anyone whose feelings were hurt at my comment, this thread seemed very appropriate as a place for sarcasm and disagreement (maybe I spend too much time in The Den). I feel like I've explained my reasons many times for redshirting and people responded saying things like they agree it is fine when you have a good reason. yet in the next sentence, someone says they question those parents' real motives. I also stated that when I knew I had a due date of July 26, that I would not be sending a newly turned 5 year old to K. I did say that if my child had been EXCEPTIONALLY mature, I would have changed my mind - but otherwise, I'm one of those awful people that have been mentioned many times in this thread, "who knew from the moment their child was born that they would be redshirted". That's what you get when your mom teaches K for 38 years, I guess. When I said Lennon was very emotional, cried easily, etc. and that he is, at this time, a follower - people responded with "all kids are not leaders" and "maybe it is his personality". I'm sorry if that caused me to get a bit defensive. I teach in a public school all day, every day. I am with K's, 1's, 2's as well as with kids with special needs all day long - I know what is personality and what is immaturity. I know not all kids are leaders. However, I also know that a bit of maturity can have a huge impact on the self-confidence of a student. Many of the comments came across as, "IF you are redshirting for the right reasons, then it is okay - BUT how many people really redshirt for the right reasons?"

In a way it seems like we are "debating" something very different. Everyone is so angry about these Jan, Feb, March redshirting parents - and I think that the redshirting parents are also in agreement that holding back a February kid is very different than holding back a June kid. So, if the debate is not about those of us who have chosen to redshirt our summer birthday kids, what is it about? The Jan, Feb, March kids? Surely not b/c if that was the case, the debate would not have been so lively, IMO.

 

Hmm...

 

Yikes. I'm going back to the Den.

 

Wow, this thread has gotten even more out of control today

Let's see if I've "got it" this time...

We're having a heated debated about which point of view is in the minority? Gee, maybe some just feel like having a battle?

Only redshirting parents have made slamming comments? umm...okay

It's okay to say that some send at 6 instead of 5 for impure reasons (not any one here though, well maybe unconsciously since they are getting defensive). It is not okay to state that in reverse. umm...okay

It is okay to decide in utero, without knowing your child, that they will be ready at 5, it is not okay to decide in utero, without knowing your child, that they will not be ready until 6. umm...okay

The district guidelines allow for two years of eligilibility, but only one of these is truly the acceptable choice. Schools have a huge issue due to redshirting but for some unknown reason have not changed the guidelines. Even though the guidelines say a child can start K at 5 or 6, starting at 6 is not following the guidelines. umm...okay

Whew! Glad to get that all straightened out!

But wait, I'm confused because I thought we had a link that stated redshirting doesn't provide an advantage. If it doesn't provide an advantage how is it ruining the other childrens education?

 

Where's the white flag? It's obvious that we can't see anyone else's opinions, because we're all so blinded by our own.

If you're interested in reading an article, here is one that I found interesting, and is comparable to what I believe. ArticleIt's about a NY mom who moved to TX, where redshirting is becoming quite prevalent.

Good look everyone! :drinks: I really do hope I didn't personally offend anyone, as I believe everyone here does have the best intentions.

eta: the link didn't work. I don't know if this will or not:

 

Jamey, I do see the problem (and your link is working) of moving and these things being very regional.

We moved from NC to OH when Sean was 4 and enrolled him in preschool in OH. I had never heard of redshirting and I honestly thought his preschool teacher was nuts when she suggested we hold him out. He was a self-taught reader who began reading on his own without me teaching him to a few weeks after turning 4. (As an aside: I actually thought I was hallucinating when he picked up a library book he had never seen before and read it aloud to me cover to cover. The twins were just infants and in my sleep-deprived haze I could not believe what I was hearing. I suspect he had actually been able to read for a while before that only he didn't have to because I was reading aloud to him. After the twins he was not getting my full attention and I think he just got tired of waiting for me to read and showed me he could do it himself! After that he was off and running, reading books I'd have never imagined a four year old could read and comprehend.) Anyway DH and I were flabbergasted and had much the same reaction as the parents in the beginning of the article. But then we researched and we read and we sought more advice, and we realized for Sean it would really be the best thing, even though he was on target (and even ahead) on lots of other skills. ETA: Yes, we could have sent him as a young 5 and yes he would probably have been fine too. But as I said we erred on the side of caution and have been extremely happy with our decision.

But we were lucky that when we moved to TN from OH, we also (unknowingly) moved to an area of the country where this was commonplace. (Renée mentioned Fabulous Fives. My twins attended Fabulous Fives here which was wonderful! Oddly enough out of only 14 kids in the class, four of those kids were teacher's children, with two of them being children of K or 1st grade teachers.) Anyway, Sean was not out of place in 1st grade as a 7 year old, and it was obviously not uncommon for B&C to have been held out when they reached K as well. In fact, it's probably more uncommon, at least in our district, for parents to send those almost and barely 5's to start school.

But I can and do see how this can be a problem in our very mobile society. This is why I think for one thing, district cut off dates should be nationalized. Of course, I'd also like to see schools nationwide adopt an after Labor Day school start date. I thought these Southerners were crazy for starting school in early August at the hottest point of the summer!! I'm a Yankee and so is DH and we had never heard of school starting so early. In 12 years down here, I have never learned to adapt.

Anyway, I overreacted but we all have hot button issues that can set us off. This is one I have VERY strong feelings about, and from life experience with three teenagers who were all redshirted I am very much in support of, as you might have guessed. But no hard feelings here. I'm French. I get mad and then I get over it.

 

Thanks for at least trying to understand another point of view and meeting halfway, Kim. You are always gracious.

 

I had a little fuel sitting around..thought I would throw it on the fire....

What is so bad about wanting your child to have an advantage in school? (even if that advantage is only your perception & not borne out by studies.) Are parents who hire tutors to help their children surge ahead of their classmates socially irresponsible because the disadvantaged kids' parents could not afford the same help? Is the father who hires a pitching coach for his second grader a bad man because he is helping develop his child's potential....even if it moves the child far beyond the skills of the others?

Life is not fair....believe me I know that. Some kids have parents who have the money to provide educational extras but not the interest....others have parents who would love to give their child an edge but cannot afford to do so. Some parents are able, either through income or sacrifice, to provide their children extra tutoring, an extra year at home, art/music/dance lessons, etc - are these parents to be the object of scorn because their children will have an advantage over other children in their class?

I don't believe it is necessary to be so "socially conscious" that you slight your child to level the playing field - life is not like that in most cases.

I have specific reasons for not putting my 5 year old girls in full day K this year....but if there were studies that indicated it provided children a superior beginning to school, or I just wanted another year with them before I have to become a working mother, or I felt it would be in their best interest for any reason.....I would do it. While I want all kids to have happy, healthy lives....my ultimate responsibility is to my own children. I will do everything in my power to make sure my girls succeed in school - & yes....I desire that they be at the very top of their class. I can live with however they do, as long as they are doing their best....but I am not ashamed to admit I want them to be academic high achievers.

 

All I keep thinking as I have skimmed this thread is "Was I that oblivious as a teacher that I dont know who was redshirted?"

I know I always looked at the bdays of my students and celebrated their bdays throughout the year but I never noticed or heard the term redshirting before TS. I will have to ask my kind. teacher friends. I am sure it was done in the 6 years I taught. I guess I never looked closely enough at the year the child was born but I think I would have noticed that.

Just my out loud thought.

 

I'm late coming into this debate discussion but figure I'd add my 2 cents in.

Last year, Connor & Maddie turned 5 at the end of June. They had 1 1/2 years of pre-school (one year of Head Start, half year at YMCA) I felt comfortable sending them to K because I felt that they were ready, the teacher thought they were ready. Both of them did well last year in K with the exception at the end of the year when Connor had some issues concentrating. So far 1st grade is going great.

My nephew Zachary is now 12. He didn't go to K at all and started in 1st grade when he was 6 and turned 7 during the school year (February birthday) he has been fine except this past year when he had some trouble adjusting to middle school.

When my sister started K it was on her 5th birthday. (Schools in our area used to have a December 31st cutoff date) and had we not moved at the end of the school year she would have been held back because she was too immature- very smart but not mature enough by any means.

I started K when I was 4. I turned 5 in October, was always one of the youngest in my class. I could read on my own, etc. and never had issues in school until I got older (not because of my age, but because I was in the wrong levels of classes.)

I really think it just depends on the child because every child is different! Had the twins pre-school teacher told me that either one or both of them were not ready I would have probably scrambled to find something for them to do instead of sending them, but with her reassurance that they were ready I felt ok doing it.

 

This can actually backfire: there's a child in my kids' class who is a year older than his classmates, and has a March birthday. Some years that meant that due to (nationally-mandated) sports league age regulations, he had to play with the other kids born before May 1, 19xx. Therefore NONE of his classmates were on his team -- he was playing with kids in the next two grades higher. Result? He quit the sport.

I agree, and so do both of the kindergarten teachers at our school. Neither one of them believes in red-shirting summer birthdays unless there's a compelling reason. Lucky thing, since over one third of the boys in the kids' kindergarten class had summer birthdays!

My kids (summer birthdays also) were also both early readers, and in my experience, if a child is entering kindergarten with an advanced reading level, they ARE showing that they are well on the way to developing a healthy attention span (if not yet already there).

I don't think that hiring a tutor pitching coach is really analagous; I think a better comparison would be the father who requests that their son play on the younger kids' team so that the child can have the opportunity to shine. Is that fair to the younger kids?

I don't think the issue here is a few parents who think their kids lack maturity; the issue becomes WHERE do you draw the line? What started out as a one or two week window has apparently morphed into six months in some areas (thankfully not mine!). How much is too much? Should a district draw the line somewhere? Barring any extraordinary circumstances, should parents be allowed to red-shirt for an entire additional year? Do we leave it ALL up to parents?

Finally, I'll chime in re the sending kids when they're probably NOT ready: I know someone who did this. She's a single mom, no child support, child born a week before the cut-off. Preschool teacher recommended not sending him. However, kindergarten was free, and preschool was not, and his mom figured that he could do two years of kindergarten if warranted, and heck, maybe he would blossom and be ready for first grade. She thought that the money might be better spent on food, shelter, and health insurance. Selfish of her, huh?

Turns out that my friend's son had learning disabilities, something the preschool had never recognized. Lucky for him, his selfish mom had sent him to kindergarten at the free public school, so he had a diagnosis earlier than if she had continued to pay for private preschool.

 

I agree with this coaching example as well. I think everyone wants the best for their kids but to hold your kids back so they outshine the rest is ridiculous. It is like the people that lie about their kids ages and put them in a different sport age bracket so they look like the best player.

I want my kids to be nothing but what they can be the best at. They do the extras (dance, gymnastics) that they request. I do not expect them to be Olympic champs I just want them to be kids. I want them to be sucessful at whatever it is they want to do. I would never hold them back just so they (or I) could say they were the absolute best. I think if it is a maturity thing then only the parent knows that, but if it cause you want a head up then that is just wrong.

 

I agree Nikki, "that's not fair" seems to be a reoccuring theme w/redshirting. I think the heart of the matter is the playing field just isn't level for all children, everywhere, of every background, which is nothing new, and probably will remain that way due to many intertwining causes - such as those pointed out by Jori. What year kids enter K really isn't the main determinate. Whose fault that is and whose resposibility it is to level it, and if it even can be done is a subject way beyond what year a kid starts K.

Exactly! Each decision needs to be made individually, I'm glad you were confident in yours and it's worked out so well for your twinks!!

 

I completely agree. And, I also believe that those at a financial or other advantages who are able to give their kids the added extras, don't always do it for the wrong reasons, and those who do, don't always see the results they want to. It always comes down to the child in the end... paying for this or that, fighting to give them that edge at the expense of other kids is not only wrong, but won't work if the child just cannot do it. We all think our kids are special and deserve the best... and we'd go out of our way to make sure they get the help should they need it. But, your child is no different from mine. Which is why I prefer to encourage what they want to do, help them and try not to hold them back...

If they want to be at an advantage in the classroom, in school, sports or whatever, they're going to have to do it on their own merit, not with me always pulling the strings. No one is going to hand them their achievements on a platter... they want it, they work for it. Because, I want to be proud of them no matter what, not because I want to be proud of myself for making it happen.

 

Thanks, Renée, it is much appreciated.

As far as the redshirting goes, as I said earlier, I have actually lived it with all three of our boys. People can think what they like but all we did was give them time to develop the tools necessary for them to successfully navigate the classroom (maturity to be able to sit, listen, follow directions, etc., etc., etc.). Although they started K at age 6, they also ended K at age 6 just like the majority of their peers who turned 6 throughtout the year (some as early as Sept or Oct). No huge age gap/advantage there. So people can think what we did was wrong or somehow gave them some unfair advantage, but we know we did nothing wrong nor gave them any advantage except that over themselves as a young 5 who had not developed that necessary maturity level yet. We have never regretted our decision as it was the best thing for our boys. I won't apologize for redshirting them or feel badly because we did. All I need to do is look at my three thriving, happy, well adjusted, intelligent young men and that's all the proof I need we did the best thing for them.

 

Great point Kim! That's what redshirting should be all about IMO if people decide to do it. I hope you didn't think my last post was directed at you.... I was addressing advantages over other kids. Sorry for the confusion.

 

No, Anne, I actually didn't even read your last post yet . No worries. I was just summing up my feelings (not that there is any doubt iin this thread where I stand :lol: ). But thanks for saying that anyway.

 

But, Kim, that is what I have been saying all along. You did it to put your kids on equal footing--NOT to give them a leg up over the other kids. That is the big difference!

 

I know, Sharon, and I thank you for it!! :hug: It is a big difference. When it comes down to it I have the same problems with redshirting a lot of you do, or rather the abuse of redshirting.

 

This is what I agree with too.

 

To avoid having to make multiple posts do to the # of quotes, I will put quotes in RED.

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.
ITA with this! At Kinder Roundup in March, we were not sure yet what we were going to do with Grant. At that point we were pretty sure that we were going to hold him back b/c he STILL wasn't PT'd, was not as mature as other kids his age, would not talk, etc. So we didn't go. Then when the PT'ing thing just CLICKED with him in June we STILL weren't going to start him for the other reasons listed. But as the summer progressed he seemed more and more ready and 2 weeks before school started we enrolled him.

Then when he started school and was tested and didn't do so well, we were considering taking him out and holding him back until next year. But after much thought and talking to him teacher, we decided that we would keep him in. Now it has been 2 weeks and he is doing GREAT! He doesn't know alot of his letters, but he is doing really well with colors and numbers! :banana: He has a long way to go, but he isn't as far behind as we thought and by the end of this year he may well be ready for 1st. And if not, we can always repeat Kinder if need be!

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.
Again ITA! My bday is August 21st. I had JUST turned 5 when I started Kinder. But I was VERY ready!! I knew my ABC's, 123's, colors, and was reading already. But I know other kids with summer bdays who are not ready to start...and that is OK!! I don't think that making blanket statements is fair b/c they are just assumptions that may or may not be true.

EVERY KID IS DIFFERENT! You have to do what is best for your kids, shouldn't make decisions for other ppl's kids, and should not criticize others for thier opionions and parenting choices!!

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?
Yah I don't see how someone can make that decision before thier child is even born!

Kim: 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.
Kelly: 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.
Grant has a February bday...so he was 5 1/2 when he started Kinder, but would have been 6 1/2 if I had held him back another year. And I REALLY wasn't sure that he was ready...so that was my reasoning. Or I guess I was just ridiculous for thinking about holding him back with a February bday...

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 was REALLY tiny at 5 years old! All the kids in my Kinder class would take me by the hand and lead me around b/c apparently they didn't think I could do it on my own! It took my mom and teacher talking to the class and reminding them that I was the same age as them for the kids to stop treating me like a baby!

And I was the smallest/shortest kid in my class all the way up to graduation! Yes I got teased and picked on, but even had my mom waited a year for me to start Kinder, I still probably would have been the smallest...so I don't see that that really matters.

Most red-shirting parents are either in a position to afford another year of pre-school or perhaps one of them is a stay at home parent. How interesting that the "choice" that you can afford is preferable and an indication of superior parenting and citizenship, while the "choice" of a single mom, an immigrant mom, an inner city family, or a regular middle class family who are following the guidelines and trust that that the system is designed to catch problems but also to help their children become ready for first grade, are somehow immorally using the system for "free daycare" and cannot wait to be rid of their children.
My decision to possibly redshirt Grant had nothing to do with my "status". We are a middle-class family. DH works and I am a SAHM. I don't see why status has anything to do with any of this.

So yeah, I think it's doing a disservice to your children to redshirt them. I mean, they are going to gain that maturity in kinder. There is no guarantee that a year later they will be "ready" to start.
Uh NO I would not have done him a disservice!! I would have done what I felt was best for my kid! How is that any different than someone else's parenting style that I don't agree with?!?

Good grief. People should stop giving formula on their child's 1st birthday too. Period, the end. It should be a law. It's irresponsible to do otherwise, regardless of a child's individual needs. Anyone giving formula for longer than a year is just doing it to gain an advantage over other kids.
:rofl:

I liken this discussion to separate or together for twins in school. Personally, we separated our boys because it was right for them. Other parents may choose to keep their twins together. Again, we took teacher's recommendations into consideration in this decision as well. There is not necessarily a right or a wrong here.
AMEN! ITA here!! :woman: :clapping: :drinks:

 

One more thought:
I think it is ridiculous that every school system in the country has thier own cut-off date! I think it should be universal b/c as yes there may be some 4 1/2 year olds that are mature enough and ready to start Kinder, most will not. I think that June 1 would be a good cut-off date b/c then as pp mentioned you would not have as many "barely 5's"...but that is JMO.