Wouldn't this Largely Solve the Red-shirting Problem?

[sste]

At least in medium to larger schools with two classrooms per grade?

I was talking to a preschool in a suburb we are considering. Their system is very interesting - - they have two classrooms for each year (e.g., 3 y/o; 4 y/o). They are VERY strict about your child going into the correct age classroom using a sept 1 cut-off date which mirrors the school cut-off date in our area. In order to delay entry under their system you would need some sort of professional evaluation and to go through their internal processes and the long and short is they highly discourage it for all normally developing kids and have done it exactly once in the past 8 years for a neuro-typical child.

HOWEVER, they age cluster the two classrooms so that one class is kids with birthdays from Sept to Jan and the other from Feb to August. They said in practice the kids in each classroom generally range across no more than five months in age (because they don't usually get Sept 2 for example and Dec 29 b-days in the same room).

As an added benefit, your child stays with this same class through the entire program so they have continuity from year to year with their peers.

As they were telling me this, it seemed to me like the logical thing for elementary schools with two classes per grade to do at least in the early years of let's say k-3 where a matter of months can make a maturity/developmental difference. That age clustering combined with hard (though not impossible) cut-offs would address I imagine 70% or 80% of the possible red-shirting and even acceleration issues that arise . . . it seems particularly valuable at the kindy level where its hard to know for sure long-term trajectories, when a developmental spurt will occur, etc.

Anyway, I was impressed with this preschool for solving a problem that is currently boggling the nation's education system not to mention this board!

[edurnemk]

That's what they do at DS's preschool. There's 2 classes of the 2 yo's program, but one has the older half and one the younger half (and the same with all the grades, up to K). Especially at such a young age, where a a few months is a huge difference in maturity, I think it's brilliant.

[AnnieW625]

That's what they do at DD1's preschool and it works for the most part.

[sariana]

Schools used to operate on semesters, so you'll hear about people (e.g. both my mom and my MIL) who graduated in December instead of June. I've read books that take place in the 50s or 60s, and the characters talk about grade 3A and 3B (or whatever number). Each semester was truly distinct from the other.

I posted on the previous K cut-off thread that I think schools should be on the quarter system. Children should progress by nine week quarters instead of by years. This would help with retention (repeating a quarter should be much more helpful than repeating a whole year), long family vacations (want to go to Mexico for 3 weeks? Just withdraw for a quarter instead of missing so much instruction), and the "red-shirting" issue.

Obviously cost would be a big issue. But with so many classes differentiating for varying levels already, would it really be a big deal to have students on four different "tracks," even if the school was too small for four classes per grade? Or a school with two classes per level could have one room onthe A/C tracks and the other room on the B/D tracks.

Of course standardized testing would have to be scheduled differently, and that probably would be the sticking point. A child who started in January or April would not be ready to take a standardized test in May, but the following May might be too late.

[SnuggleBuggles]

That's what they do at preschool here too. I think the thing that would solve this issue is the schools enforcing dates and stop allowing kids too old to wait except in really special cases.

Beth

[Green_Tea]

Interesting. I'd be up for that as long as they were willing to be flexible when it comes to kids who might be younger but clearly are ahead of their peers in terms of maturity and academic achievement. I also don't see what would prevent parents from keeping their younger kids out for an extra year of Pre-K.

I have long thought that the schools should do something to curb redshirting. In our town (a primarily white collar, medium to high income community) there is a HUGE range of ages within the classroom. In DD1's class (she's in grade 2) there are kids who turned 8 in April of grade 1, and kids who will turn 7 in December. In our school district, K is not mandated (is this the norm? I think it is.). You can skip it with no consequences. I would like to see both a minimum and maximum age for entering grade 1, however. What I envision is this: If you fall within the cutoff by 60 days (so if your kid turns 6 on or after October 31 with a December 31 cutoff, which is what we have) you can opt to hold your child out with no justification. However, if your child turns 6 BEFORE October 31 (or 60 days before whatever your cutoff is) and you want to hold them out, I think that the school district should perform an evaluation of the child to see if holding them back a year is appropriate. School districts would, of course, take into consideration the recommendations of pediatricians, child psychiatrists and other specialists. Kids with documented issues would be accommodated. School districts would have little motivation to push forward a child who wasn't ready. But parents who hold their kids out so they have an "edge" might be discouraged.

In general I think that having such an huge age range within classes hurts both the kids that are on the young side (because it's hard to keep up with kids that are a full 18-20 months older than you are) and the older, more mature kids (because they are eager to move forward and frustrated waiting for their much younger peers to catch up.) As both a parent and a future teacher, I'd love to see the gap in ages narrow a bit because I think our students as a whole would benefit.

[longtallsally05]

I would support this; it would be great if it were an official policy in elementary school.

My DD's Pre-K class does this unofficially. They put the young 5 year-olds in one particular class and fill it last, in case they need the openings for children enrolling later than initial registration (which occurs in February the preceding academic year). DD is actually the youngest in her classroom; she doesn't turn 5 until Feb. I requested the class for DD b/c they emphasize reading a bit more than other classes, and DD is totally ready for it. The class size is also smaller 9 kids to 2 teachers, as opposed to 12:2. So far, DD is doing great and she loves school.

[KrisM]

Interesting. I don't know what goes into which class the kids at our school are put in. There are 7 first grade classes, so it would be quite easy to divide by age, I would think. It would be weird though to have all the birthday celebrations for the entire year happen within 2 months!

We have quite a bit of red-shirting here, with a lot of kids in DS's class turning 7 already. Our cut-off is Dec 1.

[crl]

Well, I'm not buying the premise that red shirting is necessarily a problem. And this system would not have addressed my concerns regarding ds.

Catherine

[egoldber]

I think this works for preschool. I am not so sure it is realistic in elementary school.


Interesting. I'd be up for that as long as they were willing to be flexible when it comes to kids who might be younger but clearly are ahead of their peers in terms of maturity and academic achievement.

Or even worse, a kid who is advanced in one area and behind in another. What about when you have a kid who is academically ready but emotionally not? Or a child who is emotionally mature but struggles to be on grade level? It would have been a disaster for my older DD to be put into a classroom with younger kids. She has always done better with older kids and kids who are academically advanced, regardless of chronological age.

There is ALWAYS going to be a range of abilities (academic or emotional or both) in a classroom setting. Teachers and schools need to accommodate that.

[clc053103]

Our preschool did not follow this- they preferred that the classrooms have both older and younger kids in it, so the younger could learn from example by the older kids.

However, the age range in DS's kindergarten due to red shirting is at least 16 months.

[spanannie]

Well, I'm not buying the premise that red shirting is necessarily a problem.

http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/signs/smiley-vault-signs-016.gif (http://www.smileyvault.com/)

I'm perfectly happy with my decision for "redshirting" my 2 kids and have no regrets. I don't think it has any negative effects on their classmates either. I see no problem with it and my son fits in perfectly with his 2nd great peers, whether they are older, younger, or the same age.

On another note, as others have said, our preschool divided the olders and youngers in the 2 year old and 4 year old years. The cut off was March 1 to be in the "older" class.

[SnuggleBuggles]

Interesting. I'd be up for that as long as they were willing to be flexible when it comes to kids who might be younger but clearly are ahead of their peers in terms of maturity and academic achievement. I also don't see what would prevent parents from keeping their younger kids out for an extra year of Pre-K.




I don't really agree with that idea. Predicting the academic and social success based on a 5yo isn't the best gauge. It's like the reading thing...by grade three the early readers and late readers all tend to even out in terms of reading ability. So, some kids could be really ahead or really behind in the early years but balance out later.

I do think red-shirting is an issue. Perhaps if I had red-shirted then I would feel differently because it is usually the older kid that benefits in the situation. But, as a mom who sent her kid on time it is a problem. There is a kid with the same birthday but one year older. Of course he is going to have different behavior, social abilities and academic strengths than my son and they are artificial because he should be a grade older. My child is stuck being compared to him though because his parents held him out a year. It's just become a really tangled, complicated affair and I think that some solution needs to be devised and enforced.

Beth

[SnuggleBuggles]

There is ALWAYS going to be a range of abilities (academic or emotional or both) in a classroom setting. Teachers and schools need to accommodate that.

It's hard to accommodate that when there is a 15+ month range in ages. There always going to be older kids and younger kids, such is the nature of calendars and cut offs. :) But, it has to be so hard for teachers to effectively teach to a class comprised of 6 yos up to 8yos, which happened in my ds1's 1st grade class. Different needs and abilities. One teacher with X students has to just then aim for the middle or the bottom, usually. I think that if we all just keep to the dates then it will make for more success for the class and teachers. JMO and observation.

Beth

[daisymommy]

I think the problem is the parents who are abusing the system. Red shirting their kids because they want them to have an advantage, to be faster-brighter-bigger-stronger whatever than the rest of the class. That is wrong IMO.

My 8 year old DS has the maturity level of a 6-7 year old. So I don't see a problem with him being in a 2nd grade classroom with other 7 year olds; he fits right in. No way in the world could he cope in a 3rd grade classroom. He has always been behind other kids, which is why we held him back and started him in Kindy at age 6. It was at the suggestion of his preschool teachers who said they really strongly suggested that he wasn't ready for an all day Kindy setting, with 25 other kids. I had to delay for his own good.

Parents know their own children better than some authority figure, and I would resent an arbitrary rule telling me I had to send my child into the next grade if I didn't feel it was in their best interest. But then again, I wasn't trying to cheat the system the way some people do.

So, maybe it should be that parents have to have a good long discussion with a school counselor to discuss their concerns, have the child evaluated in the current school setting (if they are in school already) and make the choice together--not have it made for the parent. There are already too many parental choices being taken away as it is.

[crl]

My red shirted kid is right in the middle of his class in academics and maturity over all, tending toward the bottom in social skills. The range for his teachers would have been much greater if I had not red shirted him.

Catherine

[SnuggleBuggles]

My red shirted kid is right in the middle of his class in academics and maturity over all, tending toward the bottom in social skills. The range for his teachers would have been much greater if I had not red shirted him.

Catherine

Academically- how much is the whole push down on expectations an issue, do you think? We are expecting more out of younger kids and younger grades than in the past.

Beth

[KrisM]

I think red-shirting can be an issue. I have one friend who held her son back. Her son is 1 week older than DS and is now in kindergarten and DS is in 1st. They have April birthdays and a December cut-off. So, her DS has been 6 for 6 months now and other kids are still 4 turning 5 in November. They can have a April 2004 to November 2005 range of birthdays in that class and I think that is huge. I can't imagine being the mom of the youngest kid and wondering how my child will keep up with the one 19 months older.

[crl]

Academically- how much is the whole push down on expectations an issue, do you think? We are expecting more out of younger kids and younger grades than in the past.

Beth

I think that is an issue, for my kid and for others. The accompanying push to full day K is also an issue.

But, fundamentally, MY kid wasn't ready for K. He is special needs. If I had put him in k on schedule he would have struggled and needed a lot of support for basic things like following directions and staying on task. That would have had negative social implications too. Red shirting him made all the difference. It doesn't for some special needs kids, but it really has for him. He has really been able to make it with very, very little extra help. The difference between age 4 and age 7 for him has been astounding.

Catherine
Catherine

[Green_Tea]

Interesting. I'd be up for that as long as they were willing to be flexible when it comes to kids who might be younger but clearly are ahead of their peers in terms of maturity and academic achievement. I also don't see what would prevent parents from keeping their younger kids out for an extra year of Pre-K.




I don't really agree with that idea. Predicting the academic and social success based on a 5yo isn't the best gauge. It's like the reading thing...by grade three the early readers and late readers all tend to even out in terms of reading ability. So, some kids could be really ahead or really behind in the early years but balance out later.



I only think it's an OK idea for preschool. Overall I am against redshirting barring some documented issue that the child has or being within 60 days of the cut-off. That's why I support this idea:


I have long thought that the schools should do something to curb redshirting. In our town (a primarily white collar, medium to high income community) there is a HUGE range of ages within the classroom. In DD1's class (she's in grade 2) there are kids who turned 8 in April of grade 1, and kids who will turn 7 in December. In our school district, K is not mandated (is this the norm? I think it is.). You can skip it with no consequences. I would like to see both a minimum and maximum age for entering grade 1, however. What I envision is this: If you fall within the cutoff by 60 days (so if your kid turns 6 on or after October 31 with a December 31 cutoff, which is what we have) you can opt to hold your child out with no justification. However, if your child turns 6 BEFORE October 31 (or 60 days before whatever your cutoff is) and you want to hold them out, I think that the school district should perform an evaluation of the child to see if holding them back a year is appropriate. School districts would, of course, take into consideration the recommendations of pediatricians, child psychiatrists and other specialists. Kids with documented issues would be accommodated. School districts would have little motivation to push forward a child who wasn't ready. But parents who hold their kids out so they have an "edge" might be discouraged.

In general I think that having such an huge age range within classes hurts both the kids that are on the young side (because it's hard to keep up with kids that are a full 18-20 months older than you are) and the older, more mature kids (because they are eager to move forward and frustrated waiting for their much younger peers to catch up.) As both a parent and a future teacher, I'd love to see the gap in ages narrow a bit because I think our students as a whole would benefit.


FWIW, I also think there should be federal guidelines for states to follow regarding cut-off dates. I really think every child entering K should be 5 years old (even though this would have put my September-born-but-doing-fabulously-1st-grader back a year). I'd love an August 1 cutoff nationwide.

[sste]

What I am getting at is that for some number of red-shirting parents (certainly not all cases and certainly not special needs children) there may not have BEEN such a significant or unmanageable developmental gap between your child and the rest of the kindy class in a situation where classrooms had an age spread of 4-5 months rather than a 12-18 month spread.

Really, I am not trying to criticize individual posters' decisions. I am saying that if the controversial aspect of red-shirting as a general, national matter is that certain kids are or, are perceived by their parents to be behind (or ahead for that matter) at the kindy level, then a tighter age range is going to offer a partial solution to that. If developmental delays or acceleration for that matter persists then there are certainly things that can be done during or subsequent to kindy to address that.

What was interesting about the preschool I interviewed is that they have some federal money and they offer some amount of developmental services . . . so they aren't just saying your kid is stuck in this classroom now deal with it. They are working with individual kids to ensure age-appropriate development and one piece of that is having classes where kids are developmentally similar. Sure, IMO full neuropysch evaluations for every student and differentiated education are great! But, most people don't actually want to pay the tax bill for that - - so what I am thinking is that one acceptable and cost-effective proxy for developmental similarity at the kindy level is a six month or less age range and significant (not absolute) constraints on placement outside of that age range.

ETA: I know some posters on this board have exceptional kiddos in terms of the bell curve and I don't think you would need to implement a tighter-age kindergarten spread as an absolute bar. But, the idea is that at least with respect to kindy start only exceptional cases are outside of age range. The tighter age range addresses what I think are (and statistically would have to be) the majority of cases: 1) the kids that are lagging (or accelerated) moderately or slightly in some areas and 2) the group of parents who are anxious and want to "give my kid a headstart/want my five year old to be a leader." This would be significant progress!

Also, I agree it won't work during all of elementary but kindy I think it would work and kindy seems to be the place where red-shirting is occurring.

[crl]

I get what you are saying, but I don't agree at all. My kid has a June birthday. CA has a December cut off. So he was six when he started K. Some of the kids in his class were 4. Grouping him with a narrower band of age mates would not have solved the problem.

The fundamental problem was that he wasn't ready to meet the demands of K. He wasn't able to sit at a table and complete a task without one on one support. His aid had to work hard to get him to sit to write his name. He needed adult support to enter a play situation. He needed adult support whenever there was a change in routine (if it was raining and they couldn't go outside, he needed an adult to talk to him individually about it).

An extra year was like magic for him. He made huge strides in all those areas and was able to thrive in K with almost no extra help.

Honestly, I think that mixed age classrooms would go farther to limiting the need for redshirting. Allowing kids to have a wider age range for classes would better accommodate kids with uneven abilities, would provide role models, would make redshirting or repeating grades less obvious, etc.

Catherine

[spanannie]

If developmental delays or acceleration for that matter persists then there are certainly things that can be done during or subsequent to kindy to address that.


Sometimes all of the therapy and extra help that money can buy doesn't help, but time does. I personally paid out of pocket for my son to see every kind of doctor and therapist imaginable. I saw different educational specialists ad nauseum. What helped him tremendously was "the gift of time." He really could not have gone to K and been successful at age 5. He is thriving now in 2nd grade. I can't imagine him being in 3rd grade right now despite his intelligence and high level reading. 3rd grade would still be too much for him.

[Sillygirl]

I think redshirting as more of a symptom, rather than a problem. I hate to sound like a broken Montessori record, but my two boys are 2 1/2 years apart and they are in the same classroom this year. Montessori places kids from ages 3 - 6 in the same class, because kids learn by teaching their peers, and learn well. Of course Jonathan, almost 6, is doing different works than his younger brother. But he also gets the chance to teach to the four year olds, reinforcing his own learning, and stimulating them.

The pressure to redshirt comes about because the public school model demands that all children in a class do the same work, to the same set of expectations, at the same time. I would suggest that the underlying problem is with that model, and that redshirting is an understandable response to people who aren't well served by it.

I don't know what the answer is, but as a rule of thumb, the more regulations they have to slap on something, the less sense it really makes to begin with. In the meantime, I'll continue to support our scholarship fund, because we're lucky to be able to send our boys to Montessori, and I wish everyone who wanted the option could have it.

[crl]

I think redshirting as more of a symptom, rather than a problem. I hate to sound like a broken Montessori record, but my two boys are 2 1/2 years apart and they are in the same classroom this year. Montessori places kids from ages 3 - 6 in the same class, because kids learn by teaching their peers, and learn well. Of course Jonathan, almost 6, is doing different works than his younger brother. But he also gets the chance to teach to the four year olds, reinforcing his own learning, and stimulating them.

The pressure to redshirt comes about because the public school model demands that all children in a class do the same work, to the same set of expectations, at the same time. I would suggest that the underlying problem is with that model, and that redshirting is an understandable response to people who aren't well served by it.
t.

I think this makes far more sense than narrowing the age range in a class. My som had a fabulous experience in a Reggio Emilia preschool, which also has mixed age classrooms.

Catherine

[sste]

I am not at all opposed to mixed-age classrooms . . . the other program I have looked into for DS is mixed-age Montessori. But, for some reason (perhaps test-score concerns?) mixed age has been a non-starter in public schools in my region. Practically, I see little hope of a significant number of elementaries going multi-age in the next decade which is the only reason I am less enthused about this option . . . just the practicality of it.

I do think there is tremendous potential for schools to cost-effectively use I think it is called a "block system" so that the class blocks are the same between classes/grades so that students could be as a matter of course placed in different "grades" for reading and math but retain their home class/grade as a base.

At the risk of giving into my nudge tendencies . . . OK, I am giving into my nudge tendencies . . . the posters here are describing kids that were truly developmentally or socially delayed/atypical/special needs at least during the period of time when they would have entered K. Under an age-differentiated kindy with six month range your kids would have clearly in my mind qualified for a delayed start as exceptional cases. At that point, a tighter age range would *benefit* your kids because 1) they wouldn't be in a classroom that included chrono younger kids AND same-age red-shirted kids *without* delays who were red-shirted for sports/leadership/being a boy and who drag up the developmental average; 2) you would have more options with your delayed start kid to place them in a slightly younger versus slightly older kindy room.

Anyway, that is an interesting point about a wider age range . . .

[crl]

Well, I guess I have two fundamental views that go against your proposal.

One is that I believe parents know their kids and make better decisions for their kids than officials with arbitrary rules. Yes, my kid is an outlier, but I think the general principal holds regardless.

Second is that I believe narrow age bands are a bad idea. I don't think they would help significantly with narrowing the ability range in a classroom. And my observation is that most young children do better in a setting with a wider rather than a narrower age range. (I agree that standardized testing has made this less feasible in public schools, which is yet another unfortunate effect of standardized testing, IMO.)

Catherine

[clc053103]

I do think red-shirting is an issue. Perhaps if I had red-shirted then I would feel differently because it is usually the older kid that benefits in the situation. But, as a mom who sent her kid on time it is a problem. There is a kid with the same birthday but one year older. Of course he is going to have different behavior, social abilities and academic strengths than my son and they are artificial because he should be a grade older. My child is stuck being compared to him though because his parents held him out a year. It's just become a really tangled, complicated affair and I think that some solution needs to be devised and enforced.

Beth

I don't know the emoticon, but Yeah that!

DS is the youngest in his class despite his birthday being 2 months before the cut off. There are kids over a year older than him, and almost 1/2 the class is now already 6 just 1 month into school (9/1 cut off).

[Green_Tea]

One is that I believe parents know their kids and make better decisions for their kids than officials with arbitrary rules. Yes, my kid is an outlier, but I think the general principal holds regardless.



As a parent I want to agree with you, but the reality of the situation is that the rampant redshirting in my community is truly damaging to those kids who follow the rules and start on time. I understand that there are kids will well documented developmental delays and other issues. I have no problem with them waiting things out a year. But I have a HUGE problem with the typical kid whose birthday is a full four or five or six months before the cutoff being held out because their parents think "they could just use an extra year." It skews the class in a way that is truly unfair for the kid who meets the deadline by 30 days and starts on time. It makes the expectations for the class as a whole inappropriate for the kids who SHOULD be there. There's a reason why we have minimum ages for starting K - I think we need maximum ages for typically developing kids to start as well.

[Kindra178]

What drives me absolutely crazy about this discussion is how some parents get so upset that other parents red shirt a child. I have no idea why other parents must weigh in on how I may or may not choose to educate my child. It is very hard to determine kindergarten readiness in terms of social skills. There is also a huge difference between boys and girls.

Perhaps more importantly, a redshirted child is more likely than not more mature, can better handle instructions, and will take less teacher resources in terms of behavior issues and even bullying (a more confident child is less likely to bully).

Frankly, if I were the mom of a super bright 5 year old girl I would prefer that her classmates were 6 year old boys - they are certainly more likely to sit still, not shout out answers, read, etc.

My twins will be the oldest in their class. There is little I can do about, as they miss the cut off. I am happy that they will have an extra year to be prepared for the rigors kinder. If they were born before the cutoff, I would have certainly redshirted them. My oldest makes the cutoff by 8 weeks. If I send him on time, he will be youngest in his class, or close to, as every single August boy I know is routinely red shirted. Wouldn't it be nice for him to have the extra year like his younger brothers will?

[brittone2]

If red shirting was no longer an option, do we think that K would go back to being more developmentally appropriate? My gut instinct is that it would not. NCLB pressures as well as parents who expect "academic" looking K (even though the research supporting play-based is so positive), etc. makes me wonder if that would really happen. I'm curious if we think it would really change the expectations all that much?

I see lots of other reasons red shirting can be a concern, but I wonder if things would go back to a more developmentally appropriate pace/style?

[brittone2]

I think redshirting as more of a symptom, rather than a problem.

The pressure to redshirt comes about because the public school model demands that all children in a class do the same work, to the same set of expectations, at the same time. I would suggest that the underlying problem is with that model, and that redshirting is an understandable response to people who aren't well served by it.



I agree with this.

[niccig]

If red shirting was no longer an option, do we think that K would go back to being more developmentally appropriate? My gut instinct is that it would not. NCLB pressures as well as parents who expect "academic" looking K (even though the research supporting play-based is so positive), etc. makes me wonder if that would really happen. I'm curious if we think it would really change the expectations all that much?

I see lots of other reasons red shirting can be a concern, but I wonder if things would go back to a more developmentally appropriate pace/style?

I don't think it will. Many people feel that kids should be doing more younger, so they can move on to other material. I know parents that freak out their K child isn't reading and how this will affect future schooling and college. The child is FIVE years old.

And there will be parents that buy "teach you baby to read." There's a lot more academic material for younger and younger kids as parents believe it'll give their kids a head start. Witness all the Baby Einstein DVDs

[WolfpackMom]

As a parent I want to agree with you, but the reality of the situation is that the rampant redshirting in my community is truly damaging to those kids who follow the rules and start on time. I understand that there are kids will well documented developmental delays and other issues. I have no problem with them waiting things out a year. But I have a HUGE problem with the typical kid whose birthday is a full four or five or six months before the cutoff being held out because their parents think "they could just use an extra year." It skews the class in a way that is truly unfair for the kid who meets the deadline by 30 days and starts on time. It makes the expectations for the class as a whole inappropriate for the kids who SHOULD be there. There's a reason why we have minimum ages for starting K - I think we need maximum ages for typically developing kids to start as well.


Example: Our friends have a 2 month old. While the wife was still pregnant and our DS was about 5 months old we were talking and I said "Oh your DS and our DS will be in the same grade." They replied that he would not be because they were already planning on redshirting their son who wasnt even born yet and his birthday is over a month before the cutoff! The child isn't even born, they have no idea what his limitations or areas of acceleration will be and they are already planning on holding him back so that he will have a leg up. It COMPLETELY makes sense IMO to red shirt if your child developmentally needs it, but its those that abuse the system who cause harm in the end.

[wellyes]

Frankly, if I were the mom of a super bright 5 year old girl I would prefer that her classmates were 6 year old boys - they are certainly more likely to sit still, not shout out answers, read, etc.
What about moms of a developmentally typical 5 year old boys? That's the trick.

[Kindra178]

What about moms of a developmentally typical 5 year old boys? That's the trick.

And old for the grade boy? Or young?

[jenmcadams]

What drives me absolutely crazy about this discussion is how some parents get so upset that other parents red shirt a child. I have no idea why other parents must weigh in on how I may or may not choose to educate my child. It is very hard to determine kindergarten readiness in terms of social skills. There is also a huge difference between boys and girls.

While you obviously have every right to educate your child in the way you want in the public school system provided you follow the rules, you truly don't understand why it could be frustrating to those of us who do send our child on time when people send their kids later who don't have any diagnosed delays? These kids completely change the expectations behaviorally and academically, sometimes they're bullies (based on our experiences a few years ago with my DD (Aug birthday) and now with my DS (June birthday)), and they are socially different. My DD is now in 3rd grade and the kids who were ahead because they were red-shirted have pretty much reverted back to the middle academically, but socially some of these kids are drastically different than their age-appropriate 3rd grade peers. Their interests are different and quite frankly, they're often bigger physically and change the playground dynamics.


As a parent I want to agree with you, but the reality of the situation is that the rampant redshirting in my community is truly damaging to those kids who follow the rules and start on time. I understand that there are kids will well documented developmental delays and other issues. I have no problem with them waiting things out a year. But I have a HUGE problem with the typical kid whose birthday is a full four or five or six months before the cutoff being held out because their parents think "they could just use an extra year." It skews the class in a way that is truly unfair for the kid who meets the deadline by 30 days and starts on time. It makes the expectations for the class as a whole inappropriate for the kids who SHOULD be there. There's a reason why we have minimum ages for starting K - I think we need maximum ages for typically developing kids to start as well.

Green Tea probably says it more eloquently than I can, but I really wish there was a maximum age for K. There was a child in K last year who turned 7 in April (I volunteered in the class, so I got to know him). I also know his Mom, he has no delays, she opted just to give him "the gift of time." He was bored and made fun of other kids for not knowing as much as he knew -- he really should have been in first grade. I have other friends who held out their June/July boys last year and are now lamenting how bored their kids are academically in K and how the school needs to do more to challenge their child...again, they're probably bored because they should be first graders.

My son is younger (turned 5 in June, just started K in Aug in a school with a 10/1 cut-off and lots of people who redshirt), but reading at a 3rd grade level...the school is working hard to accommodate him (using specialists and subject acceleration). Honestly, I'd be embarrassed if I had held him out (without any true developmental needs) and then came asking for subject acceleration the next year.

I get that some kids need that time, but it worries me that it's become the standard among middle-class and up socioeconomic circles to redshirt...

[g-mama]

There's a reason why we have minimum ages for starting K - I think we need maximum ages for typically developing kids to start as well.

In our district, there is a maximum. From our website: "A child who will be six years old on or before September 30 must attend school." I agree, there absolutely should be.

[nrp]

In our district, there is a maximum. From our website: "A child who will be six years old on or before September 30 must attend school." I agree, there absolutely should be.

I think that's the case in a lot of places, but a parent can usually get around it by having the child repeat pre-K (or starting pre-K a year late) or doing a "bridge" or a "transitional K" program. So long as its an accredited private or public school, I would think pre-K would count as "school."

[Green_Tea]

In our district, there is a maximum. From our website: "A child who will be six years old on or before September 30 must attend school." I agree, there absolutely should be.

Yes, I think we have that rule as well. What I meant (but didn't express very well) is that I think there should be a maximum age for starting 1st grade (since in most places K isn't required.) I think there should be a 60 day cushion, but if you beat the deadline by more than that you should be required to have a school evaluation to be allowed to hold your child out. So if the cutoff is December 31, and your kid turns 6 by Oct 31, you send them unless the school concurs that holding them out is called for. If you choose not to send your kid to K, that's fine. But if they're 6 on or before 60 days before the cutoff, they're going straight to first grade.

I realize this would infuriate some parents. But it infuriates ME that my August and September kids who are/were completely ready for K are being compared to typical kids that are a full 18 months their senior. *I* followed the rules.

(And, FWIW, I think there should be federal guidelines for the cutoff. I'd really like to see a universal July 15 or August 1 cutoff.)

[Green_Tea]

What drives me absolutely crazy about this discussion is how some parents get so upset that other parents red shirt a child. I have no idea why other parents must weigh in on how I may or may not choose to educate my child. It is very hard to determine kindergarten readiness in terms of social skills. There is also a huge difference between boys and girls.

Because age guidelines in public schools are defined to serve the population as a whole. When you choose not to follow the guideline, it affects children that are not your own. That's why I feel like I have the right to weigh in. Your choice impacts MY child.

Perhaps more importantly, a redshirted child is more likely than not more mature, can better handle instructions, and will take less teacher resources in terms of behavior issues and even bullying (a more confident child is less likely to bully).

Yes, and sometimes that level of maturity is not appropriate for a kindergarten setting. Kindergarten is for 5-6 year olds, and 5-6 year old children are not as mature as 7 year olds.

Frankly, if I were the mom of a super bright 5 year old girl I would prefer that her classmates were 6 year old boys - they are certainly more likely to sit still, not shout out answers, read, etc.

I have no problem at all with my girls being in class with boys who behave in an age appropriate fashion.

My twins will be the oldest in their class. There is little I can do about, as they miss the cut off. I am happy that they will have an extra year to be prepared for the rigors kinder. If they were born before the cutoff, I would have certainly redshirted them. My oldest makes the cutoff by 8 weeks. If I send him on time, he will be youngest in his class, or close to, as every single August boy I know is routinely red shirted. Wouldn't it be nice for him to have the extra year like his younger brothers will?

Somebody has to be the youngest. If all the July birthdays start waiting a year because now they're the youngest, where does that leave the June birthdays? How far are parents willing to take it? Isn't it a bit preposterous to hold back your typical child who meets the cutoff by MONTHS?

[plusbellelavie]

(And, FWIW, I think there should be federal guidelines for the cutoff. I'd really like to see a universal July 15 or August 1 cutoff.)

I find that in the US every school district has their own cut off date and it varies greatly even in the same State....it is very frustrating!

Why not do it like many European Countries where they use the calendar year....regardless of the day you are born on in that year you enter into the system for classes.

I thought it was a great system yes the kids who were born in December were younger then their classmates born in January of that year but there was only a 12mths spread. If a child was advanced he had to see numerous professionals in the field before he was allowed to "skip" a grade...if a child had learning disabilities again the school and the professionals helped them and did their best to keep them with the kid of their age if however they had to be held back it was done.