I'm personally glad I sent my late-July boy on time. He's in K now. He's the youngest in the class because there just happens to be no August kids. He's doing great and loves kindergarten. Academics-wise, he's in the middle in reading and at the top at math. Recently he was upset because another kid in class told him she was reading at level 14, and he was only at level 8 (the numbers are printed on the backs of the books they bring home each weekend for practice). This other child has an early September birthday, and I was able to tell him that he's doing just fine, making progress just as he should, and that his classmate is a full 10 months older than him and has likely been reading for a longer than him. I feel like it's not a bad position for a little kid to be in--to be striving to perform as well as slightly older peers.

And socially it's way better to be among slightly older kids--at least for my son. He's gotten much more mature, better at self-regulation, and we haven't had any of the reports of rambunctious behavior/not listening to adults that he had in pre-K. If he'd done pre-K again, I imagine there might have been more of that, not less, as he would have been the oldest, a "ringleader" and also perhaps a bit bored.

Anonymous wrote:

The difference is that your child was kept back for an entire year at home when he could be learning at school. One year of not learning is a big loss. Few months of being younger than some kids in the classroom is not a big loss.

A kid who starts kindergarten a year later will still have the same 13 years of K-12 schooling. Just as a kid who was "given the gift of time" via delayed entry will turn 18 eighteen years after they were born, just the same as a kid who went on time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I also know of a boy who is about to go to HS who did the early admissions in Kindergarten. He is also doing well as far as academics is concerned and well adjusted socially, emotionally and physically. For him (and my daughter) it is a source of great pride that they are able to achieve more at a younger age. I do not understand the fears of people who want to redshirt their child. The difference between most students in age is only a few months in a classroom. However, redshirted students are not with their own age peers. I think there would be more pressure to perform better if you were the oldest child? I know that the cutoff is September 1st. But in reality at school age there is no major difference between a child who is born on August 30th, September 5th or September 15th.

If your birthday is in late August, and you start kindergarten a year late, you are with your own age peers -- just as you would be if you started on time. As you say, there is no major difference between a child who is born on August 30th, September 5th or September 15th.

The difference is that your child was kept back for an entire year at home when he could be learning at school. One year of not learning is a big loss. Few months of being younger than some kids in the classroom is not a big loss.

NP - not necessarily. Kid could be in PK learning in a smaller, more nurturing, play-based environment.