Anonymous wrote:@21:49

Clearly there are enough that people are citing their firsthand experience with it, and unless there are a lot of people in the same school or grade, it seems to be pretty pervasive.

Actually I don't see complaints about pre-April birthdays. Lots of arm-waving and hand-wringing and conlcusory statements. But as for actual firsthand accounts, how many complaints are there about kindergarteners turning 7 before April of their K year? I don't see "lots" and I don't see it as "pretty pervasive." But I may have missed a few legitimate posts in the 32 pages here.

Anonymous wrote:@21:49

Clearly there are enough that people are citing their firsthand experience with it, and unless there are a lot of people in the same school or grade, it seems to be pretty pervasive.

Absolutely. I can tell you about my child's firsthand experience as being 18 months younger than some classmates. It's very difficult. My child is in the 80th percentile for height, but most of the girls are a head taller than her. They like different music, different television shows, etc. She seems to reach their interests about six months after they do. She's less aggressive, more timid, and suddenly a bit reserved around the oldest girls.

Not one of these redshirted girls is doing well academically. One of them had to sit out half of the soccer games because she couldn't control herself and kept pushing members of her own team.

As for the redshirted boys, it seems more pronounced in the worst cases. Some of these boys will not be able to stay at the school forever, and people talk behind their parents' backs about them. No amoutnt of OT seems to help them. However, I will say that a few of the other boys are simply very very sweet and shy. They seem to be doing better as reshirts.

In short, my theory is that it upsets the natural dynamic of a class because it is overused. It's scary and intimidated to the younger kids. And one year doesn't seem to be enough to help the kids who can't control themselves and sit still. The kids who are behind academically seem to still be in the lower half of the class. It's a mess.

@21:49

Clearly there are enough that people are citing their firsthand experience with it, and unless there are a lot of people in the same school or grade, it seems to be pretty pervasive.

Schools encourage redshirting of normally developing kids. Also, size is no reason to redshirt. Please find a srudy that says my kid will be taller if I redshirt. If so I will redshirt for 2 years so that my kid will be significantly taller than his peers when he is an adult.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can only speak from my experiences and I see kids redshirted because Mom and Dad feel better when their kid is most advanced---physically, socially or academically.

I find the "you worry about your child and I'll worry about mine" argument hollow because when you put a kid 18 months older than mine, it effects my kid.

I agree with this. My son's birthday is in April. He is starting K in the fall. He went camp at the school in June, and two boys in his camp group will be in his K class. They were already 6 -- in June. I don't know when their birthdays are, so perhaps they turned 6 right before camp. But I am already worried. This is not what I signed up for.

O.M.G. It won't end. But really how many "normally developing" children can possibly be 18 months older than your child (assuming you know all about the redshirted kid's development)? If your kid is turning 5 and starting school in September ("on time"), you're complaining about March birthday kids being held back (so that they'll turn 7 in K)? Really, how many kids "normally developing" are turning 7 by March of their K year? I don't know of one and find it hard to believe that it's "several." Give it a rest.
And, btw, the grammar police need to issue tickets regarding the use of affect/effect that's running wild on this thread.

Anonymous wrote:I can only speak from my experiences and I see kids redshirted because Mom and Dad feel better when their kid is most advanced---physically, socially or academically.

I find the "you worry about your child and I'll worry about mine" argument hollow because when you put a kid 18 months older than mine, it effects my kid.

I agree with this. My son's birthday is in April. He is starting K in the fall. He went camp at the school in June, and two boys in his camp group will be in his K class. They were already 6 -- in June. I don't know when their birthdays are, so perhaps they turned 6 right before camp. But I am already worried. This is not what I signed up for.

Yes, that most local privates don't test in the early grades. And once they do test, they typically don't publicize their results.

The name of this thread suggests it originates with a parent who is concerned about potential detrimental effects on the others in the class, not the one pushed to wait.

The selective private schools do get the benefit of the better early years test performance as it is measured by grade, not by age.

And they can take siblings, others they "owe" without damaging the scores in the short term.

Or am I missing something?

Most of these studies aren't looking at the same scenario parents on this board are facing.

It's one thing for a public school to tell the parents of a 5 year old he's not ready for K and they should wait a year rather than enroll him now. If the kid is academically already behind (doesn't know letters of the alphabet, how to rhyme, whatever) and if he spends the next year where he spent the last year (e.g. home, at a babysitter's) odds are he's not going to be significantly more ready. Under those circumstances, "red-shirting" doesn't help. Spending longer in a non-educational environment is counterproductive if the goal is to get the child ready for school.

Typical scenario here is more like parents apply for K at a selective private school. Private schools says, yeah, we'll admit him but we think PreK is a better match (or you should wait a year and reapply for K; we think his current preschool is a better placement for next year). Under those circumstances, red-shirting may well help. As someone pointed out already, the choice DCUM parents are facing is typically a "which educational environment/placement makes more sense for this kid next year?" -- not school vs. no school.

More research...

www.hoagiesgifted.org/kindergarten.htm

Conversely, men palying on boy's teams are simply men playing on boy's teams -- not athletes.

Just like our educational classrooms.

Redshirting will not make a better athlete. Ask Kobe Bryant and Lebron James who have played with men since the age of 11 and 12.

At this point, aren't lots of highly competitive athletics for kids structured around ages rather than grades? And in HS, don't kids in different grades routinely end up on the same team and/or competing against each other?

I think I agree with PP. Let me repeat/rephrase slightly ...

Redshirting a child who is not ready to advance (for reasons physical, emotional, social, etc) can have good benefits for that child, and allow him to participate more fully in school. Redshirting a child who is ready to advance, in hopes of gaining some academic advantage, is a futile pursuit with little benefit to the child.

The one open question some people raise is redshirting a child to obtain athletic benefits. I have not read any research, but it seems irrefutable that some advantage could be gained there. However, that advantage might be pretty minimal in most cases. If a Jan-March child is redshirted so that he's 12 months older than the average classmate, and only 6 months older than the oldest classmates, how much athletic advantage does that 6 month gap really confer? I suspect not much. Also, contrary to what some people here hysterically claim, I suspect redshirting for purely athletic reasons is pretty rare at the schools people routinely discuss in this forum.

While I agree that any "edge" red-shirting appears to give one kid over another is short-lived, I think that, in some cases, red-shirting can make a profound and lasting difference in how the kid who is red-shirted experiences school.

Basically, there's a wide range of normal when it comes to early childhood development (especially prior to age 8-10) and development can be uneven across different domains (intellectual, physical, social, emotional). Putting a kid in a situation that he can't handle (yet) doesn't benefit anyone.

Nor does letting that kid wait a year send him to the head of the class academically. A single extra year's worth of life experience isn't going to transform a kid who is immature in his own cohort into a genius in a slightly younger cohort.