On whether to redshirt...

[Anonymous]

p.s. I was a K teacher (and first grade) who taught kids who did and did not redshirt. If in doubt, give them another year. I would do that in a heartbeat if I were in doubt about my kid. It's not a race--it is a matter of where your child best fits in. And, no, I wouldn't do it with a kid who is just "slow". The optimum kid to redshirt is a child who is just more of a baby. One who prefers "younger" things--who tends to enjoy younger children more. Maybe he still needs a nap. It is not the "slow" kid--and he won't be bored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You don't say what grade(s) you teach. Yes, some kids are immature, but one year won't magically change that, they'll just be a different age and immature.

No. A year makes a big difference. Think about it. A September kid who waits a year is just a month older than an October kid starting on time.

I have no objection to a Sept kid starting if the parents think he is ready, but please don't let these anti-redshirt people convince you otherwise. If you suspect your child would benefit from another year, you are probably right.

I am the PP you quoted. I thought the PP I was responding to was referring to high school students. Yes, a year make a big difference at 5. Once a student is in high school, though, being the same age or one year older or younger isn't so huge. Immaturity is less related to birth month, at that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone on here says, "you know your kid!" or "if he's ready, send him!"

DS (september birthday) is totally ready for Kindergarten, no question in my mind. But, "in real life" the advice I get is, he may be fine in kindergarten but the real issues pop up later when everyone else is
- bigger
- going through puberty
- driving
- etc.

I hear smaller and younger kids have trouble socially, etc.

Just a vent I guess... I just don't think it's as cut and dry as saying, "if he's ready now, send him". And yes, I know my kid at age 4, but not what he'll be like at 11...

OP, Will he be 5 by the September 1 cut off? Doesn't sound like it. Not sending him to K this year isn't "redshirting." You're sending him on time. I'm not sure I understand why you have dilemma.

This is OP. We are in VA so his birthday is two weeks before the 9/30 cutoff. Which always brings up another point... it's so random and if we were in MD (or much of the rest of the country) he would have missed the cutoff...

Yes, but if you were in some other parts of the country, he would make the cut-off by a few months & likely be nowhere close to being the youngest in his class.I wouldn't necessarily go by what would happen if you lived someplace else as that could really go either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There's mixed evidence about redshirting's short term value but studies that have examined the effect of redshirting by the time kids have become teenagers show that it is, on average, counterproductive. Kids have greater social problems and are more likely to get into trouble, possibly from boredom.

You start off by saying there is "mixed evidence" and then you deny it.

As a teacher, I can tell you that there is such a thing as "immaturity"........and the kids who have it benefit greatly from another year. I have seen this too many times. Among friends kids, as well. One of my friends who chose not to redshirt and sent a very young girl, later said "Why didn't somebody tell me about high school when I made that decision" The child was great academically--until high school when the social immaturity outweighed the other.

FWIW, I think I speak objectively as I did not redshirt my two. One was Winter and one was Early Spring.

Once more, it depends on the kid. But, no, they do not have greater social problems.

No, I didn't say there is mixed evidence and then deny it. I said the evidence is mixed for short term benefit and tends to suggest that it is negative over the long term.

Not really. And I have read and kept up with this field for years.

I love that y'all are saying that a claim that some evidence is mixed and other evidence tends to support a view are categorical and extreme statements.

Nobody said anything about extreme. But what PP wrote about the supposed negative trend of the evidence is inaccurate, and the even more broad statement in the original post about it being counterproductive is even more so. It's significantly overstating the research.

You should be able to make your points without exaggerating the research.

OK, before I respond to whether I exaggerated the research, let's start with why I made the point I did: OP seemed concerned that even though she doesn't think her child needed to be redshirted now, redshirting might benefit her child farther down the line, and she did not want her child to miss out on that benefit. The reason I brought up empirical evidence was not to have a flame war about the value of redshirting, but in an attempt to reassure OP that there isn't any substantial body of evidence suggesting there is a down-the-line benefit for her child to miss out on. Do you disagree with any aspect of that claim? Do you think that there is any meaningful empirical research suggesting that a kid who would not benefit from redshirting in the short term might benefit from it significantly more when he or she gets older? If so, could you please point me to that research, because I have never seen it.

Regarding whether I exaggerated the research, I made two claims:

First, that the evidence of redshirting having a short term benefit is mixed. I assume (hope?) you don't have that much bone to pick with that tepid and general of a claim, so let me just cite to a secondary source on the point:

"Research on the effects of redshirting on children has shown mixed results. It is difficult to establish a direct link between being redshirted and doing well or poorly in kindergarten and beyond. Some older studies related to redshirting suggested that redshirted children were likely to achieve at a comparable rate to age peers who entered on time. According to some of the older studies, social outcomes for oldest and youngest children in a class were similar; however, other research suggested that older children showed more behavior problems (Graue & DiPerna, 2000, pp. 512-513). One Wisconsin study in 2000 examined 8,000 students’ school records to discern patterns related to school entry age, promotion/retention, receipt of special services, and achievement in school. The authors reported that redshirted children in the younger half of their age cohort (that is, those with spring or summer birthdays) were more likely to receive special education services than peers who were typically promoted (Graue & DiPerna, 2000, p. 527). Another study of 116 kindergartners and first-graders in California found few entrance-age-related differences in self-reports of school adjustment, loneliness, perceptions of competence, or maternal and peer acceptance (Spitzer, Cupp, & Parke, 1995, p. 433)."

http://illinoisearlylearning.org/faqs/redshirting.htm

I should point out that this was an intentionally neutral statement on my part, since I wasn't intending to criticize redshirting, but it seems like some people are annoyed even by the suggestion that the evidence of its effectiveness is mixed, which seems plainly true. I think a slightly stronger claim would be to point out that The National Association of Early Childhood Specialists and the National Association for the Education of Young Children both strongly oppose the practice, and do not believe that it is pedagogically appropriate.

Second, I claimed that, to the extent the question of redshirting’s effect on older kids has been studied, those studies have tended to “show that it is, on average, counterproductive.” You’re right that my language was inartful in one respect: What I meant was that the average study addressing this question shows that redshirting does not produce positive outcomes, and may be associated with negative outcomes. In retrospect, that language could also be read to say that the evidence establishes that the median redshirted student experiences a bad outcome from redshirting. I didn’t mean to suggest that latter claim, which I think is one that’s not particularly amendable to empirical research.

I am, however, comfortable standing by the claim I intended, which is that the majority of studies addressing this question has not shown benefits from redshirting, and have in fact suggested redshirting may produce negative outcomes. For example, the 2006 UT Austin study had a relatively limited stated finding in the abstract (“delaying kindergarten does not create any long-term advantages for students.”), but its findings in the text included that redshirted students performed worse on 10th grade tests, redshirted students had a higher drop-out rate, and that they were less likely to graduate from college. The 2009 Journal of Educational Psychology Study found that when controlling for demographic effects, linear age within grade does not have a significant effect on performance, but that older-for-cohort students experienced some academic disadvantage in motivation, engagement, and performance. The American Educational Research Journal reported in 2000 that boys who were delayed entry because their birthday fell shortly before the academic cutoff were more likely to receive special education services later in their academic careers. Deming (2008) found that entering school later is associated with decreased educational attainment and reduced lifetime earnings, primarily because of increased dropout rates. Black (2008) finds a small positive effect on IQ from starting school earlier (though the primary conclusion of the study is that the differences in outcomes are too small to support either holding children out of school or timing births to influence starting age). The only studies I’ve seen suggesting any potential long term positives from redshirting are the UT Austin study, which suggests redshirting is associated with a slight increase in the odds a kid makes a varsity sports team, and Black, which find that later starting school age may be associated with slightly decreased odds of becoming pregnant while still a teenager (presumably because you stop being a teenager sooner after graduation than non-redshirted kids). I think the most cautious possible reading of this literature is that there’s scant to no evidence suggesting that redshirting produces a long-term benefit, which I think was the main thing OP needed to know if she didn’t want to second guess her choice not to redshirt. But I think its reasonable to make the stronger claim that what evidence does exist tends to suggest the long term effect is more likely negative than positive.

[Anonymous]

Yes, but if you were in some other parts of the country, he would make the cut-off by a few months & likely be nowhere close to being the youngest in his class.I wouldn't necessarily go by what would happen if you lived someplace else as that could really go either way.

WRONG! Look it up. Sept or Oct is cutoff in a large majority of states.

[Anonymous]

I think OP should do what she feels is right. If her child fits in now, he will likely be fine in high school. However, I do know people who regretted sending their kids early because of high school. You cannot generalize the issue. Of course, some do just fine. I do know that I would think long and hard about it if I were in doubt. I do have a friend whose child would have been much better off had she waited a year (as the preschool teacher--and the K teacher recommended. ) She insisted on sending him because he was very bright. High school did not work out particularly well. He is very bright, but very immature--good kid,not a trouble maker, just immature. Do we know for sure? No. No one can ever know what "would have happened."

DH was young--and smart. He thinks his first year of college would not have been near the struggle had he been a year older. And,no, it was not an academic struggle. He just thinks being 18 vs 17 when he started would have been better.

[Anonymous]

PP, genuinely, thank you! I am the one who criticized your wording and you are literally the first anti-redshirt person who I've ever seen on DCUM who seems to have actually looked at the academic literature out there. I'm happy to actually discuss the research; it's the broad generalized statements without citations that drive me up a wall. You are correct that the statement you made that I found the most overstated was the following (not the part about the mixed short-term results, which I agree with, but the second part):

There's mixed evidence about redshirting's short term value but studies that have examined the effect of redshirting by the time kids have become teenagers show that it is, on average, counterproductive. Kids have greater social problems and are more likely to get into trouble, possibly from boredom.

I still find that quite exaggerated wording (perhaps you can see why I consider it to be overstating what's out there?), but I appreciate better the point you were trying to make now.

I am out now, so can't respond substantively as I don't have my files with me (but I will). However, a couple of statements before I can get back with my own files and more substantive answer: in my opinion the only general body of research concerning relative birth age and outcome that I consider to be have been widely substantiated are the large cohort studies that link ADHD diagnosis rates and relative classroom age. Those studies featured large population groups, have been repeated across multiple populations, including non-redshirted populations, and are longitudinal in nature. The rest of it, at least the research that I know about (and there's always more out there), is too sparse to be considered (in my opinion) a "trend" one way or the other. I know some of the research you cited (though I don't think highly of some of it, to be honest), but it's not nearly as comprehensive or thorough as the ADHD/relative age research. Therefore, I tend to weigh that research more heavily. I don't think that the ADHD/relative age studies are studies in favor of redshirting, but I do think that for students who may fit the profile of ADHD, relative age is a risk factor that should be considered.

I'm always happy to learn about studies I haven't encountered before, or to take a new look at research I might have read before and perhaps discounted. If there's truly substantial evidence indicating a negative trend, I'm happy to change my mind. I've done it before on other issues.

More later! Looking forward to a good discussion!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
DH was young--and smart. He thinks his first year of college would not have been near the struggle had he been a year older. And,no, it was not an academic struggle. He just thinks being 18 vs 17 when he started would have been better.

I started college young and had no issues because of it. I think it was beneficial that I was in law school before I could drink legally.

But I just want to weigh in and say there is no reason to redshirt your 4/5 year old because you think they might end up too young or unready for college right after high school. There are gap years. There are post graduate years. There are options and you can decide on them then, when you have more information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, but if you were in some other parts of the country, he would make the cut-off by a few months & likely be nowhere close to being the youngest in his class.I wouldn't necessarily go by what would happen if you lived someplace else as that could really go either way.

WRONG! Look it up. Sept or Oct is cutoff in a large majority of states.

I love (in the worst, snarkiest way) that the detailed summary of research literature is followed by someone with very little reading comprehension. I think this may be a perfect encapsulation of DCUM threads seeking advice.

[Anonymous]

http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/mbquestRT?rep=Kq1402

More than half of the states have an entrance date of Sept 1 or earlier.--29 to be exact. (Hawaii is July 31!)
An additional 7 (including DC) are before Sept 30.

Two states are after Oct 1.

7 leave it up to local districts. If I had time, I would look those up, too. I would think that most of them are in the same range as the majority.

So, to PP who said that in "other parts of the country"--it is certainly not widespread. In fact, it is rare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even today, at college, he is younger than most of his peers.

First of all, I don't see why being younger in college would mean anything. Once you're an adult, you're an adult. Is there really that big of a difference between a 19-year-old and a 21-year-old? Secondly, if you wished you had redshirted him since he was in 2nd grade, why didn't you just have him take a gap year after high school? No one says you have to go to college straight of high school.

[Anonymous]

OP, I think you need to get some info on what the demographics of the school are. We did not redshirt my August birthday son. He is mostly friends with boys and girls with June, July, August birthdays who were not held back. There are some boys in his class who are more than a full year older than him because they were held back. Those are nice boys, but not really a great social fit with DS. Academically he would have been fine either way.

[Anonymous]

Is there really that big of a difference between a 19-year-old and a 21-year-old?

Absolutely, YES! signed, parent of two grown kids.