Anonymous wrote:

Detrimental in some ways?
- a lot of prestigious opportunities and internships in HS have a strict age-limit and he is always younger by a couple months.

Not really impactful for a kid who is a focussed student and not a wild party animal. YMMV. -
- his driver's license came a few months later than most of his peers
- he will probably be a few months younger than his peers before he can have his first legal beer.

Well, if he drops out of college due to anxiety like I did, comes back later, and finishes later, he won't have to experience that "detriment", now will he? Is that you he would rather have happen to him? I know that I would've much rather been the last of my classmates to turn 21 if it meant I could've had a straight clean path, as opposed to the crooked messy path I had; a path that being the first of my classmates to turn 21 wasn't worth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is all this evidence? Everything I have seen says that it’s only good for sports. Every kid has that moment where they start to struggle to do well in school when you actually have to study to get good grades. In the long term red shirting doesn’t help.

So why are so many people on here so hot and bothered about other people redshirting and disadvantaging their kids? Something doesn’t add up.

I'm fine with it when tests like the CogAT use the kid's actual age to assess their score relative to their peers.

My kid had an August birthday. Socially it could've benefited them for a year maybe two, but academically they were ready to begin school. I felt being bored for the next decade was worse than the alternative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who don’t know, redshirting is the practice of delaying a fall-born child’s Kindergarten entrance until they’re almost 6 instead of almost 5. This is something I’m thinking about doing with my son, who will be 4 in November and will be eligible for Kindergarten in the fall of 2022. There are many studies that show that kids who are redshirted do better in school as well as later in life, and honestly, you don’t have to be a scientist to see why this makes sense. Kids who start older are going to be more mature and ready to handle the challenges of school. This means they’ll get better grades, get into better colleges, and get better jobs.

You’d think that based on this information, any parent with a fall-born child who could afford an extra year of daycare would redshirt without hesitation. But this is not the case. When I think of all people I know who have fall birthdays and are from affluent families, the vast majority started Kindergarten at 4. As tempted as I am to redshirt my son, I can’t help but feel that there must be a reason why so few parents do it.

If you have a fall-born child who you could afford to redshirt but didn’t, why not? And if you could do it over again, would you redshirt?

How much research have you done on this OP? This study is by two pretty prominent academics and it doesn't make redshirting seem like a slam dunk

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://users.nber.org/~dynarski/Deming_Dynarski_Childhood.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjIt8vouoHxAhVGXM0KHa0nARsQFjAJegQIExAC&usg=AOvVaw2EigEp_u9yAPRXPlGnfLY0

All this research says is that there may not be lasting effects of later school start. The claims about lower lifetime earnings have to hold a constant retirement age, but nobody is forced out of the workforce at 65, you can work another year or longer, if you want.

Older kids (18-19) are more likely to not complete high school, but this is for lower income students. Redshirters are predominantly higher income and less likely to drop out.

The conclusion focuses just on the equity aspect of redshirting. It does point out that the reason kindergarteners may be getting older is because of testing:
"At least some of the recent changes in legal age at school entry seem to have been driven by concerns about performance on standardized tests. The sponsor of a North Carolina bill to increase the school entry age noted (as quoted in Weil, 2007): “Our kids are younger when they’re taking the SAT, and they’re applying to the same colleges as the kids from Florida and Georgia.” When California raised its entry age, the legislation cited the fact that the state’s children were younger than those in other states in the same grade (cited in Stipek, 2002) and so were at a disadvantage in testing. Thus, states may be engaging in a “kindergarten arms race...”

So schools have an incentive to keep it going, despite equity concerns. Schools are more worried about their accountability.

Oddly I saw nothing in here about the lower self esteem redshirted children might have because their parents thought they were too dumb to keep up which is often cited as a concern.

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who don’t know, redshirting is the practice of delaying a fall-born child’s Kindergarten entrance until they’re almost 6 instead of almost 5. This is something I’m thinking about doing with my son, who will be 4 in November and will be eligible for Kindergarten in the fall of 2022. There are many studies that show that kids who are redshirted do better in school as well as later in life, and honestly, you don’t have to be a scientist to see why this makes sense. Kids who start older are going to be more mature and ready to handle the challenges of school. This means they’ll get better grades, get into better colleges, and get better jobs.

You’d think that based on this information, any parent with a fall-born child who could afford an extra year of daycare would redshirt without hesitation. But this is not the case. When I think of all people I know who have fall birthdays and are from affluent families, the vast majority started Kindergarten at 4. As tempted as I am to redshirt my son, I can’t help but feel that there must be a reason why so few parents do it.

If you have a fall-born child who you could afford to redshirt but didn’t, why not? And if you could do it over again, would you redshirt?

How much research have you done on this OP? This study is by two pretty prominent academics and it doesn't make redshirting seem like a slam dunk

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://users.nber.org/~dynarski/Deming_Dynarski_Childhood.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjIt8vouoHxAhVGXM0KHa0nARsQFjAJegQIExAC&usg=AOvVaw2EigEp_u9yAPRXPlGnfLY0

27% of the kids in my town are red shirted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is all this evidence? Everything I have seen says that it’s only good for sports. Every kid has that moment where they start to struggle to do well in school when you actually have to study to get good grades. In the long term red shirting doesn’t help.

So why are so many people on here so hot and bothered about other people redshirting and disadvantaging their kids? Something doesn’t add up.

I don’t think anybody feels their kids are disadvantaged by others redshirting. I just think it’s a mistake for bright kids especially, but if your child has special needs then it makes sense. I think somehow parents were under the impression that the maturity aspect of it benefits their sons (which it does, temporarily), but it‘s like flunking a grade, it puts them behind their same-age peers. I have sent my kids on-time (and trying to greenshirt my September-birthday youngest), mostly because of academics, though.

When you read these threads there is often someone who chimes in saying it so unfair that her kid has to compete with someone 2 years older than hers. Probably the same one in here now who says kids are going off to college at 20, math is not her strong suit. So yes, some people actually think redshirting is unfair to others even though the people against it are so sure the redshirted kids are losers who will fail at life whose parents have no faith in them. Doesn't make a lot of sense. If it doesn't affect you, why be so judgmental of other parents choices?

I agree with you, there is no competition. My kids have been in class with redshirted boys and I think it’s fairly obvious to most people who they are. The only reason I say anything on these threads is that I think preschool teachers are misguiding anxious moms and insisting their boys need to stay behind to mature, and this is a terrible thing for bright boys. A bright, curious boy does not need to stay behind with a bunch of kids younger than him.

One of the first replies is someone saying they don't redshirt because they are not a "bad person". What's with the value judgment about something that has little to no benefit? Where does that mindset come from? Is it like saying I don't feed formula because I'm not a bad person? People are very passionate about this topic and are quick to point out that it's harmful, detrimental, or disadvantageous. But it comes across as very disingenuous because I think they clearly are afraid that there is some benefit to be had and its just inherently unfair in some way to their own kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is all this evidence? Everything I have seen says that it’s only good for sports. Every kid has that moment where they start to struggle to do well in school when you actually have to study to get good grades. In the long term red shirting doesn’t help.

So why are so many people on here so hot and bothered about other people redshirting and disadvantaging their kids? Something doesn’t add up.

I don’t think anybody feels their kids are disadvantaged by others redshirting. I just think it’s a mistake for bright kids especially, but if your child has special needs then it makes sense. I think somehow parents were under the impression that the maturity aspect of it benefits their sons (which it does, temporarily), but it‘s like flunking a grade, it puts them behind their same-age peers. I have sent my kids on-time (and trying to greenshirt my September-birthday youngest), mostly because of academics, though.

When you read these threads there is often someone who chimes in saying it so unfair that her kid has to compete with someone 2 years older than hers. Probably the same one in here now who says kids are going off to college at 20, math is not her strong suit. So yes, some people actually think redshirting is unfair to others even though the people against it are so sure the redshirted kids are losers who will fail at life whose parents have no faith in them. Doesn't make a lot of sense. If it doesn't affect you, why be so judgmental of other parents choices?

I agree with you, there is no competition. My kids have been in class with redshirted boys and I think it’s fairly obvious to most people who they are. The only reason I say anything on these threads is that I think preschool teachers are misguiding anxious moms and insisting their boys need to stay behind to mature, and this is a terrible thing for bright boys. A bright, curious boy does not need to stay behind with a bunch of kids younger than him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is all this evidence? Everything I have seen says that it’s only good for sports. Every kid has that moment where they start to struggle to do well in school when you actually have to study to get good grades. In the long term red shirting doesn’t help.

So why are so many people on here so hot and bothered about other people redshirting and disadvantaging their kids? Something doesn’t add up.

I don’t think anybody feels their kids are disadvantaged by others redshirting. I just think it’s a mistake for bright kids especially, but if your child has special needs then it makes sense. I think somehow parents were under the impression that the maturity aspect of it benefits their sons (which it does, temporarily), but it‘s like flunking a grade, it puts them behind their same-age peers. I have sent my kids on-time (and trying to greenshirt my September-birthday youngest), mostly because of academics, though.

When you read these threads there is often someone who chimes in saying it so unfair that her kid has to compete with someone 2 years older than hers. Probably the same one in here now who says kids are going off to college at 20, math is not her strong suit. So yes, some people actually think redshirting is unfair to others even though the people against it are so sure the redshirted kids are losers who will fail at life whose parents have no faith in them. Doesn't make a lot of sense. If it doesn't affect you, why be so judgmental of other parents choices?

I’m the PP who asked for evidence and I really don’t care about my child competing against other kids in their class. Frankly I think that’s an odd way to view education, but maybe I’m just not understanding something because my kids are always far ahead of grade level. That’s a silly objection to redshirting, I agree.

But yeah I still don’t see any evidence that OP is correct in stating that there are many benefits to redshirting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is all this evidence? Everything I have seen says that it’s only good for sports. Every kid has that moment where they start to struggle to do well in school when you actually have to study to get good grades. In the long term red shirting doesn’t help.

So why are so many people on here so hot and bothered about other people redshirting and disadvantaging their kids? Something doesn’t add up.

I don’t think anybody feels their kids are disadvantaged by others redshirting. I just think it’s a mistake for bright kids especially, but if your child has special needs then it makes sense. I think somehow parents were under the impression that the maturity aspect of it benefits their sons (which it does, temporarily), but it‘s like flunking a grade, it puts them behind their same-age peers. I have sent my kids on-time (and trying to greenshirt my September-birthday youngest), mostly because of academics, though.

When you read these threads there is often someone who chimes in saying it so unfair that her kid has to compete with someone 2 years older than hers. Probably the same one in here now who says kids are going off to college at 20, math is not her strong suit. So yes, some people actually think redshirting is unfair to others even though the people against it are so sure the redshirted kids are losers who will fail at life whose parents have no faith in them. Doesn't make a lot of sense. If it doesn't affect you, why be so judgmental of other parents choices?

Anonymous wrote:I have a "Greenshirted" kid who is a Junior in HS right now. His birthday is late September and the cut-off was Sept 1. He had to take a test to qualify for early entrance to kindergarten.

Here are the reasons we greenshirted -
- he is very bright and was ahead in all academic markers (could read from 3 yrs of age)
- he was average height and weight, healthy and active.
- he was very well socialized, very articulate, independent, mature and is NT
- keeping him back would have been a disservice to him. - he is the youngest of the siblings and so he was really at par with his elder siblings.
- it made no sense to pay for another year of private school before he could go to public school ES.

He excelled in the classroom and playground. He soon leapfrogged to a more advanced track and program in public school and has really thrived.

Detrimental in some ways?
- a lot of prestigious opportunities and internships in HS have a strict age-limit and he is always younger by a couple months.

Not really impactful for a kid who is a focussed student and not a wild party animal. YMMV. -
- his driver's license came a few months later than most of his peers
- he will probably be a few months younger than his peers before he can have his first legal beer.

My DS sounds like yours, but was born Oct 1, so missed our district cut off by one day, and though he was very advanced, they would not allow green shirting where we live. So he turned six a month into K and is also a junior and will turn 18 a month into senior year. It has also been fine, there have always been kids at his level in the advanced tracks. I actually do not think there have been red shirted kids in his class and any of the schools.

There was even a parent on DCUM a while ago who was trying to “skip“ her redshirted (smart) son to his intended grade, because holding him back made him academically unchallenged in his younger-peer grade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is all this evidence? Everything I have seen says that it’s only good for sports. Every kid has that moment where they start to struggle to do well in school when you actually have to study to get good grades. In the long term red shirting doesn’t help.

So why are so many people on here so hot and bothered about other people redshirting and disadvantaging their kids? Something doesn’t add up.

I don’t think anybody feels their kids are disadvantaged by others redshirting. I just think it’s a mistake for bright kids especially, but if your child has special needs then it makes sense. I think somehow parents were under the impression that the maturity aspect of it benefits their sons (which it does, temporarily), but it‘s like flunking a grade, it puts them behind their same-age peers. I have sent my kids on-time (and trying to greenshirt my September-birthday youngest), mostly because of academics, though.

Anonymous wrote:Where is all this evidence? Everything I have seen says that it’s only good for sports. Every kid has that moment where they start to struggle to do well in school when you actually have to study to get good grades. In the long term red shirting doesn’t help.

So why are so many people on here so hot and bothered about other people redshirting and disadvantaging their kids? Something doesn’t add up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not that uncommon. Every year my kids have at least one child in their class who was redshirted.

Yes, but it is always obvious who that kid is. And not always in a positive way. Actually, typically not in a positive way.

Maybe thats why he was redshirted? Nosy mom’s judging their classmates are the worst.