Anonymous wrote:Humblebrag. I'm glad for you that your younger child is excelling socially and academically.

Thank you. Anything to add that might actually help me understand why my relatives think this is so important simply because of when his birthday is?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rather be always small in the class than towering over everyone, seriously.

Really? Nice try. But OP, if your son is small, he'll still be small a year later. If he's a taller kid, he'll be a tall kid.

Physical readiness is not a reason to redshirt.

He's not the smallest, but he's on the smaller side. He has very tall parents so I don't expect him to be small forever, though who knows, he may not have a major growth spurt until puberty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rather be always small in the class than towering over everyone, seriously.

Seriously, quit kidding around. It's awful to be the smallest male in the class.

I know right? So says the mom of the smallest boy in the class. Get real.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rather be always small in the class than towering over everyone, seriously.

Really? Nice try. But OP, if your son is small, he'll still be small a year later. If he's a taller kid, he'll be a tall kid.

Physical readiness is not a reason to redshirt.

Or I should have said, physical size alone is not a reason to redshirt.

Anonymous wrote:Rather be always small in the class than towering over everyone, seriously.

Really? Nice try. But OP, if your son is small, he'll still be small a year later. If he's a taller kid, he'll be a tall kid.

Physical readiness is not a reason to redshirt.

Anonymous wrote:Rather be always small in the class than towering over everyone, seriously.

Seriously, quit kidding around. It's awful to be the smallest male in the class.

Humblebrag. I'm glad for you that your younger child is excelling socially and academically.

No sense holding him back! I skipped a grade in elementary school, so I was always the youngest in my class but I seriously doubt anyone would have ever known. It wasn't a disadvantage at all. If for some reason he struggled in kindergarten (which it doesn't sound like he will), you could always hold him back the following year.

Rather be always small in the class than towering over everyone, seriously.

OP here. Thanks - I just felt a little cornered at a recent family gathering when I was being told that this was the only way to go and I just can't understand it.

The one relative in particular who was most pushy held back her son even though he was very strong academically and still claimed that it was the best thing she'd ever done and why he got full marks in his SATs.

I wondered how he wasn't bored, in that case. Isn't it better to be challenged than to be bored?

She also insisted that socially in high school kids can be very mean etc etc. Of course, I have no idea how my sweet, charming 4 year old will do in a high school environment! Right now, I already feel that he has better social skills and problem solving skills than I do!!!

forget it, op. red shirting is just the fashion nowadays, and actually not many are doing it (mostly just talk). your son will be fine.

I held DD back - but there were specific developmental issues. I wouldn't hold back a child who was on target. Your son sounds like he will do just fine.

*he will *always* be small. (not "also")

If he's able to keep up with or outperform the other kids, there's no reason to red-shirt. The only kids I know who are red-shirted are the ones who are a little less immature, or who still need to work on social skills, or who are still super-wiggly and would have a hard time in a structured classroom. Most of my friends' sons are not red-shirted, just a few.

I think "smallest in the class" is kind of a silly reason, because if he's small, there's a pretty good chance he will also be small, and a year probably won't make much difference.

Some of my relatives are pressuring me to hold my 4 year old back before he starts kindergarten. I did not grow up in the US and would never, ever have considered it. To be honest, I'm still not considering it but I wondered if anyone else would help explain why they are so insistent this is the right thing to do. (They did this in their immediate family and insist it was the best decision they ever made).

My son's birthday is mid-September, so he is the youngest in his class. And yet, academically, he's far advanced of any of the other kids in his class (he's in PK4 in a DC charter). The teacher is already having to work with him on his own because, for example, he's the only kid who is reading so far and "small group" wouldn't work for him when the other kids are still learning their letters or just beginning to sound out words (he's reading at about 1st or 2nd grade level). It's the same with math. He's also doing well socially -- he is extremely attentive, has good comprehension and knows "how to behave" at school. He also seems to get on very well with the other kids. All in all, he's settled well and it is not noticeable that he is younger than everyone else, and almost a year younger than some. He is not tall, but he's not the shortest either.

I know there's the sports issue and he may not be as physically advanced as some of the other kids (not noticeably so though) but I've never really placed a lot of value on competitive sports anyway. Why else would we hold him back? Given that he is already ahead of his class, surely it would just exacerbate that if he were held back a year and put in with all the three year olds? After all, someone has to be the youngest.