Full Day Kindergarten = More Redshirting?

[SKL]

Not scary, but definitely developmentally inappropriate for 5 year olds the way my son's kindergarten day went.  There was a whole lot of sitting.  Tiny little classroom.

 

The day went like this:

30 minutes - unpack, announcements, free play (though there wasn't much to play with - generally that meant playing with blocks or looking at books while sitting in their chairs at the tables - school starts officially 10 minutes into that 30 minute time period)

30 minutes - morning work - this is sitting in chairs at the tables doing worksheets

50 minutes - varied what they did, but it usually involved rotating centers of math and language arts as well as calendar time - they got to be up and down during this and using computers and iPads

50 minutes - specials (PE 30 minutes daily and then rotating 20 minutes of music and art)

50 minutes - math (this is almost always all sitting in their chairs at their tables)

30 minutes - lunch

30 minutes - writing (sitting in chairs at their tables)

30 minutes - reading (rotating through read to self, read to someone, listen to reading - again, sitting in chairs at tables with some movement to get books/sit with different people for read to someone/listen to reading)

30 minutes - reading phonics/word work (sitting in chairs at their tables)

15 minutes - recess (of course by this time about 3/4 of the days my son had gotten to red on the behavior chart so he had to sit on the curb watching the other children play)

1 hour - social studies or science (rotating; mostly in chairs at tables, some movement depending on what they were doing) - at the beginning of the year this hour was Choice Time where the kids could choose from centers, computers, iPads, books, etc. for free play (unfortunately, since my son was usually on red for behavior he lost his Choice Time most days and had to sit on the floor by the teacher's desk silently looking at books he could not read... for the entire hour)

25 minutes - clean-up, pack-up, dismissal

 

That's a heck of a lot of sitting to do work for kindergarteners!  Honestly, my second grader was moving around the classroom more than my kindergartener was.

 

They should have had recess morning & afternoon for at least a half hour (each); math, science & social studies should have been more active vs. sitting; and no kid should ever be denied movement over behavior.  Other than that, the schedule does not seem problematic to me.

 

Has anyone ever been successful in pushing for more recess time for young kids?

[SKL]

I don't so much think it's fear as much as it s pity. All the 'poor babies' stuff must seem rather annoying to the afterschoolers who work full time, and use the 'free day care' of K. A lot of people won't believe/don't want to believe that your children might be happy and doing well.

 

I did notice a touch of that....

 

FTR, my kids are not in "free day care" as I pay for them to attend school.  :)  But I don't blame people who do use the public KG.  I blame school systems that don't know how to structure a KG classroom.

[MinivanMom]

Does anyone know how there came to be a special name for choosing the 2nd available school year for a child to start? And why is it being seen negatively (as something that is 'rampant' etc.)?

 

I thought that K was available to start in either of two years simply because some students are ready sooner than others, and parents know more than birthdates do.

 

If there was only one right/best year to start why aren't the cut-offs set up that way?

 

I don't know when people started calling it "red-shirting". I always assumed that some clever news reporter came up with the idea of using the term for kindergartners. I don't think cut-offs were originally set up to give parents the option. In most states, they were originally set up as cut-offs for entering 1st grade. Then kindergarten came into vogue and the dates weren't changed, because kindergarten was originally seen as optional. There was a period of time where kindergarten was offered, but parents could still bring their 6 yr old (who had never been to school) and enroll them in 1st grade. Then kindergarten got ramped up academically and was no longer seen as optional, but the cut-off dates were never changed in many states so we've kind of evolved into the situation we have now.

 

I think part of the reason it's seen negatively is because of the situations where it is often used. When an upper-class parent with a bright child decides to "red-shirt" so that their child will have the advantage of always being older or easily getting into gifted/honors programs, I think that is going to engender some negative reactions from people. It just feels like another way that people with advantages get to game the system (versus less-affluent parents who might not be able to afford an extra year of private preschool). When parents decide to "red-shirt" their already huge son so that he'll have an even greater advantage in football later on, I think that will draw out some negative reactions as well.

 

I've never heard anyone react negatively to parents delaying their child's kindergarten entry when the child is young for grade and would likely struggle academically.

[SKL]

The term "red-shirting" was borrowed from the sports world.  It has to do with manipulating a person's years of sports eligibility.

 

The term seems to be used more and more to describe any child who did not start school in the first year of eligibility.  But I think originally it was about kids who were ready for K but didn't have a great chance of being #1.

 

Around here, in the circles I hang in, people discussing their plans for their kids will simply say "she has a summer birthday" as explanation for holding the child back.  These are not kids with any apparent issues other than being on the younger side of the official age range.  Some of the current KG kids tower over my second-grade daughters.

[Reefgazer]

I'm sending my daughter to school next year after homeschooling her whole life, and I guess I'm "redshirting" her.  She turns 9 on April 27, but she has a collection of learning disabilities, severe anxiety, and possibly mild autism, along with being highly gifted.  Socially/ emotionally/ developmentally and academically she's about 2 years behind her age.  Even being one grade behind is going to be a stretch and a challenge. 

 

I think most reasons for red shirting have to do with the inappropriate academic and behavioral expectations of very young children.  Limited play time/ movement/ nap time, lots of emphasis on test taking and paper and pencil work.   The expectations of five and six year olds are ridiculously high, but then they sort of stagnate and by middle school are low. 

 

That is very true (and strange).  We red-shirted our son because elementary expectations were inappropriately high, and pulled our daughter out of middle school because they were inappropriately low.

 

[Reefgazer]

This is the scenario we have too.  The people redshirting, though, aren't complaining about the work at the elementary level. It's far too easy no matter when they start their child, and they do afterschool to make up for it.  What they are trying to do is make their child competitive to get in to the honors program in middle school - the odds are better for a bright child if he is more mature. It's as if the leveling is now : public gen ed, private gen ed, public honors. If there were enough honors seats, or  a level above gen ed and below AP, they'd be happy and keep their children in public school.

 

  Some of the wealthy districts have had a T-1 level for years...they hold up the summer and fall birthday young ones who would be struggling in a gen ed 1st, then promote to 1st or 2nd depending on maturity and performance. My district is not interested in having ESL or poverty children delay entry for a year so that they turn 6 instead of 5 in Kindy..they feel the earlier the better in boosting the English language skills and getting the health care. Doing as Finland does and waiting just means that the child will have less English and poorer health when he gets to Grade 4 than if he starts as a 3 or 4 year old.

This is definitely a factor in our district, as well.  The problem is, again, in middle school, where the programs are not worth diddly-squat unless the kid is in an honors or magnet school program.  In our district, even the honors program is a joke and is honors in name only.  In that sense, I can't blame parents for trying to set their kids up for the best options in the future. 

 

ETA:  The saddest thing I've seen lately are friends who have a charming, intelligent, kind, and polite son who is my son's age who happens to be young for grade level.  Typically normal boy - rowdy, funny, creative.  They toyed with holding him back but did not.  The poor kid is now in 3rd grade; he is always tired (it's really too long a day for him with before-care, school, tutoring, and after-care) and zoning out, and so he was put on meds for his inattention.  He also attends afterschool tutoring because he has to get into the public magnet program at the local middle school because the other programs are a joke.  The child seems a shell of what he once was at 4, for which of these reasons, I don't know, but it is sad to see what has happened to him.  Can't say I didn't see it coming, unfortunately, and even mentioned it to my husband when he wasn't voluntarily retained in kindy. 

 

[Reefgazer]

I am now feeling curious as to the range of age-appropriateness in today's KG and primary school classrooms.  If the structure of the class is age-appropriate, then it seems the length of day would not be an issue for most kids.

 

So far my kids' schools have not over-done the "sit quietly and do as told" stuff in my opinion.  Their KG had a table with chairs around it, where they did papers and stuff, but they also had morning circle where they talked about the calendar and what kind of day it was, reading circle, "stations" where they got to play with all sorts of manipulatives, "silent reading time," nap time, lunch, snack, multiple recess times, freedom to use the bathroom whenever they wanted, windows they could look out, computer time (individually playing with educational games), optional sports pull-outs five days per week, and optional music pull-out.  They went to the library (off site) once a week and had other field trips.  Fast forward to 2nd grade and they still have a lot of free time and movement in my opinion.

 

So what is it like in other schools that makes the "full day" so scary to parents?

I'm not sure about others, but I'll answer for myself (we red-shirted our very-young-for-grade son):

 

We were looking ahead to the older grades, not so much looking at the immediate-future early grades.  Here, Kindy/first grades have appropriate work, and even a younger can probably handle it.  But, the same kid who is young for his age in kindy and does OK I thought would sink in 4th and 5th.  Not so much because of the academic challenge, but because of the sheer workload and stamina needed to successfully accomplish the grade-level work and still have some semblance of a normal childhood.  Also, my son was still 4 when he was scheduled for public kindy and was still napping in the afternoon, so the stamina did play a role in that sense, also.

[Reefgazer]

They should have had recess morning & afternoon for at least a half hour (each); math, science & social studies should have been more active vs. sitting; and no kid should ever be denied movement over behavior.  Other than that, the schedule does not seem problematic to me.

 

Has anyone ever been successful in pushing for more recess time for young kids?

 

We tried like crazy to push for more recess in our kids' school, especially in older grades where the recess is already skimpy.  Our district mandates 20 minutes per day, that's it, and the principal leaves it up to the classroom teachers.  So even if recess is required, it's not followed in our school.  I complained to the district about this, and for a time, they let the kids out for the required minutes, but then it went back to stupidity like taking away recess as a discipline tool, or sending notes home to get the parents to sign saying their child could be kept in for recess or lunch if they forgot their homework.  (they called it "homework club").  I was *the only* parent in my daughter's class who refused to sign the permission slip for "homework club"!

[bolt.]

I don't know when people started calling it "red-shirting". I always assumed that some clever news reporter came up with the idea of using the term for kindergartners. I don't think cut-offs were originally set up to give parents the option. In most states, they were originally set up as cut-offs for entering 1st grade. Then kindergarten came into vogue and the dates weren't changed, because kindergarten was originally seen as optional. There was a period of time where kindergarten was offered, but parents could still bring their 6 yr old (who had never been to school) and enroll them in 1st grade. Then kindergarten got ramped up academically and was no longer seen as optional, but the cut-off dates were never changed in many states so we've kind of evolved into the situation we have now.

 

I think part of the reason it's seen negatively is because of the situations where it is often used. When an upper-class parent with a bright child decides to "red-shirt" so that their child will have the advantage of always being older or easily getting into gifted/honors programs, I think that is going to engender some negative reactions from people. It just feels like another way that people with advantages get to game the system (versus less-affluent parents who might not be able to afford an extra year of private preschool). When parents decide to "red-shirt" their already huge son so that he'll have an even greater advantage in football later on, I think that will draw out some negative reactions as well.

 

I've never heard anyone react negatively to parents delaying their child's kindergarten entry when the child is young for grade and would likely struggle academically.

I suppose that makes some sense, but I still don't see why the most normal motive for choosing the later year: "So that my child will get the most out of their education." Is no longer seen as the most probable motive, and people instead assign less flattering ideas of intentional one-ups-man-ship. It sounds a bit like the opposite if the benefit of the doubt. (Unless everyone but me really is a highly driven competitive fanatic about this stuff. If they are, they hide it well.)

[SKL]

Wow.  When my kids were in 1st grade, I was in a meeting with the teacher and the school psych, and I said I didn't want my kid missing any more recess or lunches because of being behind on her work.  I talked about how movement is linked to doing better in school, better auditory processing etc.  They rationalized that the amount of recess missed was very small (and flat out denied the missed lunch).  They did not agree to stop using that as a discipline tool.  Thankfully the school year was almost over, and it seems this has not been an issue in 2nd grade.

 

I dread the day when my kids stop getting two recesses per day.  I know it's coming, but I don't know when.  Hopefully they will be OK with it at that point.

[RootAnn]

Does anyone know how there came to be a special name for choosing the 2nd available school year for a child to start? And why is it being seen negatively (as something that is 'rampant' etc.)?

 

I thought that K was available to start in either of two years simply because some students are ready sooner than others, and parents know more than birthdates do.

 

If there was only one right/best year to start why aren't the cut-offs set up that way?

 

I don't know how long ago the term 'red-shirting' came into wide use, but my mother was using it back when I was of K-age. Four of my five siblings have September birthdays. The state I grew up in had a mid-October cut-off, so we were some of the youngest in our class. (Ironically, one of the Valedictorians in my medium-sized (400-ish) high school graduating class had a Christmas birthday & skipped a grade. So, she was the youngest in my class. My little brother went to school with another Christmas birthday child - and she later skipped a grade & I think was the Valedictorian of her sizable graduating class.) My mother was (and is) adamantly against "red shirting" for sports reasons or so that the kid would be the Smarty (because they had an additional year of preK??) in the class.

 

Football is HUGE in my state-of-birth (and in my current state-of-residence). Boys are more commonly redshirted than girls where I live now.

 

Cut-offs vary rather widely between states with the most common date being "5 by September 1st." (Can someone from Connecticut verify if the "5 by Jan 1st" means they have to be 5.75 when enrolling or if it means they can be 4.75?)

 

Theoretically, parents know best right? But the term "red shirting" applies to those whose kids are READY to enter the first eligible year -- but the parents are holding them back to give them an advantage over their future classmates. 

 

My ds#1 started homeschooling K this year - which means I held him back. I didn't "redshirt" him because he wasn't ready to start sit-down work of any kind last year. Red-shirting is a negative term for many of us because it doesn't imply you are holding them back for developmental reasons. (I actually struggle with this in a reverse way because my oldest wouldn't qualify to be in the grade I have her in except in a small handful of states. If I decide to "giver her an extra year" later to put her with her age-mates, am I being unfair to the other kids she's competing against for scholarships?)

[MinivanMom]

I suppose that makes some sense, but I still don't see why the most normal motive for choosing the later year: "So that my child will get the most out of their education." Is no longer seen as the most probable motive, and people instead assign less flattering ideas of intentional one-ups-man-ship. It sounds a bit like the opposite if the benefit of the doubt. (Unless everyone but me really is a highly driven competitive fanatic about this stuff. If they are, they hide it well.)

 

I completely agree. I think there is a fair amount of judgment there when you make assumptions about another parent's motives for delaying kindergarten entry, and I wish parents would generally give one another the benefit of the doubt (or figure out that it isn't really any of their business).

 

 . . . but . . .

 

I have also heard parents speak openly about delaying kindergarten for their huge (and not at all young for grade) child so that he would have an advantage for high school sports. I have also heard parents speak openly about delaying kindergarten for their bright child so that she can always be "at the top of the class". My experience in real life has been that parents who delay entry for their child who is young (or small or less mature or not ready academically) are less likely to talk openly about their decision. I completely respect that, but it does mean that the loudest voices are sometimes the other type of parent.

 

[MinivanMom]

I don't know how long ago the term 'red-shirting' came into wide use, but my mother was using it back when I was of K-age. Four of my five siblings have September birthdays. The state I grew up in had a mid-October cut-off, so we were some of the youngest in our class. (Ironically, one of the Valedictorians in my medium-sized (400-ish) high school graduating class had a Christmas birthday & skipped a grade. So, she was the youngest in my class. My little brother went to school with another Christmas birthday child - and she later skipped a grade & I think was the Valedictorian of her sizable graduating class.) My mother was (and is) adamantly against "red shirting" for sports reasons or so that the kid would be the Smarty (because they had an additional year of preK??) in the class. 

 

Cut-offs vary rather widely between states with the most common date being "5 by September 1st." (Can someone from Connecticut verify if the "5 by Jan 1st" means they have to be 5.75 when enrolling or if it means they can be 4.75?)

 

Theoretically, parents know best right? But the term "red shirting" applies to those whose kids are READY to enter the first eligible year -- but the parents are holding them back to give them an advantage over their future classmates. 

 

My ds#1 started homeschooling K this year - which means I held him back. I didn't "redshirt" him because he wasn't ready to start sit-down work of any kind last year. Red-shirting is a negative term for many of us because it doesn't imply you are holding them back for developmental reasons. (I actually struggle with this in a reverse way because my oldest wouldn't qualify to be in the grade I have her in except in a small handful of states. If I decide to "giver her an extra year" later to put her with her age-mates, am I being unfair to the other kids she's competing against for scholarships?)

 

This.

 

[Reefgazer]

I completely agree. I think there is a fair amount of judgment there when you make assumptions about another parent's motives for delaying kindergarten entry, and I wish parents would generally give one another the benefit of the doubt (or figure out that it isn't really any of their business).

 

 . . . but . . .

 

I have also heard parents speak openly about delaying kindergarten for their huge (and not at all young for grade) child so that he would have an advantage for high school sports. I have also heard parents speak openly about delaying kindergarten for their bright child so that she can always be "at the top of the class". My experience in real life has been that parents who delay entry for their child who is young (or small or less mature or not ready academically) are less likely to talk openly about their decision. I completely respect that, but it does mean that the loudest voices are sometimes the other type of parent.

 

 

I know parents who did this, also, and in some ways, they are operating in a very logical way.  If their kid is held back so that they have the academic foundation and physical stamina to tackle 4th - 5th grade and do spectacularly, that's not just vanity talking.  As in my post above, many districts like my own have a very poor middle school programs that are of low-quality and with no real academic challenge.  But the magnet schools are often very good.  But those magnet schools also use 4th- 5th year grades as admission criteria, so setting up a child to be super-successful in 4-5 grade allows these parents to give their kids an edge into the local magnet program.  Fair?  No.  But we all do what is best for our child in order to give them a leg up, and I don't blame or judge those parents at all.  It's no different than using family money to buy admission into a private school; you use what resources you have for your children.  People seem very envious when someone is able to give their kids a leg up in any way. 

 

[cintinative]

I'll admit that I haven't read the other responses yet, but yes, absolutely that is the reason we red-shirted our son. It was all day K or nothing in our local school and as a younger 5 (birthday in mid-Sept) it just didn't make sense to me to put him in young for a seven hour school day. However, after that K year we pulled him out to homeschool, so life can be unpredictable.  =)

[cintinative]

School starts at 8:35 and ends at 3:35.  No naps, only one recess, 30 kids in the class with 1 teacher, and a lot of seat work.  I primarily blame this ridiculous schedule for how much now he dislikes school.  

 

 

This was our experience with full-day K. The year started with three recess periods a day (to manage the wiggles, I am guessing), but by the end of the year only one recess period. There were no naps, but lots and lots of videos. It was a very long day. If my son rode the bus home he would not be home until almost 4 p.m. and he started school at 8:35.  Lunch was a half hour with a half hour recess following.  There was definitely a TON of seat work and 27 kids in our classroom with one teacher and no aide. I prayed for that woman regularly.  =)

[FairProspects]

I haven't seen a lot of talk yet about emotional/social expectations in this thread either. Ds would have far exceeded academic expectations as a young 5, but transitions, sitting still, etc. just weren't at the level the school wanted them to be for K (with once a *week* recess and NO PE until 4th grade, I might add). I think this says more about the school than it does about ds, but that is the reality for many parents making these decisions. When the reality of school is such a mismatch with appropriate child development, who can blame parents for wanting to delay entry by a year?

[...................]

I am now feeling curious as to the range of age-appropriateness in today's KG and primary school classrooms.  If the structure of the class is age-appropriate, then it seems the length of day would not be an issue for most kids.

 

So far my kids' schools have not over-done the "sit quietly and do as told" stuff in my opinion.  Their KG had a table with chairs around it, where they did papers and stuff, but they also had morning circle where they talked about the calendar and what kind of day it was, reading circle, "stations" where they got to play with all sorts of manipulatives, "silent reading time," nap time, lunch, snack, multiple recess times, freedom to use the bathroom whenever they wanted, windows they could look out, computer time (individually playing with educational games), optional sports pull-outs five days per week, and optional music pull-out.  They went to the library (off site) once a week and had other field trips.  Fast forward to 2nd grade and they still have a lot of free time and movement in my opinion.

 

So what is it like in other schools that makes the "full day" so scary to parents?

I was old for my age back in the 80's.  I was 6 in October.  I attended half day morning Kindergarten and my mom laid me down for a nap after school every single day.  I didn't always sleep but I remember being so happy to lie down once I actually did so.  There was no question, no fight, nothing. Just fresh clean sheets in a quiet room.  Then, I would get up about an hour later and continue with my day, including greeting my brother and sister from the bus, gardening, playing outside.

 

It is NOT normal for a FIVE or even a SIX year old to not take a nap or lie down at some point during the day.  Maybe half the behavior problems we have nowadays is due to extreme mental and physical exhaustion.

 

In homeschool, both of my kids had quiet time every day for 45 minutes silent, in bed, until they were 8 and 10.  We just dropped it last year.  It is healthy to not be going, going, going all day long, especially at FIVE years old.

[SKL]

I know parents who did this, also, and in some ways, they are operating in a very logical way.  If their kid is held back so that they have the academic foundation and physical stamina to tackle 4th - 5th grade and do spectacularly, that's not just vanity talking.  As in my post above, many districts like my own have a very poor middle school programs that are of low-quality and with no real academic challenge.  But the magnet schools are often very good.  But those magnet schools also use 4th- 5th year grades as admission criteria, so setting up a child to be super-successful in 4-5 grade allows these parents to give their kids an edge into the local magnet program.  Fair?  No.  But we all do what is best for our child in order to give them a leg up, and I don't blame or judge those parents at all.  It's no different than using family money to buy admission into a private school; you use what resources you have for your children.  People seem very envious when someone is able to give their kids a leg up in any way. 

 

 

But this plan would inevitably result in many hours of boredom for a bright child.  When I was a kid, I just hated being bored in school, going over stuff I already knew last year, having to sit quietly with nothing to do but daydream.  And I was the youngest kid in my class.  I think I would have lost it if I'd been a year older in the same class.  Because of my personal experience as a kid, I want my kids to be challenged as much as possible (to the extent they can handle it) throughout school.

 

Having my kids in a higher grade not only gives them a little more challenge each day, but it also qualifies them to do summer camps etc. geared for the higher grade level.  They have access to a broader range of books in the school library.  They potentially qualify for the school gifted program a year earlier.

 

I notice several posters predicting issues years ahead.  I really have no idea what my kids are going to be like 5 years from now.  I also have no way of knowing for sure what programs the school is going to offer, or on what basis they will select the participants.  I just figure if they make the most of today, they'll go on to make the most of tomorrow, somehow.

[SKL]

I was old for my age back in the 80's.  I was 6 in October.  I attended half day morning Kindergarten and my mom laid me down for a nap after school every single day.  I didn't always sleep but I remember being so happy to lie down once I actually did so.  There was no question, no fight, nothing. Just fresh clean sheets in a quiet room.  Then, I would get up about an hour later and continue with my day, including greeting my brother and sister from the bus, gardening, playing outside.

 

It is NOT normal for a FIVE or even a SIX year old to not take a nap or lie down at some point during the day.  Maybe half the behavior problems we have nowadays is due to extreme mental and physical exhaustion.

 

In homeschool, both of my kids had quiet time every day for 45 minutes silent, in bed, until they were 8 and 10.  We just dropped it last year.  It is healthy to not be going, going, going all day long, especially at FIVE years old.

 

A lot of kids do naturally stop napping at 2 or 3.  I think it is probably unusual for a 5/6yo to nap every day (though my eldest liked her naps through age 5).  That said, my kids' KG had a pretty long nap time every day.  I don't know how common that is nowadays.

 

[musicianmom]

In Finland they don't stay in high school till 19, do they?

 

I'd be fine with a later start if it didn't mean keeping young adults in high school. Talk about developmentally inappropriate.

[RootAnn]

It is NOT normal for a FIVE or even a SIX year old to not take a nap or lie down at some point during the day.  Maybe half the behavior problems we have nowadays is due to extreme mental and physical exhaustion.

 

Totally depends on the kid, IMO.

 

DD#1 still took rather long naps at 5. DD#2 was still taking at least one short nap daily at 6 1/2. DD#3 stopped napping completely, unless she was forced to be still - like on a car ride, when she was less than 3. The two boys were somewhere in the middle:  daily naps stopped being an absolute necessity around age 3, but parent-imposed 'quiet time' on certain days/weeks and self-imposed naps occurring mostly during growth spurts after that.

 

I have two kids who will put themselves down for a nap (or for bedtime at night) when they are tired. It doesn't matter where we are or what we are doing - they will just disappear to their room or as quiet of a corner as they can find and sleep when they feel they need it. One is dd#2 and one is dd#3 - two opposite ends of the age napping spectrum.

 

It was a clear sign of sickness if dd#3 put herself down for a nap after the age of 3. To this day, if she slips off to sleep during the day (or early in the evening), I know she's getting sick. 

[Korrale]

In Australia we graduate highschool at 17. By 18 I had travelled around the world on my own. I can't fathom being in highschool at that age. But that is just from my perspective.

[maize]

I am now feeling curious as to the range of age-appropriateness in today's KG and primary school classrooms. If the structure of the class is age-appropriate, then it seems the length of day would not be an issue for most kids.

 

So far my kids' schools have not over-done the "sit quietly and do as told" stuff in my opinion. Their KG had a table with chairs around it, where they did papers and stuff, but they also had morning circle where they talked about the calendar and what kind of day it was, reading circle, "stations" where they got to play with all sorts of manipulatives, "silent reading time," nap time, lunch, snack, multiple recess times, freedom to use the bathroom whenever they wanted, windows they could look out, computer time (individually playing with educational games), optional sports pull-outs five days per week, and optional music pull-out. They went to the library (off site) once a week and had other field trips. Fast forward to 2nd grade and they still have a lot of free time and movement in my opinion.

 

So what is it like in other schools that makes the "full day" so scary to parents?

my nephew went to a private kindergarten then to public school first grade. He was miserable in first and his parents went to observe the classroom for a couple of days. The kids were required to sit straight in their chairs with feet on the floor at all times--all day long. The classroom was rigidly controlled. Mom and dad decided to do pull him out and homeschool until they could move to a different district.

[AndyJoy]

I haven't seen a lot of talk yet about emotional/social expectations in this thread either. Ds would have far exceeded academic expectations as a young 5, but transitions, sitting still, etc. just weren't at the level the school wanted them to be for K (with once a *week* recess and NO PE until 4th grade, I might add). I think this says more about the school than it does about ds, but that is the reality for many parents making these decisions. When the reality of school is such a mismatch with appropriate child development, who can blame parents for wanting to delay entry by a year?

I have a bright, loud, wiggly, happy-go-lucky, somewhat innocent DS. He misses our PS cutoff by about a month; if he made it and I were not planning to homeschool I would absolutely redshirt him. 3 of 4 public schools (including our zone) are full day. The Montessori school is 1/2 or full day, but expensive.  The local Christian school is 1/2 day or full day, but the teacher is very rigid and not very understanding of kids who need to move or talk. There is way too much sitting up straight in chairs silently with eyes ahead for 5-year-olds IMO. I subbed for her aide for a week so I have firsthand experience. Maybe my son could adapt and conform to this situation, but do I want him to have to at the tender age of barely 5? Nope. I want him to enjoy being his wiggly chatty self longer before he has to reign it in to meet societal expectations. I don't want him labelled inappropriately just for being what I see as a healthy, excitable little boy or "noise with dirt on it."  Also, he is large for his age so people already misjudge his age and expect too much of him. He would be the largest, youngest kid in his class if the cutoff hadn't been moved and I started him on time. I've found that can be a really unfair combo with teachers/coaches/group leaders who prejudge.

 

Another issue is he seems fairly naive, more trusting, less jaded, less emotionally complex, etc. than the majority of kids I know his age. In conflicts with other kids they try to ascribe more complex emotions or motives to him than he is capable of having at this point.  They may feel those things and have the vocabulary to express them, but really he is just clueless about some of the things that seem to be typical of most kids we know. I spend a lot of time explaining/coaching him about what the other kid is saying/feeling because it is over his head. t's not that he's socially awkward so much as that he just doesn't have the experience, frame of reference, personality etc. to get where they are coming from yet.  He really doesn't grasp mean teasing, lying, anger, excluding behavior, and tattling, in the way that other kids pretty near his age do. He would be out of his depth emotionally with many kids I know if I sent him to K at almost 5. 

 

Fortunately he does miss the cutoff and I am going to homeschool, so I can work with his personality and individual peculiarities in what I consider a more age-appropriate, my-child appropriate way.

[AndyJoy]

I am now feeling curious as to the range of age-appropriateness in today's KG and primary school classrooms.  If the structure of the class is age-appropriate, then it seems the length of day would not be an issue for most kids.

 

So far my kids' schools have not over-done the "sit quietly and do as told" stuff in my opinion.  Their KG had a table with chairs around it, where they did papers and stuff, but they also had morning circle where they talked about the calendar and what kind of day it was, reading circle, "stations" where they got to play with all sorts of manipulatives, "silent reading time," nap time, lunch, snack, multiple recess times, freedom to use the bathroom whenever they wanted, windows they could look out, computer time (individually playing with educational games), optional sports pull-outs five days per week, and optional music pull-out.  They went to the library (off site) once a week and had other field trips.  Fast forward to 2nd grade and they still have a lot of free time and movement in my opinion.

 

So what is it like in other schools that makes the "full day" so scary to parents?

 

I can't speak to what full-day is like in PS here, but I did spend a week subbing for the aide in a 1/2 or full day option private Christian school kindergarten.  The teacher had a very rigid personality/teaching style.  The tables (2 kids to a table) all faced the whiteboard.  During Language Arts, I watched several kids finish their assigned worksheets with 10-15 minutes to spare.  One boy had the audacity to turn around in his chair and look around the classroom.  He didn't make any noise, try to attract anyone's attention, or do anything else other than just look at the posters and other kids.  The teacher reprimanded him and expected him to sit facing the front doing nothing until she was ready to start the next topic.  No other option was available to him.  He was an early finisher in math as well, so he had to do the same thing then too.  Nothing was taught with a song or a rhyme or a game or a manipulative--just a short lecture with some questions then more seatwork with early finishers sitting rigidly. There was one slightly hands-on science lesson.  I was shocked at how silent that classroom was.  It felt so wrong to be in a room of kids that young with so little noise and movement.  There were centers at the end of the morning but they were super short and seemed like an afterthought of "it's K so I guess we should do something hands on."  There was a short recess daily and Music once a week.  All the academic bases were covered thoroughly, but the morning was very crammed and ordered and strict.  The kids who stayed for full day were just with an aide for the afternoon (me for a week).  This time was filled with lunch, story time, free play, and a rest time.  Basically all the fun parts were reserved for full day kids.   About 2/3 of the full day kids truly slept during rest time and several were very hard to rouse to go home or to aftercare.  Aftercare (3:00-up to 6:00 pm) was K4-5th grade together and included a snack time, homework time, and free play. 

 

I also subbed for the 1st grade class for 2 days and that teacher seemed much less rigid and more understanding of small kids.  Her classroom was a breath of fresh air in comparison.

[La Condessa]

Just theoretically, I wonder how the public schools would feel about a K student that was picked up every day after lunch?  I know in Texas, if the child is present at a certain time mid-morning, then the school gets money for the kid for the day.  So, the school would still get their full money.  Of course, they don't usually like the cattle to step away from the herd, so maybe they would still have a problem with it.

 

I have a friend who did this. The district dropped their final 1/2 day K classroom the year her youngest was starting school. She felt full-day K was developmentally inappropriate, so she politely informed them in a no-nonsense way that her daughter would be attending only for half days, and what time she would be there to pick her up each day. Since K is not legally mandatory in that state, there was really nothing they could do about it.

[2ndGenHomeschooler]

(Can someone from Connecticut verify if the "5 by Jan 1st" means they have to be 5.75 when enrolling or if it means they can be 4.75?)

 

 

My DS is 4 with a November birthday. We've been getting letters from the school about K readiness testing. So my understanding is that they can start K at 4.75. I don't think it's full day though. I've never thought to check since we homeschool.

 

If we were planning to send him to school I would most definitely red shirt him. He's a bright little guy and I think would be able to keep up academically (although he hasn't learned the letters or sounds yet), but he's also extremely active and talkative and I just don't know how that would work in a school setting.

 

I plan to "officially" start K with him this fall. I'll formally introduce letters and reading skills and continue with numbers and math skills (he already does this now because he asks to). It will be very low key though and at his pace. I don't plan to push too much if he doesn't want to do something. If he's too far off from "1st grade" work after a year of K then we'll just do "K6" and continue to let him work at his own pace. That flexibility is one of the big reasons I homeschool. :)

 

ETA: I just looked it up and our school offers only full day kindergarten 8:45am-3:10pm. The bus picks kids up in our neighbourhood at 8am. We live in a small town with only 400 students in K-8 and no high school. There is only one K class. On the teacher's page on the website it says:

 

"My Kindergarten is a bright, colorful room that becomes a community of learners that enjoy learning and playing together. The program is basically academic with a strong emphasis on skills to prepare children to be good readers. The goal is to promote good behavioral skills that will guarantee the children will be ready to learn at all times and in all environments. Through work and play, the children experience writing, reading, math, science, social studies, spanish, music, art, physical education, and computers. The diversity in our curriculum, excites the children and prepares them to be "well rounded" contributing members of the * Community."

 

Not sure what I think about that....It sounds terribly...stifling or something. Then again, I was 6 the last time I had any experience with a classroom so maybe I'm just out of touch with what "real" school is like.

 

School also starts the end of August and this year doesn't get out til June 20! This whole school thing just sounds horrible to me!

 

On the upside, since we have no high school, kids are given the option of about 10 other high schools in neighbouring towns. Some of them have excellent, innovative programs - or so I'm told.

[hepatica]

 

Cut-offs vary rather widely between states with the most common date being "5 by September 1st." (Can someone from Connecticut verify if the "5 by Jan 1st" means they have to be 5.75 when enrolling or if it means they can be 4.75?)

 

 

 

4.75

 

My two girls are Dec and Nov birthdays, so they are quite young for their grade. 

[Julie Smith]

A lot of kids do naturally stop napping at 2 or 3.  I think it is probably unusual for a 5/6yo to nap every day (though my eldest liked her naps through age 5).  That said, my kids' KG had a pretty long nap time every day.  I don't know how common that is nowadays.

 

I was happy that since my boys were never going to have to go to school they could always nap.

 

They both gave it up before age three. Even if it was a physically busy morning. Even if they had to be in a car for a long time.

[wapiti]

It is NOT normal for a FIVE or even a SIX year old to not take a nap or lie down at some point during the day.  Maybe half the behavior problems we have nowadays is due to extreme mental and physical exhaustion.

 

It may also depend on bedtimes, but IIRC this is not accurate, statistically.  

 

(I no longer have my Weissbluth book with the statistical charts to check, unfortunately.  I'm pretty militant about sleep schedules, but *none* of my six kids were still taking naps at 5 y.o. or even 4 y.o.  They do, however, have an early bedtime around that age, 7:00 or 7:30-ish.  IIRC, the thinking is that, at the point where naps interfere with an early bedtime, a longer consolidated sleep during the overnight period is much more important than the nap.  We do all-day Montessori K here, no naps, no behavior issues.)

[MBM]

My kids were allowed a lot of movement in their early years especially. Kindergarden was fun. I never had to wake them up and get them going because they were eager and happy to go (except for one child in 2nd grade who had Mrs. Angry Lady for his teacher.)

 

My youngest attends a large public high school (over 4,000 students), and students there are allowed to study anywhere in the buildings and even off-campus provided their GPAs are high enough, they have good behavior and parents permit it. My son likes to study in a small, quiet stairwell near one of the art rooms. Some days he and his friends will go to the library or a computer room to play video games during their study halls. Teachers also allow students to eat in classrooms and some will even allow students to order pizzas. It's not run like a prison. No metal detectors, either.

 

My two boys were some of the youngest in their classes and managed to do fine. I don't know how many of their classmates were redshirted or for what reasons if they were. When I attended a German gymnasium back in high school, the students who were graduating were a range of ages. I think it varied by as much as 3 years, IIRC. I'm not sure if it's like that still (probably) but it didn't seem like such a big deal.

[TechWife]

Our school district, with its 7:30 hour academic kindergarten, forbids redshirting. K and first are completely dependent on age. I think this must have been a problem.

 

Emily

 

So does the compulsory school age start at age five then? Here it is age seven, so the children just have to start kindergarten when they are age seven or younger. Most start at age five, which is standard, but some start at age six. 

[...................]

A lot of kids do naturally stop napping at 2 or 3.  I think it is probably unusual for a 5/6yo to nap every day (though my eldest liked her naps through age 5).  That said, my kids' KG had a pretty long nap time every day.  I don't know how common that is nowadays.

 

For goodness sake, NO ONE is saying that all 5 year olds actually sleep.  You asked, why the concern about the long school day?  I am pointing out that it is natural for young children to REST for a while in the middle of the day, whether they actually sleep or not.  Nowadays, many full-day Kindergartens do NOT have a nap time.

 

The fact that anyone would think it's healthy and normal for 5 year old children to be moved from one thing to the next for 8 hours is confusing to me.  

[MBM]

It may also depend on bedtimes, but IIRC this is not accurate, statistically.  

 

(I no longer have my Weissbluth book with the statistical charts to check, unfortunately.  I'm pretty militant about sleep schedules, but *none* of my six kids were still taking naps at 5 y.o. or even 4 y.o.  They do, however, have an early bedtime around that age, 7:00 or 7:30-ish.  IIRC, the thinking is that, at the point where naps interfere with an early bedtime, a longer consolidated sleep during the overnight period is much more important than the nap.  We do all-day Montessori K here, no naps, no behavior issues.)

 

Weissbluth was our pediatrician. I used to keep an optional sleep log that we would bring in to discuss with him or one of the peds there. A lot of kids do stop napping by age 5. Mine were done around age 4 or so, but they also went to sleep around 7:30 or so and slept about 12 hours.

 

My youngest is a junior in high school and on school nights he puts himself to sleep almost always between 8:30 and 9:30. He gets up between 6:30 and 6:45. He is rarely awake past 10:00 on a school night. We do not tell him when to go to sleep, btw. On weekends, he stays up until about 10:30 or 11:00 but he also sleeps in the following morning. We do tell him to go to sleep on weekends, though. LOL.

[...................]

Totally depends on the kid, IMO.

 

DD#1 still took rather long naps at 5. DD#2 was still taking at least one short nap daily at 6 1/2. DD#3 stopped napping completely, unless she was forced to be still - like on a car ride, when she was less than 3. The two boys were somewhere in the middle:  daily naps stopped being an absolute necessity around age 3, but parent-imposed 'quiet time' on certain days/weeks and self-imposed naps occurring mostly during growth spurts after that.

 

I have two kids who will put themselves down for a nap (or for bedtime at night) when they are tired. It doesn't matter where we are or what we are doing - they will just disappear to their room or as quiet of a corner as they can find and sleep when they feel they need it. One is dd#2 and one is dd#3 - two opposite ends of the age napping spectrum.

 

It was a clear sign of sickness if dd#3 put herself down for a nap after the age of 3. To this day, if she slips off to sleep during the day (or early in the evening), I know she's getting sick. 

I'm not talking about actual **sleep**. I'm talking about taking a quiet time, lying down.  Call it a nap or not, it is very healthy and developmentally appropriate for the developing 5 year old, especially in an instituationalized environment where natural times of quiet inactivity are nearly impossible.

[MBM]

I'm not talking about actual **sleep**. I'm talking about taking a quiet time, lying down.  Call it a nap or not, it is very healthy and developmentally appropriate for the developing 5 year old, especially in an instituationalized environment where natural times of quiet inactivity are nearly impossible.

 

It depends on the school. My kids have attended a number of elementary schools, public and private, and all of them had quiet times for younger kids. A number of them even had small couches and chairs where kids could go and rest if they were feeling out of it.

[Reefgazer]

But this plan would inevitably result in many hours of boredom for a bright child.  When I was a kid, I just hated being bored in school, going over stuff I already knew last year, having to sit quietly with nothing to do but daydream.  And I was the youngest kid in my class.  I think I would have lost it if I'd been a year older in the same class.  Because of my personal experience as a kid, I want my kids to be challenged as much as possible (to the extent they can handle it) throughout school.

 

Having my kids in a higher grade not only gives them a little more challenge each day, but it also qualifies them to do summer camps etc. geared for the higher grade level.  They have access to a broader range of books in the school library.  They potentially qualify for the school gifted program a year earlier.

 

I notice several posters predicting issues years ahead.  I really have no idea what my kids are going to be like 5 years from now.  I also have no way of knowing for sure what programs the school is going to offer, or on what basis they will select the participants.  I just figure if they make the most of today, they'll go on to make the most of tomorrow, somehow.

 

Absolutely, a bright child would be bored to death in a younger class, if the class was being run in a developmentally-appropriate way.  But developmentally-appropriate classes don't happen that often in the younger grades in public schools these days (at least not in my district); I don't look at test-prep, pushing writing on children before the read fluently, and expecting every child to read fluently by the end of second grade as developmentally-appropriate.  I think it's these factors that cause parents to say "whoa, nope, you're not imposing those inappropriate standards on my kid".  I assume you sent your kids on time because you felt that they could handle the work, and that makes sense also (you're kids are different from my son and other kids who were reds-shirted).  Schools want kids to fit into one box per grade, and that's not realistic, and they need to trust parents who have spend the last 4-5 years raising their kids and trust that they know them well.  Another option for a kid who was red-shirted and undergoes great mental and spiritual growth during the year would be enrichment at home.  But that's a far cry from more seat time in a higher grade.  My son, while held back one year, also had home enrichment, including summer camps that gave him the opportunity to grow in sports, academics, and socially; but again, that was not seat time and test prep.  I may be jaded because of my experience with our district; your district may operate differently.

 

Also, I *always* look ahead to see what opportunities and problems may lie in my child's path.  I am not a seer and can't predict with 100% accuracy what will be going down in 2, 5, or 10 years, but I certainly can look ahead and try to avoid pitfalls.  I don't know who *wouldn't* try and do that.  You prepare your child for the SATs in a number of ways throughout school, even though in 10 years, no school may accept the SATs.  But you know that there is a high *probability* that being able to do well on the SATs will be necessary skill, so you plan for it, even though you can't foresee everything.  Anticipating pitfalls and trying to avoid them is just common sense for a parent, and I am happy with how I have guided my son thus far; my predictions and judgment of his future has been spot-on up until now, and I trust myself to make those choices for him more than I trust the school.  For the school, my son is not an individual, but a data point, and they do not have *his* welfare first and foremost in their minds because they need to consider more than just him. 

 

ETA:  Perhaps a better model for our educational system would be classrooms that were not age-graded within a certain range and where students could progress at their own pace within the class framework and then move on to the next age-range class.  The US probably needs to discard the strict age-graded classroom, but I get the impression the classrooms are set up more for crowd control than education anyway, so that's probably why that doesn't happen.  Guess that's why we homeschool our daughter and plan the same for our son next year.

 

[Reefgazer]

In Finland they don't stay in high school till 19, do they?

I'd be fine with a later start if it didn't mean keeping young adults in high school. Talk about developmentally inappropriate.

 

I agree with this too.  But it will take a wholesale re-ordering of how the United States thinks about education, and a re-modeling of our educational system, to make a later start and an earlier end a reality.  So in the meantime, I think parents are just working with within the system they have.

[Reefgazer]

 

DP

 

 

[vonfirmath]

Just theoretically, I wonder how the public schools would feel about a K student that was picked up every day after lunch?  I know in Texas, if the child is present at a certain time mid-morning, then the school gets money for the kid for the day.  So, the school would still get their full money.  Of course, they don't usually like the cattle to step away from the herd, so maybe they would still have a problem with it.  

 

Even private preschools don't like children being picked up halfway through.  it ends up meaning that they have to reteach that child if something that builds on information taught in the second half of the day comes up.

 

(and yes, kids miss days here and there. But its different when a kid is CONSISTENTLY missing part of the day everyday.)

[wapiti]

ETA:  Perhaps a better model for our educational system would be multi-age classrooms where kids could progress at their own speed within that class framework, and then progress to the next classroom when they had mastered the material.  Perhaps we need to discard the idea of age-graded classrooms.

 

FWIW, that is roughly how Montessori schools are organized.  Classrooms are preschool to K, grades 1-3, grades 4-6, and grades 7-8.  Individual pace and individual/very-small-group instruction are hallmarks of the Montessori method, as well as the growth process from being the young ones in the class to being the "big" kids.  Some Montessori schools/teachers are better than others at pulling this off.  For children who have advanced beyond the work available at their current level  the teacher should, at least in theory, bring in work from the next classroom level.

 

This flexibility is the biggest reason my kids attend a public charter Montessori school - they have disparate strengths and weaknesses that can be handled within their own classroom.  There can be logistical difficulties occasionally.  I find my own way to work around these to my own satisfaction (e.g., by arrangement with my ds11's teacher, we mostly afterschool AoPS Intro to Algebra).

[vonfirmath]

I don't know how long ago the term 'red-shirting' came into wide use, but my mother was using it back when I was of K-age. Four of my five siblings have September birthdays. The state I grew up in had a mid-October cut-off, so we were some of the youngest in our class. (Ironically, one of the Valedictorians in my medium-sized (400-ish) high school graduating class had a Christmas birthday & skipped a grade. So, she was the youngest in my class. My little brother went to school with another Christmas birthday child - and she later skipped a grade & I think was the Valedictorian of her sizable graduating class.) My mother was (and is) adamantly against "red shirting" for sports reasons or so that the kid would be the Smarty (because they had an additional year of preK??) in the class.

 

Football is HUGE in my state-of-birth (and in my current state-of-residence). Boys are more commonly redshirted than girls where I live now.

 

Another reason for boys being redshirted more than girls is that boys tend to be more rambunctious/less willing to sit down and listen. My son is an August 3rd birthday who started on time and yes, he's a young boy for his grade and sometimes it shows in his behavior (which we are working on). But his teacher doesn't think that means we should not have sent him, or even that we should hold him back (we thought about that earlier this year). She DID mention that he's fairly typical of the "young boys" she's taught over the years and young girls (I was one, as a child. Sept 4th birthday with a Sept 1st deadline that was pushed in anyway) don't typically have the same issues.

[Reefgazer]

FWIW, that is roughly how Montessori schools are organized.  Classrooms are preschool to K, grades 1-3, grades 4-6, and grades 7-8.  Individual pace and individual/very-small-group instruction are hallmarks of the Montessori method, as well as the growth process from being the young ones in the class to the "big" kids; some Montessori schools/teachers are better than others at pulling this off.  For children who have advanced beyond the work available at their current level  the teacher should, at least in theory, bring in work from the next classroom level.

 

This flexibility is the biggest reason my kids attend a public charter Montessori school - they have disparate strengths and weaknesses that can be handled within their own classroom.  There can be logistical difficulties occasionally.  I find my own way to work around these to my own satisfaction (e.g., by arrangement with my ds11's teacher, we mostly afterschool AoPS Intro to Algebra).

Yes, I considered Montessori schools for my kids when they left pre-K, but there were no Montessori schools past 8th grade here and I wondered about their merging into a traditional classroom at that point, after having been in Montessori for so long.  Ideally, this model could one day be the model of public education from pre-K through 12, although the way our education is heading, I doubt this will ever occur. 

[SKL]

 You prepare your child for the SATs in a number of ways throughout school, even though in 10 years, no school may accept the SATs.  But you know that there is a high *probability* that being able to do well on the SATs will be necessary skill, so you plan for it, even though you can't foresee everything. 

 

No, actually I do not give one single thought to my kids taking the SAT.  I am concerned with making sure my children learn how to acquire and organize information, read, communicate, reason, and know important stuff.  And also deal with people, take care of themselves, etc.  I am confident that if I do my job right, my kids' SAT scores will reflect their aptitude, which I think is the point of the SAT.

 

I have read somewhere that kids who start school later learn less overall throughout their young lives.  I read that after age 17 the ability to learn starts to decline.  It may be nice to be a top student / teacher's pet in 1st grade, but reaching the age of employability (and often of independence) without having a high school education could backfire.  It is fairly common for older kids to drop out of high school / move away from their parents for a variety of reasons.

 

If I have a child who struggles to exactly fit in with the physical expectations of KG or any future grade (as was the case with my eldest in 1st and to some extent in 2nd), I weigh the pros and cons.  It is not the end of the world if a kid pulls a card etc. because she is not yet mature enough to sit perfectly still.  They don't beat kids in school any more (at least where I live).  It's not the end of the world if the child needs to spend some time at home reading and going over math concepts.  It might actually be better for the child to have to work hard to get through school in the early years, and to not take things for granted.  Parents may need to dial back their own expectations of a perfect report card held by a beaming child.  My kid and I had some rough moments in 1st grade, but not so many that I wish we were still doing 1st grade this year.  :) 

 

I'm not saying there is no case where holding a child back is best for the child.  My discomfort is with the essentially automatic nature of this decision in some populations, including the one my kids' schoolmates belong to.

 

Seeing them change KG into military school in some places is indeed upsetting.  If redshirting were not an available option, what would parents do?  Maybe they would address the actual issue and pressure the schools to change.  I don't know.  I do feel that when people respond to poor school decisions by redshirting their children, they prevent the schools/teachers from experiencing the natural consequences of their mistakes and maybe learning a valuable lesson themselves.

[wapiti]

. 

 

Edited January 12, 2016 by wapiti

[MinivanMom]

I know parents who did this, also, and in some ways, they are operating in a very logical way.  If their kid is held back so that they have the academic foundation and physical stamina to tackle 4th - 5th grade and do spectacularly, that's not just vanity talking.  As in my post above, many districts like my own have a very poor middle school programs that are of low-quality and with no real academic challenge.  But the magnet schools are often very good.  But those magnet schools also use 4th- 5th year grades as admission criteria, so setting up a child to be super-successful in 4-5 grade allows these parents to give their kids an edge into the local magnet program.  Fair?  No.  But we all do what is best for our child in order to give them a leg up, and I don't blame or judge those parents at all.  It's no different than using family money to buy admission into a private school; you use what resources you have for your children.  People seem very envious when someone is able to give their kids a leg up in any way. 

 

 

Of course.

 

But if the question is, "Why do people speak so negatively about red-shirting," then this is the reason why. There are many people who want the playing field to be more level, so they do have a problem with parents giving their child a leg up, whether by red-shirting . . . or private tutoring . . . or charter schools . . . or private schools . . . or homeschooling.

 

Some people also react negatively, because they perceive your choices as impacting on their child. If enough parents red-shirt their bright children, then the teacher automatically adjusts her curriculum and expectations for the kindergarten class. Theoretically that impacts all the remaining children and intensifies the (already high) academic and behavioral expectations for young children. So in their eyes, you aren't just giving your child a leg up, but are making the situation worse for all the other children left behind. It's the same logic underscoring much of the opposition to charter schools and homeschooling. As a community, our choices for our children don't just affect our individual children, they impact on the community as a whole.

 

(Yes, I realize the irony in saying this as a homeschooler. Even though we homeschool and I fully affirm the right of individual parents to make the best choices for their children, I sympathize with these arguments and with the potential effect on the community as a whole.)

 

[MinivanMom]

In Finland they don't stay in high school till 19, do they?

 

I'd be fine with a later start if it didn't mean keeping young adults in high school. Talk about developmentally inappropriate.

 

This is the real issue. Why are our kids starting so much earlier and intensely compared to many countries, but then finishing later and behind? We need to be looking at those middle grades if we really want to fix this situation.

 

The real underlying issue is that a huge segment of the US population (and the educational establishment) seems to believe that starting earlier will always put you ahead. As long as the majority believes this, you won't be able to convince anyone to change the way we approach early childhood education in the States.

[MBM]

Developing character traits like self-regulation and perseverance is more important than pushing early academics. I've mentioned him before but Nobel laureate James Heckman has studied and written about character traits and why they are so important to develop, preferably at an early age.

 

Dan Goleman has written a book about managing attention -- focusing -- and how it helps people in their lives, including students.

 

http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/07/forget-delayed-gratification-what-kids-really-need-is-cognitive-control/

 

I wouldn't worry about early academics all that much.

[Library Momma]

I don't know how long ago the term 'red-shirting' came into wide use, but my mother was using it back when I was of K-age. Four of my five siblings have September birthdays. The state I grew up in had a mid-October cut-off, so we were some of the youngest in our class. (Ironically, one of the Valedictorians in my medium-sized (400-ish) high school graduating class had a Christmas birthday & skipped a grade. So, she was the youngest in my class. My little brother went to school with another Christmas birthday child - and she later skipped a grade & I think was the Valedictorian of her sizable graduating class.) My mother was (and is) adamantly against "red shirting" for sports reasons or so that the kid would be the Smarty (because they had an additional year of preK??) in the class.

 

Football is HUGE in my state-of-birth (and in my current state-of-residence). Boys are more commonly redshirted than girls where I live now.

 

Cut-offs vary rather widely between states with the most common date being "5 by September 1st." (Can someone from Connecticut verify if the "5 by Jan 1st" means they have to be 5.75 when enrolling or if it means they can be 4.75?)

 

Theoretically, parents know best right? But the term "red shirting" applies to those whose kids are READY to enter the first eligible year -- but the parents are holding them back to give them an advantage over their future classmates. 

 

My ds#1 started homeschooling K this year - which means I held him back. I didn't "redshirt" him because he wasn't ready to start sit-down work of any kind last year. Red-shirting is a negative term for many of us because it doesn't imply you are holding them back for developmental reasons. (I actually struggle with this in a reverse way because my oldest wouldn't qualify to be in the grade I have her in except in a small handful of states. If I decide to "giver her an extra year" later to put her with her age-mates, am I being unfair to the other kids she's competing against for scholarships?)

 

In CT kids with fall to Dec birthdays are 4 turning 5.When my son with a Sept birthday started K he was 4.  There happened to be 11 kids in his K class (out of 16) with Sept birthdays (which was an odd coincidence).  10 were 4 turning 5 and one was red-shirted and turning 6