Redshirting Your 5 Year Old

I'm going to play devil's advocate here. Aaron sound similar to Lennon (#1 and #3). Honestly, I've always just considered this part of his personality. He's a sensitive child who cries easily. That hasn't changed with time. He's always been that way, and I doubt he'll grow out of it. He's also a follower (while Jacob is a leader - so bossy). I can't envision him being the leader- it's just not who he is. He does try to get kids to play his game, but when they bulldoze over him, he just plays what they want or retreats from the game. Instead of seeing this as immaturity, maybe these are simply aspects of his personality. :unknw:

 

Oh, they are DEFINITELY aspects of his personality. Absolutely! But, how he handles situations, pressure, expectations, etc. - in comparison to his same-age peers, especially the ones 6+ months older than him - is emotionally immature, IMO. In my mom's opinion, in my mom's best friend's opinion (both K teachers for 30+ years) and in the opinion of other teachers I've talked with. NI'm not taking away from his personality characteristics - I LOVE those attributes of his - but, with more maturity, he'll be better equipped to deal with his own personality attributes in the appropriate way in a classroom. Not sure if this makes sense or not. It is late and I've been working on IEPs all evening!

 

Cristina, I agree with you, here. Marcus is pretty much the same way--or at least was going into K. Now he will, when adults aren't involved assert himself among his friends and I was surprised to find out from his teachers that he IS a leader among his peers. Yes, in 2nd grade it took him until the 3rd day of school until he was confident enough at recess to find some friends and play rather than sit on the sidelines. Some kids will always be followers, and you know what? It is OK to not be the leader. There is only one leader in each game, and it will rotate a bit, but not everyone is comfortable in that role. There is always going to be someone who is a follower or a bit less mature than the group. If your only reason for redshirting is to make them more confident and make them a leader among their peers simply because they are older, you are doing it to give them an advantage over the other kids.

No one wants their kid to be the one who gets picked on. Everyone wants their kid to be a leader. But that simply can't happen. I just want my kid to be comfortable being who he is. One is there, the other needs to work on it (one reason I am glad he has the teacher he does, because she can help him with that!)

 

Pot, meet kettle!! I'm merely sharing my honest opinions, should I not do that just because it is the minority view? My school district guidelines provide for two years of eligilibility for starting K. My personal opinion is that the second year is preferable. Others have also stated that same preference. I was trying to insult anyone, just as I'm sure that those that share their opinion that starting at 6 is late, out of guidelines, is selfish and causes multiple issues are not trying to insult me, they are just sharing their opinions. It truly doesn't insult me to say that some parents choose to redshirt for "impure" reasons, just as I'm sure that some parents choose to send at 5 for "impure" reasons. I was just pointing out that it goes both ways. Am I the only one that thinks there are opportunistic parents on both sides? I know from personal friends that that is true. Can't sending at 5 be early and sending at 6 be on time? My district doesn't state that one is "ontime" and that the other is late or early. I actually disagree that 6 is late. I've never heard that here locally, I've only heard it on TS. Maybe it's a regional thing? I don't know. I would say that sending at 6 is so common here there are not any negative connotations to it, unlike in this thread.

 

I do think it is a regional thing, just from reading this thread. We lived in Ohio when Sean started K and it was quite common there to redshirt summer birthdays, especially for boys. The same is true here in East TN. And as I stated before, I have not known anyone (except for the boy with spina bifida) with an earlier birthday than summer that was redshirted. So I think, at least in TN, it is not abused, generally speaking.

 

We did look around their preschool class and noticed that they were not as academically advanced as some kids and a lot less able to sit still and concentrate on things than many of their classmates. Those things seemed like red flags to us, but we didn't know how important they were or weren't, which is why we had the boys tested.

As for size, our boys are middle of the pack, even if that pack includes 6 to 8 year-olds (in their 2nd grade class). They have always been average (our ped doesn't give their percentiles), and that honestly did not factor in to our decision. I don't really see size as being as big an issue as social and academic maturity.

My boys have really been in the middle of the pack academically too since they started K. They aren't excelling or lagging behind. They are just where they are supposed to be, which is the #1 thing that makes me think that holding them back a year was the right decision.

On a side note: our boys had 20 minutes of homework 3 nights a week in Kindergarten. That was a lot for them, even at age 6! And when I think of them a year younger, I know they would've been defeated by that work load. Kindergarten, at least in our school district, is a heavier load than when I was a kid!

 

Yes, true, not everyone is born to be a leader. But everyone can grow into themselves and their self-confidence. And if an extra year of growth and maturity gives my son the opportunity to mature and be more self-confident in HIMSELF, how is that giving them an advantage over the other kids? As I said before, Lennon misses the cut-off by a mere 17 days. How is he any different than a child that turns 5 on August 1st?

Redshirting him had nothing to do with him getting picked on. He is well-liked among his preschool peers. But he lacks emotional maturity. He doesn't do well with change. He is nervous and awkward when he is unfamiliar with people, places, etc. When watching him with a bunch of his same-age peers, he hangs back, unsure of himself. Is a lot of that personality? Sure, it is. But maturity goes hand in hand with his personality. I don't care if he is a follower, I don't care if he is aleader. I do care if he is not mature enough to make his own decisions, feel confident in his abilities to complete schoolwork, homework, school activities, Art/Music/PE, etc. For me, it is all about HIS maturity. It is not to make him a leader. He'll never be a leader - but with another year of maturity, he might be more confident in telling a child on the playground to stop picking on him, or to not think that he forgot how to cut because he hasn't cut in 3 days, or that he's anxious every time Monday rolls around b/c he hasn't been at school over the weekend.

Can't someone want their child to have the opportunity to mature a bit without it being about having an advantage over their peers? I want him to be more mature so that he has an advantage over HIMSELF as a 5 year old. That's it. If he is more mature, less mature, equally mature than his classmates - that's great, whatever. But he will undoubtedly be more mature than he is THIS year. And that is what I am concerned about.

 

Well said, Jori. That's what it's all about. Not having an advantage over any other child, but being the best that child can be personally. It is about the individual child and his own maturity level. I totally get it.

 

Either way, doesn't their presence in the class have the same effect? I'm wondering if you think all parents should wait to decide if they are going to send at 5 or 6 until they have atually seen their children with their peer group, if you think it should automatically be assumed they should go at 5. Isn't deciding in utero that they will go at 5 the same as deciding they will go at 6? Neither one is based on the individual child.

to you Jori. The answer to your question is of course, and that is why it is allowed. School districts could implement a 12 month window if they wanted, or require an evaluation and approval to send at 6, but they don't. I guess the problem I have with this thread is the idea that the reason to send at 6 somehow needs to be approved as "good enough" and then picked apart. I'm sorry you feel the need to justify yourself here, but you really just don't need to, you have very patiently explained yourself multiple times and the response you are getting is unfortunate.

 

Well, you sure showed me! :laughing:

Do you not think your remarks about people sending early might be construed as really elitist, not to mention rather transparently tit for tat (except "tat" was never aimed at you-as was repeated over and over in this thread- and didn't ever deserve the slamming "tit" that you have shot across their bow)?

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. <_<

I don't think you really share the "minority view". Most people would red-shirt in a minute if they had the slightest doubts about their children's readiness for school--some are able to, some are not able to, and some decide to work with the system in place--IF that system seems good to them. Most people on this thread, likewise, seem to favor red-shirting under many circumstances.

I have to say, I find your reaction really surprising! You've been supported in your decision by everyone, including me. I am not sure where the anger is coming from. :fool:

Anyway, I'm happy to move on from this thread. Thanks to everyone who made this debate informative and interesting. Much appreciated! :drinks:

 

I think deciding they will go at 5 is pretty standard. I always assume my children are going to follow regular, standard guidelines, unless I'm shown differently. Where I live, Kindergarten is for 5 year olds. 6 year olds are an exception.

The difference is a few kids, who truly may need another year to mature - or may have had some struggles that make keeping them out the logical thing to do, instead of an entire subset of parents deciding that any children born after April/May will be better served waiting another year for K. The problem that brings is for the children who aren't a part of that subset, who had the unfortunate disadvantage of being born in the summer. My girls were born in August, so they are going to be the youngest in the class. However, if I assume that no one redshirts, then there may be a couple that were born in September that are 11 months older, but the rest of the birthdays are scattered throughout the school year. If redshirting is prevalent, then they could end up with half the class a year, or nearly a year older.

I get that, really I do. My point is - if his maturity level is comparable to other 5 year olds now, then keeping him out so he can be "more mature", does give him the advantage over the 5 year olds he will be with next year. So, when he starts school next year, along with 6 or 7 other redshirted kids that are already 6, then all of a sudden the poor August birthday who is still 4, is WAY behind the curve.

And really, I'm not downing anybody. I'm giving my opinion. I sent my girls, because I didn't see any reason within their behavior not to. They fit in fine with other 5 year olds. If you want to talk about "unfortunate responses" maybe look at the misguided information about non-redshirters trying to get free daycare, while only redshirters are affluent & highly educated.

 

To answer your last question first, from my perspective---sure someone could want this for her child. I would say EVERYONE wants it for her child! Can't people who sent their children on time according to their school district's guidelines want to have her child not enter a class with kids all 13-18 months older than him? What you want for your child is what I want for my child and what all parents want for their children--a fair shake in a class with children very close in age and developmental stage

Thanks again, Jamey. very well-stated.

 

That's just the point. Both Jori and I are saying their (our boys') maturity level was not comparable to other 5 year olds at the time, and this is why teachers suggested we might want to redshirt. That is the whole reason we as a family began researching the option of redshirting to begin with because they were lagging behind their 5 year old peers in maturity and this was pointed out to us by the preschool teachers who suggested we should consider redshirting. It's like a vicious cycle trying to explain, lol. I know you're not dogging us personally, Jamey, so no offense taken. It's just the argument goes round and round.

 

How many kids are redshirted each year in your local schools? I'm talking about very few - those summer birthdays, usually June, July, and August. The kids that are, due to their birthdate, younger than the majority of kids in their class. I have NEVER heard of anyone redshirting a kid born in January, February, or March (very few in April and May - like maybe 1 or 2 and one of them was born 8 weeks premature) - the only kids I know that have ever been redshirted are summer b-days (like my DS) and this, at most, puts him 12 months older than a *few* summer b-day kids who weren't redshirted. This is being discussed like it is some growing phenomenon where students suddenly are 18 months older than their classmates. Maybe in your area, but not in ours.

I am redshirting my *just* turned 5 year old so that he *can* have a fair shake in his class. So, a few years ago when the cut-off in Indiana was July 1st, should I have petitioned to have him go early? If there is some significant difference between the cutoff being July 1 and August 1 and suddenly he is so much more prepared for school b/c the cut-off is now August 1 - please share that with me. Again, these dates are so arbitrary - they don't have that much meaning if they constantly change! They are *GUIDELINES*, that's it. Since when did school guidelines about the appropriate age for K become the steadfast rule of when a child *should* go to K?

If Lennon had been born 10 days late instead of 12 days early, he would have missed the cut-off and I would not have had to redshirt him. Is it really your opinion that those few days matter that much? I'm redshirting him b/c I *believe* him to be socially immature when compared to kids who have late summer, fall, winter, and early spring birthdays. Is his maturity the same as the, probably 2 or 3 other kids with summer b-days who were not redshirted who would be in his K class this year, if he went? It probably is very close. So, he's less mature than 80% plus of his class but possibly of a similar maturity to the other 20% of his class. Does that mean, he's as mature as his peers or less mature? To me, it means he is less mature. And fortunately, I'm his mom and I chose to redshirt him.

 

Our neighbors red-shirted their June birthday boy. He truly needed that extra year to prepare him for K. His mother told me today that there is a child in his K class who will turn 7 next month. That child is 18+ months older than all the other kids.

 

To me, the guidelines are what *most* people are following. I'm talking about the new trend to not follow the guidelines, and what it will do to those who *do* follow the guidelines. While you may have done it with good intentions, and with good results - Did you miss the post Amanda made that it's expected where she lives, if you have boys born past February? Think if you moved to her area, had no idea that was the trend - and your son, who just turned 5 is in a class where more than half the kids are 18 months older.. That's what I'm concerned about. Not you, who barely made the cut-off anyway, and made an educated decision after consulting multiple parties.

 

Guidelines are just that, guidelines. They are not hard and fast rules. But perhaps what Renée suggested (I think it was Renée) would be best. Setting a required minimum and maximum age for K. Then any parent who felt their child needed to be admitted either earlier or later would have to petition the school for early or late admission with sound reasoning for doing so. What's really funny about that though is you'd basically end up with the same age range of children in the classroom (approx 12-14 months). But it would eliminate the extreme exceptions of a child who started K at 4 and one who may be turning 7 midway through the year ending up together in the same class (which by the way in three classes of redshirted boys in our family has never even come close to happening).

 

Thinking it over after my first failed attempt to suggest a min and max (I did not intend to suggest a range which would allow for exactly the kind of huge gaps that are happening now---my bad): I think the schools should set parameters very clearly for K: something like minimum age 5 by June 1 of the year for September enrollment, maximum age 6 by the following June 1. (In other words, all birthdays for that school year would fall between June of one year to June of the next year--making no child a "barely 5" in September and no child a 7 year-old in K).

Parents who do not wish to enroll their children when they reach that age would have 2 choices: 1) Don't send the child to K at all (wait the year for the child to develop the necessary maturity to catch up with his age peers and then let him start grade 1 with them the following year) or 2) Get an official diagnosis explaining why this child should be kept out of a class of his age peers and instead allowed to enter a class of much younger children for K next year.

I think something like that might address the concerns of all sides in this debate---parents of 5 year olds, parents of red-shirted kids and teachers, too! Everyone would know exactly what to expect! Parents would still be able to get the help their children need, too, since there will always be special circumstances which any doctor or psychologist could readily confirm for the school. Win-win!

 

Renee for president!!!

 

Jori and Sheryl, face it ladies. We've singlehandedly ruined the curve for everyone else's children!!

The thing I find most funny about this whole idea that our children, by being a few months older than their peers, have somehow made it more difficult for other children to exist in the same classroom (you know that huge advantage they have and all ) is that IF I had gone ahead and sent my child to K, knowing full well he was not mature enough to do so, AND he had been disruptive to the class because of his immaturity, then I'd be one of "those parents" whose child was a problem for the other students. Apparently there is no win-win for parents who had the unfortunate circumstance to give birth close to some arbitrary cutoff date.

Thankfully in our school district, it is not frowned upon to redshirt a child. In fact, it is even somewhat encouraged. I have had several teachers (all of the K and 1st grade teachers, in fact) thank me for having the foresight to do so. My mom (former 1st grade teacher) has also supported and encouraged the decision and of course our preschool teachers suggested it in the first place so I feel comfortable knowing it's not just us thinking it was a good idea.

Whatever anyone else thinks, I know parents like myself, Jori, and Sheryl did the right thing for our children and we didn't ruin anything for anyone else's child. In fact, my child's progress is just that, his progress, and has no bearing on anyone else's child's progress or performance. School is not a competitive sport. Each child is there to do the very best he or she can do as an individual and if starting school later rather than earlier helps said child, then that's all that really matters, imo.

 

Well, that was my plan all along! :laughing: Lennon.Must.Be.The.Best.Student.Ever

Everything you've said, I 100% agree with. :drinks: Every single teacher I have ever known (and no, I'm really not exaggerating or aking this up for the sake of a TS thread) has agreed with and encouraged redshirting those summer b-days. Many K teachers I know have mentioned the idea to parents of summer b-day kids when they come to roundup.

 

Kim, I have said many times, if a child needs to be red shirted, then it is appropriate for them. In your case, the preschool teacher suggested it, and it was the correct thing to do for your child. My point is, and has always been, that I do have a problem with people not looking at the individual child, but rather at their birthday, and in many cases the fact that they are a boy, and making that decision at the day of their birth. I am all for red shirting a child that developmentally needs it. BUT, I am totally against a "well, I have a boy who was born in June, July, August (and in some places, March, April, or May), so I will be waiting an extra year--without every seeing who that child is and if they are actually ready to go. Those are the people who are doing it for an advantage. Not someone who sees how their child is developing, then notices that they would benefit from that extra year to level the playing field.

Does that make sense?

 

Yes, Sharon, it really does. And thanks for being supportive of those of us who did redshirt for a valid reason. I am sure there are those parents out there who may think this way too. However, I really believe (from my own anecdotal experience only) that most parents who redshirt do so because their child exhibits a need for that extra time to grow and mature before starting school. As with any good idea, though, there are probably those parents who abuse that and do so without solid reasons but I believe the majority of those who do redshirt really do have cause to do so.

In the end, we all have to do what is right for our own child and their wellbeing. That's all we can do, right?

 

OK. I'm done. I don't know how many times I've said I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE ENTIRE PRACTICE OF REDSHIRTING. As Amanda noted in her post, where she lives it's standard to redshirt any boy born after February. Can you NOT see past YOUR situation to see what can happen in some areas, and why something needs to be done? Can you not see that by some people having the ability to arbitrarily keep their kids out an extra year to "mature", it puts at-risk kids at an even steeper disadvantage, because their parents can't/won't?

 

No, you can't be more clear than that. I have conceded there need to be some parameters and that some parents have probably abused the privilege. It still stings to know people feel the entire practice of redshirting is the problem. I'm getting a mixed message here. It's okay if you have reason but the entire practice is wrong. Seriously? Can you not see that those of us who redshirted for good reason feel as if we are being told we put someone else's child at a disadvantage because we did so? Imo, we do what is right for our children and to criticize the entire practice seems close-minded to me. Maybe it's just hard to understand unless your child really needed that extra time. And maybe those of us who have found this to be the case have our hackles up because it would seem our parenting choices are being criticized. I know, it's not about us personally but when you say you are talking about the entire practice of redshirting that would be us!! :lol:

 

This is beyond interesting. I'm SO glad my kids go to full time daycare and they will be fully ready to go to kindergarten when they are 5 ... They are born in April, and although I expected them to be younger than a lot of their classmates, it sounds like they might be A LOT younger if people are redshirting their kids more and more ...

It's very interesting and odd to me, the whole practice. I don't think it is very common here (that I know of), and I think I'm glad for that. My friend teaches kindergarten, and commented that parents do sometimes redshirt their kids because they don't seem mature enough, and then the following year they are now the oldest/biggest in the class and STILL behind the younger/smaller kids, and it makes the redshirted kids feel worse about themselves. I found that to be an interesting perspective.

She's also seen parents redshirt their boys so they are bigger/stronger than others an have a leg up for athletics. That's very disturbing to me.

I think there is a reason that Kindergarten starts at 5 and has forever. It should be the exception that gets redshirted IMO. But again, if the rules allow it, they allow it. Again, my friend who teaches kinder said that MOST kids that come in, unless they come in have a few weeks of transition to go through. She said it's very rare for kids to come in and be perfect angels and behave and show maturity, etc. That's what kinder is for, to learn all that stuff.

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. I guess my friend has just told me so many stories about kids that are "crazy" for the first few weeks, and turn into model students. But again, the rules aren't being broken, if you can wait till 6 and want to, then so be it. But FOR ME, there would have to be a really overwhelming issue for me to redshirt.

 

Not surprisingly, I agree with Erica. I've experienced redshirting first hand this year, and was pretty taken aback when I found out that several kids in K this year are nearly 7. My kids are at the opposite end being 4 and in K. But, we have mandatory testing/evaluation and a trial period for adjustment, after which each child is again evaluated. That is how we (here) know for sure if a child is ready for school or not. I have never understood how without putting a child in a classroom environment any parent or teacher can say the child is not ready. Special needs, I can fully understand however.

This also happens... There's a new trend here where I live to redshirt for an advantage (after redshirting was solely used for special cases) The emotional maturity claim is constantly thrown around, and also mainly for boys. People were surprised I didn't hold my kids back.. but they were ready academically so why not? Brandon was not as confident and ready as his sister, but he's thriving amongst his peers.

The schools are starting to take a stronger stance against it.. BUT, after testing they usually find that a lot of redshirted kids do not qualify academically for a higher grade, or even K in some cases. Hence, seven year olds in my kids' class who if they had passed the test would be in Grade 1 now. Still, it's allowed so I have no big problems with it... My kids are bigger than the average four year olds here... If they were smaller, I would probably not be so accepting of it. I suppose that is the main point in this thread.. each person speaks from their own perspective.

Ditto! Which is why I didn't.

 

Growing up, I had one friend who was red-shirted (this is back in the 70s). The only reason was that her parents had "irish twins". Her brother was born in Jan of 1965 and she was born in Dec of 1965, her parents wanted them in two separate grades. (Cutoff was Dec 31 back then).

I think holding back a child close to the cut off age due to maturity issues is fine. My sister did it with her August boy. He had been in daycare since he was a baby, but he wasn't really mature enough for kindergarten. My brother had the option of holding back his daughter when their cutoff was in December. She was born in November. He did not. So, she has just started 10th grade at the age of 14 and her cousin who is 13 months younger is in 8th grade. She has done fine being the youngest in class, but some of her classmates are already looking at getting their drivers licenses in the spring and she won't be there for another year and a half.

I have a friend that has a July boy. When they were considering red-shirting him, this was one of their main reasons for considering it (and it was her husband's number 1 reason). I can't remember whether they did red-shirt him or not (they moved away and I don't see them anymore).

With my kids born in January and February, I'm glad it's not something I am going to contend with.

 

In our area, the cutoff is September 30th. This means my boys are eligible to enroll next fall and start school roughly 45 days before their 5th birthday. I know a first grade teacher who has already told me I should hold them back. She lives in another state and hasn't seen them since they were babies but she KNOWS they won't be ready based purely on their age and gender. So yes, I believe there are parents being encouraged by people they view as "experts" to redshirt without consideration for the individual child. I can see how this could eventually lead to K being the new 1st grade and private preschool options the expected preparation for school.

 

My children are living breathing examples that it is not doing a disservice to them to redshirt them. Until someone has walked a mile in our shoes, I really don't think that is a fair statement. I do not think redshirting is as accepted in other areas of the country as it is here so maybe that is skewing the perspective a bit. All I know is it was right for my boys, we've never regretted the decision, and have only seen the benefits of added maturity for them as they have progressed through the system. Having lived it, I know we did the right thing.

 

Yes, seriously. I think it's wrong to redshirt, except in a few cases where the child barely made the cut-off, and is not at an overall level comparable to his peers. I also think that distinction should be made, in concert, with teachers that know what an average 5 year old is capable of. However, the redshirting trend of assuming your late spring/summer child will wait another year, to give them the advantage of being the oldest, instead of the youngest, is wrong.

Yep, every man for himself. Even in Kindergarten. Ok, I admit, that was a little dramatic, but that's what it feels like sometimes!!! :BDH:

 

I have a similar story. I was born December 1968 and my brother was born January 1970. The cut off date was Dec. 1st. My mom sent me to Yeshiva for preschool and K just to get around the cut off. The result was that I was 2 years ahead of my brother in school. This was a good thing for me, because I wasn't (still am not) as social as my brother, and the 2 year difference allowed me to make friends without my brother stealing all of them--and he did take over some of my friends, so it wasn't an unfounded concept. Academically, I did fine, with AP courses in both science and math. Would I have been more socially ept if I had been kept back that year? Probably not.

 

I really want my child to rule the world and that is why we redshirted.

I'm glad to see so many parents know so much about parenting that they are willing to say what we did for our children is wrong. Not too judgmental. However, no one else's opinion is really important to me. The teachers who knew my children best had an opinion that mattered and we chose to listen to their advice. End of story. I guess the discussion really is over.

 

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.