We sent our fall kid to K when they were turning 5. I don't see any disadvantage. I cannot imagine my child being a year younger and as it is they are academically ahead of grade level and doing well both academically and socially. I see zero reasons to hold back a child. If it meets your needs to hold back your child, go for it. It doesn't make them smarter, just older.

Anonymous wrote:
Because parents of smart kids don’t do it.

+1. My son is a Feb birthday nd going to K this fall but if the cutoff was hypothetically Feb 28, I would send him without a second thought. He's already reading and mature for age. He wouldn't need another year of preschool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because caring for children is a nightmare and expensive. Parents send their kids as soon as they can.

Then why did even have children in the first place? Were they forced at gun-point?

Daycare is very expensive. It's typically $20k for an extra year of daycare. Parents weigh the other uses of that money. Forget the nightmare part of PPs post. It's not a nightmare. It's the expense. That’s also why people get so worked up about redshirting being "cheating". They feel bad about not wanting to spend the money.

But I'm asking about affluent parents; parents for whom k20 is pennies. Clearly, they have the means to redshirt, yet the vast majority don't.

If they are academically and socially ready to start kindergarten, it just doesn’t make sense to keep them in preschool another year. Kindergarten really isn’t that difficult, at least at most public schools. I know some say that the maturity differences are more clear in middle school, but I am not keeping a child back for a year because of what “might” happen in middle or high school.

I have September babies and the cut off here is September 30. Didn’t redshirt any of them and it’s really not an issue. I wanted them to start kindergarten with their friends from pre-K and there was no good reason to delay the start. They’re doing great. No regrets.

Anonymous wrote:Look up greenshirting if you have a gifted child.

A greenshirted gifted child is going to have a hard to time getting recognized for their intelligence. If they're developmentally a year ahead but are learning alongside kids a year older them, they're not going to do any better than them, which will create the illusion that they have average intelligence.

OP, what you describe is not redshirting.

It only makes sense if you’re into sports. If your child is at all smart, it’s a terrible idea. Look up greenshirting if you have a gifted child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because caring for children is a nightmare and expensive. Parents send their kids as soon as they can.

Then why did even have children in the first place? Were they forced at gun-point?

Daycare is very expensive. It's typically $20k for an extra year of daycare. Parents weigh the other uses of that money. Forget the nightmare part of PPs post. It's not a nightmare. It's the expense. That’s also why people get so worked up about redshirting being "cheating". They feel bad about not wanting to spend the money.

Yes, it is expensive, unfortunately I have to pay to play. I have a September 25th DS. I have no choice, he is my youngest and I know what it takes to do well in kindergarten and beyond. I feel like it would probably be more expensive if we do send him on time, if we have to pay for private tutors and maybe other help since he will not have the executive functioning to do well and will be behind for a couple of years, maybe more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because caring for children is a nightmare and expensive. Parents send their kids as soon as they can.

Then why did even have children in the first place? Were they forced at gun-point?

Daycare is very expensive. It's typically $20k for an extra year of daycare. Parents weigh the other uses of that money. Forget the nightmare part of PPs post. It's not a nightmare. It's the expense. That’s also why people get so worked up about redshirting being "cheating". They feel bad about not wanting to spend the money.

But I'm asking about affluent parents; parents for whom k20 is pennies. Clearly, they have the means to redshirt, yet the vast majority don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people say that it gives the child one less year to work and earn money - it leaves them at a disadvantage.

But someone who does better in school will go to a more prestigious university and get a higher-paying job. In the long-run, someone who starts a prestigious career at 22 is going to be much better off financially than someone who starts a mediocre career at 21.

.

Do they really do better in school? They probably do better in elementary school.

Doing better in elementary makes it a lot easier to do better in middle school and high school. Why would any parent lift a finger to help their child in elementary if it weren't going to make a difference in the long-run? Elementary schoolers who get into gifted programs are going to have a much easier time acquiring the skills they need to excel in secondary school. Another thing to remember is that colleges don't just look at grades; they look at the difficulty of classes. Elementary performance usually determines what math-track a child will be on all the way through high school, as well as honors placement. Being successful early makes a lot easier to be successful later.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because caring for children is a nightmare and expensive. Parents send their kids as soon as they can.

Then why did even have children in the first place? Were they forced at gun-point?

Daycare is very expensive. It's typically $20k for an extra year of daycare. Parents weigh the other uses of that money. Forget the nightmare part of PPs post. It's not a nightmare. It's the expense. That’s also why people get so worked up about redshirting being "cheating". They feel bad about not wanting to spend the money.

Anonymous wrote:OP, are you in NY? It’s about the only place left in the US where a Nov. birthday has the option of going to K at 5.

Can you link the studies on redshirting? The ones I have read are much less clear on their being an advantage, but it’s been a few years since I looked.

Yea, we used to live in NY and one of my friends had a kid with a December birthday. She held him back so he started K at 5 instead of 4. I think letting a child start Kindergarten at 4 is kinda nuts, with the current expectations on kids in elementary school. NY is out of step on that one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people say that it gives the child one less year to work and earn money - it leaves them at a disadvantage.

But someone who does better in school will go to a more prestigious university and get a higher-paying job. In the long-run, someone who starts a prestigious career at 22 is going to be much better off financially than someone who starts a mediocre career at 21.

.

Do they really do better in school? They probably do better in elementary school.

Anonymous wrote:Because caring for children is a nightmare and expensive. Parents send their kids as soon as they can.

Then why did even have children in the first place? Were they forced at gun-point?

Everyone's kids are gifted and reading Harry Potter by age 5, why would they delay a year?