Can we discuss Red Shirting?

kcisthebombdotcom · February 2014

trizzie said:

Hav=Fath said:

trizzie said:
My son is in private kinder this year and will go to first grade next year in public school. He is one of the only kids in his class not repeating next year. Out of 15 kids, at least half our repeating. And we are also in DFW.
But why? Why are they holding them back? Is the school not preparing them, are the parents just realizing their kids aren't ready emotionally, or that was the plan all along ~ to do 2 years in K?

That was their plan all along. They don't want them to graduate at 17 (most are summer birthdays) and they feel like they need one more year to mature (they are all boys). 6 of them are going to the same public school next year and DS is the only one moving to 1st. They are all very prepared academically. And honestly, I feel like some of those kids will be bored. DS would look at me like I was nuts if I told him he was doing kinder again.

See that's silly. i can certainly understand the logic of holding back an emotionally immature boy with a summer bday but id do an extra year of preschool over two years of kindie.

jlpev · February 2014

My ds has a Jan bday. He will start preK at a little over 4.5. & go from there. I am discussing with dh about sending him to daycare once or twice a week until he starts school whenever he turns 4.

kcisthebombdotcom · February 2014

brachysira said:
I read an article about this and I'm reasonably sure that kids who were redshirted did worse than kids who weren't--they were too old and the material was not appropriate for them. Kids who did better when they were redshirted turned out later to be found that they disabilities that had not be discovered at the time and instead of being redshirted, would been better off getting involved with school at the right time and then would have benefited from services directly addressing their issues.

I've read the opposite but its not surprising there would be conflicting info. in terms of disabilities kids with autism have a delay in social and emotional maturity. no matter how much intervention you provide even the kids that are higher functioning and will be college and/or employment bound will always struggle with that. i think in those cases redshirting is only going to help.

With that being said i don't think parents,should be allowed to redshirt just because. i like the idea of a universal cut off date as August 1 so everyone is five when starting kindie. I think to redshirt there should be some checks and balances in place to weed out the assholes who do it for sports and not for the benefit of the child like a pedi/preschool teacher/eval showing the child lacks some necessary skill for kindie success.

Andrewsgal · February 2014

KC_13 said:

I read an article about this and I'm reasonably sure that kids who were redshirted did worse than kids who weren't--they were too old and the material was not appropriate for them. Kids who did better when they were redshirted turned out later to be found that they disabilities that had not be discovered at the time and instead of being redshirted, would been better off getting involved with school at the right time and then would have benefited from services directly addressing their issues.
I've read the opposite but its not surprising there would be conflicting info. in terms of disabilities kids with autism have a delay in social and emotional maturity. no matter how much intervention you provide even the kids that are higher functioning and will be college and/or employment bound will always struggle with that. i think in those cases redshirting is only going to help. With that being said i don't think parents,should be allowed to redshirt just because. i like the idea of a universal cut off date as August 1 so everyone is five when starting kindie. I think to redshirt there should be some checks and balances in place to weed out the assholes who do it for sports and not for the benefit of the child like a pedi/preschool teacher/eval showing the child lacks some necessary skill for kindie success.

I agree so much. I think a universal cutoff date is necessary, and I think every child should have to be 5 before kinder.

Mrs.Hizzo · February 2014

I think every child should be 5.5 at the start of kinder. I'd support a universal cutoff if that was the goal, but I think 5 in August is way to young across the board given Common Core.

Spin313 · February 2014

Mrs.Hizzo said:
I think every child should be 5.5 at the start of kinder. I'd support a universal cutoff if that was the goal, but I think 5 in August is way to young across the board given Common Core.

Disagree. I think a 5.5 minimum to start kindy is too old. Your cut off would be in February/March.

A five year old minimum with a cut off between August 1st/September 1st would be ideal for most kids.

Mrs.Hizzo · February 2014

Spin313 said:

I think every child should be 5.5 at the start of kinder. I'd support a universal cutoff if that was the goal, but I think 5 in August is way to young across the board given Common Core.
Disagree. I think a 5.5 minimum to start kindy is too old. Your cut off would be in February/March. A five year old minimum with a cut off between August 1st/September 1st would be ideal for most kids.

According to who or what?

penguingrrl · February 2014

Spin313 said:

I think every child should be 5.5 at the start of kinder. I'd support a universal cutoff if that was the goal, but I think 5 in August is way to young across the board given Common Core.
Disagree. I think a 5.5 minimum to start kindy is too old. Your cut off would be in February/March. A five year old minimum with a cut off between August 1st/September 1st would be ideal for most kids.

Agreed. Julia would have been bored with another year of preschool and would definitely be bored in K at her current age. She may or may not be the typical example, but as far as I'm aware she's a fairly average student. Very strong at some things for her grade and average at others.

Mrs.Hizzo · February 2014

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. My kids' school flat out tells parents of incoming kindergartners that if a child has a June-Sept. birthday (and that May should be looked at on a "case-by-case basis"), they don't want them there and to give them an extra year.

2-Step · February 2014

My DS turns five two weeks before the cut off and we will be holding him a year. I have no doubts that right now he could probably do OK in kindergarten if we sent him and I struggled with the decision for months. However, I've done my due diligence and feel I am making the best decision for him.

I've spoken with five 1st and 2nd grade teachers and at least six or seven moms that had boys in the same situation. Across the board every single teacher and every single mom said they would hands down hold a boy that age for another year. The moms that had done it said they were nervous and unsure about it, but in the end they were so glad they did and the moms that didn't said their boys were ok, but each of them eventually struggled due to immaturity at some point and they each regretted not doing it.

I even had a first grade teacher I had never met overhear a conversation I was having with another mom and approach me to tell me that she thought that was the right decision. She said that there is so much standardized testing and benchmarking now that they hit the ground going so fast in first grade that if your kid is a little behind they just fall further behind and the teachers don't have the resources to get them there. Whether it be socially, emotionally or academically, she was adamant that kids should be starting closer to six anyway and be in play based learning before then. She works for one of the top districts in our state with a lot of resources too.

I am putting DS in a jumpstart kindergarten transitional program next year. It's everyone's choice what to do with their kid. You don't want your kid in class with kids a year older then them, that's exactly how I feel! How is it much different? If my kid were born 2 weeks later he would be waiting a full year regardless.

For us, and for most moms I spoke with, sports had zero to do with it. In our area private and select leagues are much more popular than school sports and they go by age cut off at a certain date, not grade, so it makes no difference.

Spin313 · February 2014

Mrs.Hizzo said:

Spin313 said:

Mrs.Hizzo said:
I think every child should be 5.5 at the start of kinder. I'd support a universal cutoff if that was the goal, but I think 5 in August is way to young across the board given Common Core.
Disagree. I think a 5.5 minimum to start kindy is too old. Your cut off would be in February/March.

A five year old minimum with a cut off between August 1st/September 1st would be ideal for most kids.

According to who or what?

According to me (as a parent, teacher, and school volunteer)...and many other parents in this thread. I said "most" kids because not all children are the same, just as all schools are not the same. Many kids these days spend multiple years in preschool and would be completely bored entering kindy as a 6 year old.

penguingrrl · February 2014

Mrs.Hizzo said:

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. My kids' school flat out tells parents of incoming kindergartners that if a child has a June-Sept. birthday (and that May should be looked at on a "case-by-case basis"), they don't want them there and to give them an extra year.

And there's no way I would have held either of my girls. That sounds like the school is more worried about test scores than about individual students. And is incredibly classist since many lower income families can't possibly consider keeping their children in daycare another year or keeping a parent home an extra year (especially since often children in such low income circumstances aren't in preK; in fact, that's a huge driving factor in NYCs zero tolerance policy).

Mrs.Hizzo · February 2014

penguingrrl said:

Mrs.Hizzo said:

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. My kids' school flat out tells parents of incoming kindergartners that if a child has a June-Sept. birthday (and that May should be looked at on a "case-by-case basis"), they don't want them there and to give them an extra year.

And there's no way I would have held either of my girls. That sounds like the school is more worried about test scores than about individual students. And is incredibly classist since many lower income families can't possibly consider keeping their children in daycare another year or keeping a parent home an extra year (especially since often children in such low income circumstances aren't in preK; in fact, that's a huge driving factor in NYCs zero tolerance policy).

Let's assume for a moment that the thing about the test scores is true (and I agree that it probably is). In our state, there is no standardized testing in Kindergarten except for Dibels, which has nothing to do with funding or school rankings. The standardized testing that counts, as far as the school is concerned, starts in the third grade. So, if the school's motivation for asking parents not to send them young 5's is the test scores, that means that they've noted a measurable difference in the performance of kids who start kindergarten later, not only for that year, but all the way up to third grade and beyond. Seems to me like that's something to consider.

The classist thing, yeah, probably, but this school is fairly classist so that's not a big shocker.

penguingrrl · February 2014

Mrs.Hizzo said:

penguingrrl said:

Mrs.Hizzo said:

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. My kids' school flat out tells parents of incoming kindergartners that if a child has a June-Sept. birthday (and that May should be looked at on a "case-by-case basis"), they don't want them there and to give them an extra year.

And there's no way I would have held either of my girls. That sounds like the school is more worried about test scores than about individual students. And is incredibly classist since many lower income families can't possibly consider keeping their children in daycare another year or keeping a parent home an extra year (especially since often children in such low income circumstances aren't in preK; in fact, that's a huge driving factor in NYCs zero tolerance policy).

Let's assume for a moment that the thing about the test scores is true (and I agree that it probably is). In our state, there is no standardized testing in Kindergarten except for Dibels, which has nothing to do with funding or school rankings. The standardized testing that counts, as far as the school is concerned, starts in the third grade. So, if the school's motivation for asking parents not to send them young 5's is the test scores, that means that they've noted a measurable difference in the performance of kids who start kindergarten later, not only for that year, but all the way up to third grade and beyond. Seems to me like that's something to consider.

The classist thing, yeah, probably, but this school is fairly classist so that's not a big shocker.

I realize that the tests don't start until 3rd grade, but if kids are starting K between the ages of 5.5 and 6.5 instead of the 4.5-5.5 that's common in the rest of the country then they're a year older than most other districts when they take the 3rd grade tests. That means a year more mature, capable of 4th grade level work not 3rd.

Mrs.Hizzo · February 2014

penguingrrl said:

Mrs.Hizzo said:

penguingrrl said:

Mrs.Hizzo said:

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. My kids' school flat out tells parents of incoming kindergartners that if a child has a June-Sept. birthday (and that May should be looked at on a "case-by-case basis"), they don't want them there and to give them an extra year.

And there's no way I would have held either of my girls. That sounds like the school is more worried about test scores than about individual students. And is incredibly classist since many lower income families can't possibly consider keeping their children in daycare another year or keeping a parent home an extra year (especially since often children in such low income circumstances aren't in preK; in fact, that's a huge driving factor in NYCs zero tolerance policy).

Let's assume for a moment that the thing about the test scores is true (and I agree that it probably is). In our state, there is no standardized testing in Kindergarten except for Dibels, which has nothing to do with funding or school rankings. The standardized testing that counts, as far as the school is concerned, starts in the third grade. So, if the school's motivation for asking parents not to send them young 5's is the test scores, that means that they've noted a measurable difference in the performance of kids who start kindergarten later, not only for that year, but all the way up to third grade and beyond. Seems to me like that's something to consider.

The classist thing, yeah, probably, but this school is fairly classist so that's not a big shocker.

I realize that the tests don't start until 3rd grade, but if kids are starting K between the ages of 5.5 and 6.5 instead of the 4.5-5.5 that's common in the rest of the country then they're a year older than most other districts when they take the 3rd grade tests. That means a year more mature, capable of 4th grade level work not 3rd.

Are they "capable" of it if they're not scoring proficient or advanced on it?? Because that's pretty much what the funding is based on and that's going to be the school's biggest concern and if THAT'S why they're pushing parents to hold their young fives, because they have a smaller percentage of third/fourth/fifth graders testing at below-proficiency in math and reading, how can you possibly argue that this isn't to the benefit of the kids themselves?

penguingrrl · February 2014

Mrs.Hizzo said:

penguingrrl said:

Mrs.Hizzo said:

penguingrrl said:

Mrs.Hizzo said:

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. My kids' school flat out tells parents of incoming kindergartners that if a child has a June-Sept. birthday (and that May should be looked at on a "case-by-case basis"), they don't want them there and to give them an extra year.

And there's no way I would have held either of my girls. That sounds like the school is more worried about test scores than about individual students. And is incredibly classist since many lower income families can't possibly consider keeping their children in daycare another year or keeping a parent home an extra year (especially since often children in such low income circumstances aren't in preK; in fact, that's a huge driving factor in NYCs zero tolerance policy).

Let's assume for a moment that the thing about the test scores is true (and I agree that it probably is). In our state, there is no standardized testing in Kindergarten except for Dibels, which has nothing to do with funding or school rankings. The standardized testing that counts, as far as the school is concerned, starts in the third grade. So, if the school's motivation for asking parents not to send them young 5's is the test scores, that means that they've noted a measurable difference in the performance of kids who start kindergarten later, not only for that year, but all the way up to third grade and beyond. Seems to me like that's something to consider.

The classist thing, yeah, probably, but this school is fairly classist so that's not a big shocker.

I realize that the tests don't start until 3rd grade, but if kids are starting K between the ages of 5.5 and 6.5 instead of the 4.5-5.5 that's common in the rest of the country then they're a year older than most other districts when they take the 3rd grade tests. That means a year more mature, capable of 4th grade level work not 3rd.

Are they "capable" of it if they're not scoring proficient or advanced on it?? Because that's pretty much what the funding is based on and that's going to be the school's biggest concern and if THAT'S why they're pushing parents to hold their young fives, because they have a smaller percentage of third/fourth/fifth graders testing at below-proficiency in math and reading, how can you possibly argue that this isn't to the benefit of the kids themselves?

Well, I do understand that issue. I despise that funding is tied to test scores because there are and always will be students who don't test well, either because they choke under pressure or they have other things going on.

Hell, I'm a reasonably intelligent person, graduated from a decent university with high honors and spent time in graduate school (chose to leave without my masters for other reasons) but don't test well. My SAT scores were 1130, which is abysmal. I panic in a test setting and don't perform to my capability at all.

I see how it helps the individual district to do this. I see it putting other individual districts at a severe disadvantage, though. The youngest in your K class will be 18 months older than the youngest in a NYC K class. That means your school is strategically playing with the numbers to increase their funding while putting disadvantaged kids at further risk.

notkateanymore · February 2014

JellyBellyStar said:

Does anyone know what the effect on the 5 year olds are having 6/7 year olds in their class? I was just curious if there is any information on that out there.

This is not scientific but they definitely notice the kids who are bigger, faster, more mature. The majority of kids in the gifted classes are the oldest kids as well...so it's noticeable in many ways. Oh and when I say faster, I mean more mature emotionally AND physically. The older girls are more advanced in all sorts of ways than DD. Boys, makeup, etc. Yes, even in 4th grade.

Spin313 · February 2014

Mrs.Hizzo said:
My kids' school flat out tells parents of incoming kindergartners that if a child has a June-Sept. birthday (and that May should be looked at on a "case-by-case basis"), they don't want them there and to give them an extra year.

What?!? This just reeks of laziness on the part of the school! (Or possibly scheming if it's about test scores and sports). There is no reason that normally developing spring/summer birthday children need to be held back from their peers.

bumpuser8448316 · February 2014

Now I'm starting to worry that we might need to consider red shirting DD. she will turn 5 July 4th and start Kindy about a month later. She'll have done 2 years of preschool though...

brachysira · February 2014

KC_13 said:

I read an article about this and I'm reasonably sure that kids who were redshirted did worse than kids who weren't--they were too old and the material was not appropriate for them. Kids who did better when they were redshirted turned out later to be found that they disabilities that had not be discovered at the time and instead of being redshirted, would been better off getting involved with school at the right time and then would have benefited from services directly addressing their issues.
I've read the opposite but its not surprising there would be conflicting info. in terms of disabilities kids with autism have a delay in social and emotional maturity. no matter how much intervention you provide even the kids that are higher functioning and will be college and/or employment bound will always struggle with that. i think in those cases redshirting is only going to help. With that being said i don't think parents,should be allowed to redshirt just because. i like the idea of a universal cut off date as August 1 so everyone is five when starting kindie. I think to redshirt there should be some checks and balances in place to weed out the assholes who do it for sports and not for the benefit of the child like a pedi/preschool teacher/eval showing the child lacks some necessary skill for kindie success.

Well, it's not that for kids with delays that they have to be in kindergarten. It's that if you say, J just doesn't seem ready for K--I'm going to keep him at home another year, and you don't seek any services, then you were right that J wasn't ready for K, but didn't help him prepare as much as you could have by seeking services, who could then advise on the best course of action and therapies. If you think, sure J could do K, but he'll kick all those other kids' ass if he can read when he starts K and since I didn't have a growth spurt until 16, he will have one more year on varsity if we wait...that is bad thinking that will do a disservice and actually put your kid behind because he is likely to be disengaged, etc.

trizzie · February 2014

KC_13 said:

Hav=Fath said:

My son is in private kinder this year and will go to first grade next year in public school. He is one of the only kids in his class not repeating next year. Out of 15 kids, at least half our repeating. And we are also in DFW.
But why? Why are they holding them back? Is the school not preparing them, are the parents just realizing their kids aren't ready emotionally, or that was the plan all along ~ to do 2 years in K?

That was their plan all along. They don't want them to graduate at 17 (most are summer birthdays) and they feel like they need one more year to mature (they are all boys). 6 of them are going to the same public school next year and DS is the only one moving to 1st. They are all very prepared academically. And honestly, I feel like some of those kids will be bored. DS would look at me like I was nuts if I told him he was doing kinder again.
See that's silly. i can certainly understand the logic of holding back an emotionally immature boy with a summer bday but id do an extra year of preschool over two years of kindie.

In this case it was a matter of teacher and curriculum. The kinder teacher is amazing. If they repeated pre-k, they would have had the exact same teacher and same curriculum.

LoriLee14 · February 2014

QueSyrah said:

Now I'm starting to worry that we might need to consider red shirting DD. she will turn 5 July 4th and start Kindy about a month later. She'll have done 2 years of preschool though...

My birthday is July 4th. I was always the youngest in my class. I went to 2 years of preschool. I did just fine emotionally and physically in school. If you think she is ready then send her. The only thing I didn't like was not celebrating my birthday at school.

And I love firecracker babies!

Mrs.Hizzo · February 2014

Spin313 said:

My kids' school flat out tells parents of incoming kindergartners that if a child has a June-Sept. birthday (and that May should be looked at on a "case-by-case basis"), they don't want them there and to give them an extra year.
What?!? This just reeks of laziness on the part of the school! (Or possibly scheming if it's about test scores and sports). There is no reason that normally developing spring/summer birthday children need to be held back from their peers.

No. It is not laziness. It is that they have found that they can not effectively teach state-approved material to children who are not developmentally ready to learn it. And I would argue that that is a VERY good reason to hold children back, and that if they do not have the same level of brain development and maturity as the other kids in their their grade, you can't even classify them all as "peers."

Spin313 · February 2014

Mrs.Hizzo said:

Spin313 said:

Mrs.Hizzo said:
My kids' school flat out tells parents of incoming kindergartners that if a child has a June-Sept. birthday (and that May should be looked at on a "case-by-case basis"), they don't want them there and to give them an extra year.
What?!? This just reeks of laziness on the part of the school! (Or possibly scheming if it's about test scores and sports). There is no reason that normally developing spring/summer birthday children need to be held back from their peers.

No. It is not laziness. It is that they have found that they can not effectively teach state-approved material to children who are not developmentally ready to learn it. And I would argue that that is a VERY good reason to hold children back, and that if they do not have the same level of brain development and maturity as the other kids in their their grade, you can't even classify them all as "peers."

Again, I'd argue that "most" kids ARE developmentally ready to learn it. Kids are sponges and they soak up SO MUCH in the early years. They also learn from each other. Holding them back just because they "aren't mature enough" should only be reserved for extreme cases....otherwise, when does that standard end?

2-Step · February 2014

Mrs.Hizzo said:

Spin313 said:

My kids' school flat out tells parents of incoming kindergartners that if a child has a June-Sept. birthday (and that May should be looked at on a "case-by-case basis"), they don't want them there and to give them an extra year.
What?!? This just reeks of laziness on the part of the school! (Or possibly scheming if it's about test scores and sports). There is no reason that normally developing spring/summer birthday children need to be held back from their peers.

No. It is not laziness. It is that they have found that they can not effectively teach state-approved material to children who are not developmentally ready to learn it. And I would argue that that is a VERY good reason to hold children back, and that if they do not have the same level of brain development and maturity as the other kids in their their grade, you can't even classify them all as "peers."

This is exactly what the teachers I spoke with said. The state approved material and the pace and testing they must do in our state starts at 1st grade. Maybe the age should be changed across the board to allow for less standardized testing early on. Students in the US are slipping behind the rest of the world and the teachers are telling me this over and over - they are getting kids that are simply not ready for the pace the state makes them keep, and if there is even a chance that they won't be ready then parents should hold them because teachers do not have the resources to help those falling behind. I will be judged by others and do what I feel is right to set my child up for success in school. He's not behind by any means, but he's shy and I want him to be completely prepared when he enters school.

2-Step · February 2014

Diapers&Wipes said:

The material should be appropriate for a typically developing 5 year kid. The answer isn't to have 6 and 7 year olds take material meant for 5 year olds. I completely understand wanting your (general you this isn't aimed at anyone in particular) children to succeed and do well. It's nice that most of us have to choice to send our kids or hold then back if necessary. That isn't the case for everyone. I hate that the poor families are the ones that have to suffer through this just because you and I can afford to keep little jimmy and Jenny home until they are "mature" enough for the material. A 5 year old is definitely going to seem immature when compared to older peers. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with your kid. Having 7 year olds in K with 5 & 6 year olds is the problem. I wish we could stop this red shirting business so kids could all start on a (almost) level field.

I agree, but there is also a big difference in putting a 7 year old in a K classroom and putting a kid who turned six a week or so before the year starts in there and will never turn 7 until the end of the summer. I think a policy of summer birthdays are at the choice of the parent, but those who fall into the previous school year automatically go. At least that gives parent's some choice while still keeping the class at a reasonably equal level. I understand what you are saying about the lower income families as well. I feel fortunate to be able to make the decision myself. Personally, I think there is a gray area of a couple months that should be up to the parents.

kcisthebombdotcom · February 2014

Diapers&Wipes said:
I completely agree about summer birthdays. I didn't make that clear. My issue is when you get kids 18 months plus older in the same class.

I thought statistically redshirting was mostly kids who would start kindie as a younger five. certainly we don't have an epidemic of kids with November birthdays starting school at 6 years 10 months..no?

kcisthebombdotcom · February 2014

amy052006 said:

Diapers&Wipes said:

The material should be appropriate for a typically developing 5 year kid. The answer isn't to have 6 and 7 year olds take material meant for 5 year olds.

I completely understand wanting your (general you this isn't aimed at anyone in particular) children to succeed and do well. It's nice that most of us have to choice to send our kids or hold then back if necessary. That isn't the case for everyone. I hate that the poor families are the ones that have to suffer through this just because you and I can afford to keep little jimmy and Jenny home until they are "mature" enough for the material. A 5 year old is definitely going to seem immature when compared to older peers. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with your kid. Having 7 year olds in K with 5 & 6 year olds is the problem. I wish we could stop this red shirting business so kids could all start on a (almost) level field.

I agree, but there is also a big difference in putting a 7 year old in a K classroom and putting a kid who turned six a week or so before the year starts in there and will never turn 7 until the end of the summer. I think a policy of summer birthdays are at the choice of the parent, but those who fall into the previous school year automatically go. At least that gives parent's some choice while still keeping the class at a reasonably equal level. I understand what you are saying about the lower income families as well. I feel fortunate to be able to make the decision myself. Personally, I think there is a gray area of a couple months that should be up to the parents.

2-Step said:
Eh, I'm going to be nit picky here, but I don't think anymore should be entitled to a gray area when it comes to free, public education. You can't just have parents enrolling their kids in whether the eff grade they feel like willy nilly, nor should you.

So a kid that is still four when school starts that is no way ready for school should start because its free? I don't think people should be able to pick a randomyear for their kid to start school but i think in some areas the cut offs are far too late to keep up with common core.

penguingrrl · February 2014

KC_13 said:

I completely agree about summer birthdays. I didn't make that clear. My issue is when you get kids 18 months plus older in the same class.
I thought statistically redshirting was mostly kids who would start kindie as a younger five. certainly we don't have an epidemic of kids with November birthdays starting school at 6 years 10 months..no?

At one point it was but it's creeping earlier and earlier. I have a friend whose son has a November birthday with an end of September cut off. She figured he would be on the older end since he just missed the cut off. He's the third youngest in his class. That's insanity! And does mean that the K classroom is catering to the 6-7 crowd instead of the 5-6 crowd it was meant for, so then it becomes academic and the kids who are the appropriate age suddenly seem far behind in terms of academics and maturity.

penguingrrl · February 2014

Diapers&Wipes said:

I completely agree about summer birthdays. I didn't make that clear. My issue is when you get kids 18 months plus older in the same class.
I thought statistically redshirting was mostly kids who would start kindie as a younger five. certainly we don't have an epidemic of kids with November birthdays starting school at 6 years 10 months..no?
I have 2 friends in TN that have huge red shirting issues. They both have talked about kids turning 7 in K.

That's the state my friend I mentioned above lives in. Her 1st grader was 1 in November and is third youngest.

2-Step · February 2014

KC_13 said:

Diapers&Wipes said:

The material should be appropriate for a typically developing 5 year kid. The answer isn't to have 6 and 7 year olds take material meant for 5 year olds. I completely understand wanting your (general you this isn't aimed at anyone in particular) children to succeed and do well. It's nice that most of us have to choice to send our kids or hold then back if necessary. That isn't the case for everyone. I hate that the poor families are the ones that have to suffer through this just because you and I can afford to keep little jimmy and Jenny home until they are "mature" enough for the material. A 5 year old is definitely going to seem immature when compared to older peers. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with your kid. Having 7 year olds in K with 5 & 6 year olds is the problem. I wish we could stop this red shirting business so kids could all start on a (almost) level field.

I agree, but there is also a big difference in putting a 7 year old in a K classroom and putting a kid who turned six a week or so before the year starts in there and will never turn 7 until the end of the summer. I think a policy of summer birthdays are at the choice of the parent, but those who fall into the previous school year automatically go. At least that gives parent's some choice while still keeping the class at a reasonably equal level. I understand what you are saying about the lower income families as well. I feel fortunate to be able to make the decision myself. Personally, I think there is a gray area of a couple months that should be up to the parents.
Eh, I'm going to be nit picky here, but I don't think anymore should be entitled to a gray area when it comes to free, public education. You can't just have parents enrolling their kids in whether the eff grade they feel like willy nilly, nor should you.

So a kid that is still four when school starts that is no way ready for school should start because its free? I don't think people should be able to pick a randomyear for their kid to start school but i think in some areas the cut offs are far too late to keep up with common core.

That's odd because it looks like I responded to my own post with that comment, but that was not me! I'm not talking about willy nilly, I'm saying hey if your kid isn't ready and they are within the summer months then you choose, you know your kid best. Just because public education is open to everyone doesn't mean parents shouldn't have a say or a care about how their children are educated. We all pay for schools, it is not "free".

kcisthebombdotcom · February 2014

amy052006 said:
I think my biggest issue with it is that parents see it as an acceptable out -- retain a child (no matter how dress it up that is what is going on) and the next year things will be ok. Well, things aren't really "ok" with they aren't ready at the age appropriate time. Redshirting seems to be an easy excuse for school district to feel like they are really doing you a big favor when they actually should be providing your child more supports and service in the age appropriate classroom.

It's like "wait and see" at its worst.

I don't care what the depth and breadth of the subject it. If the school district deems all kids should be in kindergarten by age five, and be able to do X, Y, and Z, then really the onus SHOULD be on the school district to provide the services necessary to make sure age appropriate students can do that.

Not all things are like a speech or fine motor delay where you push lots of therapy young and resolve the issue in most cases. sometimes kids just don't have the brain maturation and pushing too much too young has the opposite effect. throwing an emotionally immature kid into kindie is just as bad if not worse as sending a kid to kindie that's never separated from mom. they end up in trouble a lot and don't quite fit in with their peers which just starts them off on a bad foot. considering kids are expected to spend seven hour days in school with little recess unlike in years past where the kindergarten day was much more play based i just don't like the idea of making all five year olds fit in one mold.

juliane2004 · February 2014

There are 7 year olds in kindergarten? :-O

trizzie · February 2014

juliane2004 said:

There are 7 year olds in kindergarten? :-O

Yep. There is a kid on my son's basketball team - in Kinder and turning 7 in April. My son is tall for his age and this kid towers over him.

ETA: And our cut off is 9/1.

wellfleet04 · February 2014

trizzie said:

juliane2004 said:

There are 7 year olds in kindergarten? :-O

Yep. There is a kid on my son's basketball team - in Kinder and turning 7 in April. My son is tall for his age and this kid towers over him.
ETA: And our cut off is 9/1.

Yup. When you redshirt a May or earlier birthday kid, they turn 7 in kindergarten. And they start kindergarten at nearly 6.5 alongside kids who just turned 5.

I will never be convinced by the "not ready for kindergarten" maturity argument. It's a luxury choice that only parents who can afford a third year of private preschool or whose kids don't have an IEP can make. Wealthy kids are not somehow magically less mature. Kids (like my May birthday kid) who have IEPs for documented, diagnosed delays are not somehow better suited for kindergarten, but the school will almost NEVER recommend redshirting. If a normal, average 5 year old cannot keep up with the demands of what is being asked in kindergarten, the problem is with the curriculum, not the 5 year old being 5.

sophie206 · February 2014

I don't have much of an opinion on this yet, but when I was growing up, many parents tested their children who missed the cutoff by a month or two (September and October birthdays here) so they could attend before 5. Quite a few of my friends were younger than me though I have a late July birthday. I only knew a few kids that were older for our grade, and they were not native English speakers who were held back. I guess times have changed!

lexusolsen · February 2014

wellfleet04 said:

trizzie said:

juliane2004 said:

There are 7 year olds in kindergarten? :-O

Yep. There is a kid on my son's basketball team - in Kinder and turning 7 in April. My son is tall for his age and this kid towers over him.
ETA: And our cut off is 9/1.

Yup. When you redshirt a May or earlier birthday kid, they turn 7 in kindergarten. And they start kindergarten at nearly 6.5 alongside kids who just turned 5.

I will never be convinced by the "not ready for kindergarten" maturity argument. It's a luxury choice that only parents who can afford a third year of private preschool or whose kids don't have an IEP can make. Wealthy kids are not somehow magically less mature. Kids (like my May birthday kid) who have IEPs for documented, diagnosed delays are not somehow better suited for kindergarten, but the school will almost NEVER recommend redshirting. If a normal, average 5 year old cannot keep up with the demands of what is being asked in kindergarten, the problem is with the curriculum, not the 5 year old being 5.

I don't think this is a problem, I think the problem is a four year old in school because his/her parents don't want to pay for or can't afford another year of preschool or daycare. I don't care how smart your kid is, a four year kid does not belong in kindergarten. Just like your 13 year old doesn't belong in high school and your 17 year old doesn't belong in college.

lexusolsen · February 2014

LalaMama81 said:
Are there even that many districts where 4 year olds are in kinder? I really think they are few and far between now. Like pp said, if also used to be more common to have your kid start early of they passed whatever assessment. That is strictly forbidden in most places now.

Well in ca the rule just changed so until next year's kindergarten students are in high school, we will still be feeling the effects.

alli2672 · February 2014

Hav=Fath said:

I never realized that some people red shirted so they didn't have a child graduating high school when they were 17, I thought it was only to prevent their young 5 year old not in K.

aren't those the same thing?

juliane2004 · February 2014

LalaMama81 said:
Are there even that many districts where 4 year olds are in kinder? I really think they are few and far between now. Like pp said, if also used to be more common to have your kid start early of they passed whatever assessment. That is strictly forbidden in most places now.

We are in Canada, our cutoff is March 1. I will have 3/4 kids starting at 4 years old. I was 17 when I graduated high school, so it seems like nbd to me.

Eta: and the 4th kid will be 5 for only about a week before kindergarten starts.

Want a personalized experience?

Can we discuss Red Shirting?

Re: Can we discuss Red Shirting?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards