I just saw that 60 Minutes will have a piece on academic redshirting on tonight:

60 Minutes website

Like they said, the kids they do this for already have the nature and nurture going in their favor. They don't need it. I'm not saying "it's not fair". I guess if everyone in an area does it then six is the new five, well, they're just networking and working it out in their own community. I'm going to be immature and vote "yes", they're bucking standardization and carving an individualized educational community that works for them. The one lady that put her kid in on time, well, he's doing fine too.

The lady in Chicago who wanted to redshirt in her area neighborhood where it wasn't routine I sympathize with. If she was worried that he would start to have problems in fifth or sixth grade then she probably knew something about a family trait that wasn't obvious. She wanted the best fit for her kid, but they want to wait until there's a problem.

I'm trying to understand the bigger picture, how these choices cause inequity or inefficiency in the system but I can't see it unless a parent was insisting their kid stay in a class when they fit in another class better. I could see that being awkward. I don't see the bigger picture where one town that redshirts creates inequity if another town doesn't. The cut off dates and course of study are different anyway. One school's cut off is in August and another's in December. I missed U.S. Geography because one state taught it in fifth grade and one State taught it in six. I guess that's what the common core standards effort is about. I guess if they get up in arms against redshirting they'll make a common age initiative next.
I kind of want to go the opposite way, where communities have more creative liberties to make it a redshirting district, for example.

Do you ever read anything by Sir Ken Robinson? He gave an amazing talk about changing education paradigms. In it, he talks about how students are grouped in schools and suggests that age is not the best way to group them. If you have a few minutes, this video is amazing.

Eek!  I was just thinking about my already advanced late birthday and the early birthday guy he plays chase with and how different academically they will be when school starts this fall, thinking I really wish schools could teach more at individual readiness levels, which would mean like you read about here school wide block scheduling and subject acceleration (it only makes sense).  I had to wonder if the redshirters  from the interview would reschedule their efforts to help their kid get ahead and become leaders if the schools restructured in favor of ability placement staggered across subjects?  or campaign to block ?

This issue drives me crazy. I think it's ridiculous that (most) schools allow parents to make this decision, but won't even listen to a parental request for acceleration. We know our kids well enough to say that they can't handle school, but not well enough to know that they can handle even more? Alrighty.

And the hypercompetitive parenting is insane! I think the schools should have a policy that says that any child held back by their parents will be prohibited from participating in GT/pullout/what have you in elementary school and forbid them from participating in sports their senior years if they are 18 prior to the start of that year. Perhaps then those twits like the blonde in this piece would back the heck off.

Of course, the schools like the older students because they can inflate test scores (which is also a reason so many are against acceleration).

I don't want children pushed to school before they are ready, but I don't know if competitive parents or test score greedy school personnel are the right people to make that decision.

Sorry for the rant.

They would campaign to block such a program since it would cancel any perceived benefit they hoped to gain for their child by redshirting. How great does their "reading very well" 6.5 year old really look if they are in the same class with "reading very well" 4 year olds? Can't have someone else's child outperforming The Little Prince.

My biggest issue with parents choosing to "red-shirt" their kindergarteners is that it increases the gap between those who have and those who do not. For example, we previously lived in a middle to upper-middle class suburban neighborhood where all the moms stayed home and almost all parents of boys with birthdays from May on "red shirted". In the very rural area we are in now, with many single-parent families and low income families, only a few can afford to stay home with their children and those who work cannot afford another year of childcare. How can these children compete with the boy who was red-shirted just because -- with a June birthday and a mid-October cut-off?

I wouldn't begrudge her kids the right to join GT a year behind their grade, because that's what redshirting to join a gt program is like.  You only get one chance to raise your kids, you should be able to do it how you see best.

Hmm., it seems like there's a conflict of interest then if they're dependent on keeping the system in aged-based tracking mode.  Funny, because it's like the article said their kids already have the nature and the nurture advantage.  Leadership edge seemed to matter more than competitiveness.  She wanted to make a little pond for her big fish, but without moving.  We'd have to think of a paradigm where they began to see more leadership development and networking opportunities increased for the savvy families if the classes became mixed-age and they had different peers in social studies than in math class.

I'm against gaming the system by using redshirting to elevate a child past the cutoff of a GT program. Resources are few and far between already for those programs in most places, and I agree with revmom that this works in favor of the "haves" in an unfair way. It's up to the program administrators to avoid this, though; I don't blame any parents for doing what they think is in their children's best interests.

Redshirting is extremely counterintuitive to me. I don't understand how people expect their children to excel if their academic progress is retarded. The redshirted children will be going through material that's a year behind what they'd normally be learning (keeping in mind that most PS programs are already pretty dumbed down in the primary grades), and at a pace appropriate for younger children. Can anyone say "dulled edge"? It would be worst for the true high-ability children.

Aww, you're okay.

The problem is that gifted kids aren't the focus of the vast majority of US public (and many private) schools.

From an outside perspective, it seems reasonable to think that people who are good at school should be recognized and mentored. It happens in sports, right? Why not school? Isn't that supposed to be the whole idea of school?

But by and large, that's not how American schools work. Their official mandate in the lower grades is to produce kids who pass high-stakes tests. In the higher grades, they have the same mandate and an extra unofficial one to send lots of kids to college.

So the schools have to focus on kids who can't pass the tests. If they don't, they could lose federal funding and their jobs. And colleges have entry and graduation requirements that are too demanding for many kids, so the system has to water down the courses. All this leaves out the bright kids. They're not the problem! They pass the tests and get into college.

Wow, I sound glum.

My DD6 started kindergrten two weeks after she turned 5. She has an August burthday and out cutoff is january 1. She is now in a first grade class of 15 children. 8 of the children in her class were red shirted and turned 7 before January and one was held back and just turned 8! I was pretty annoyed when I found out that the town we moved to has an unwritten rule that you must red shirt any child born after September first. Making my dd the youngest. So, even though she is pretty athletic, I don't sign her up fir soccer beacuse in first grade soccer, she is playing against older boys and I don't think it's safe and it makes her feel bad about herself because she can rub as fast and when she collides with someone, she is always the one to go flying accross the field.

BUT I have to say, it is so nice that she has several older girls to play with and even though she is the youngest she is the best reader in the class and doing well in math. So, I figure I have to remember to tr
eat her like she skipped a grade and remember that she may lag behind in areas like speed.

I only wish my older DD9 could have the same opportunity to interact with and learn with children who are closer to her maturity than her age. It really is not fair that I cannot choose that for my April baby.

@ Monetfan- my dd7 was the youngest in her kindergarten class-A summeR birthday with a September cut off- in a school district with a lot of red shirting- the school district had a full day K option only- she was emotionally spent every day- often would fall asleep on the 2 block drive home. She Was also the tallest and did not understand she was a year or more younger than everyone else-because she was bigger- she had a crappy teacher and at the end of the day she was not emotionally ready for moving to 1st grade. academically she was ready- but that is not always the most important thing. She knew another kid who was repeating Kindergarten that year and she begged us to let her repeat the following year. That was not the only reason we did it but It was the best decision we ever made- her confidence is incredible now when she was so insecure being the youngest. Our decision was not based on the other kids and competition it was based on her needs. I was the youngest in my class and hated it.
My gifted ds was sick in 2nd grade- very very sick and is also a summer birthday one of the youngest in his class- he repeated 2nd grade because he missed so much school. We did not know what his treatment was or if his gifted mind was going to recover- yes it was that bad. We found out his diagnosis in end of March of 2nd grade and without knowing what his recovery would look like and since his brain was affected- we petitioned for him to repeat- even though there was no academic reason for it- far from it( and switched schools for a fresh start). It took over a year to recover and now 2 years later his brain is back to what we thought it should be- he is blowing through the academics but is in the right peer level- he is not the oldest but he is a leader and one of the oldest. We did not hold him back to gain academic advantage- we did it to help him heal and to help him. Once again- best decision we could of made. Yes we did them both at the same time and switched schools- the old school was a horror story in itself. It would not matter if he was in 3rd, 4th or 5th right now- he would blow through whatever curriculum was presented but he fits with the friends he has there.( yes he tests in the top percentilesin the standardized tests in the grade he should be too) We found a school that will accelerate to his academic needs- he knows he needs it but he wants to stay with his friends for another year and work on his own. I figure by the time junior high hits his quirks might not be so well received and he will be ready to move. The school recoginzes that he needs GT more than another kid in the school( quote from the gifted teacher) so to say because he was redshirted he should not get gifted enrichment- you don't know why a kid was held back and it sounds like you want to make sure you kid does not get outperformed by one that is a little older- or why else would you care? You are sounding like one of those competitive parents yourself- why forbid a child like my son the gifted pullout he qualifies for and deserves.
Why not let a kid play sports if they are over 18? Who is it hurting? I was a gifted athlete and the youngest in my class- I beat all the older kids- if you are good then playing against the older kids does not matter- it just makes you better and unless we are trying to coddle our kids it is called reality.
Sorry but this really hits a nerve for me because there are so many assumptions and most parents don't redshirt to try and compete with our seriously gited kids. Most of our kids are in a completely different academic world than the kids that are red shirted to give them a little advantage- who cares if they do- it is their right!
I could care less how my child is reading compared to the next kid- whether they are older or younger- it is how they are progressing in their own growth.
Not everyone is looking for their child to be The Little Prince but instead find the right emotional, academic and social balance for their child.
Sorry if my son's debilitating illness that caused him to repeat a grade to heal would not meet your standards for a gifted program- or my very tall daughter should not play basketball her senior year because it might- just might give them an advantage over your child from getting to be the Little Prince. Trust me my decisions about their school and academics have nothing to do with anyone else but their needs and refuse to let my kids be a Little Prince or Princess in the first place.

In our rural public school almost all five-year-olds with spring and summer birthdays are redshirted. It did not matter that my son could already read at a 5th grade level when he started kindergarten at 5. It did not make any difference that he could easily read and follow the instructions on a third grade language arts worksheet and do mental math or that he really wanted to learn something new. None of that mattered.

If kids are not redshirted at 5, teachers recommend putting them in T1 after finishing kindergarten. T1 is a year in between kindergarten and first grade. It does not matter if they make what would normally be a passing grade on an end of year first grade test when they just finished kindergarten like my son did when he took the test to see if he could skip first grade.

I have heard that kids are redshirted so that they will be better able to compete in sports. Sports is everything here.

My son did look small compared to some of the boys in his kindergarten class who were a year and a half older, and he was bullied by some of them, but now that he is 13 he looks the same age as his 16 year old friend. He is also taller than his friend.

It should be a parents choice . That being said, so should early entry be a parents choice. Most schools will not allow a child to enter kinder a year early. What is the difference between the two?

I am not in a red shirting happy district. I do have a friend who red shirted their son in another suburb. He is in first grade and will turn 8 in April. There was no academic, health or maturity issues. He is small in stature, that is why he is held back. They also held back their daughter. She will be 6 in June. She will start kinder in September. Again, no issues just wanted to keep the kids at the 2 school years apart I guess.

The program just proved to me how silly the age-based requirements are for school. School readiness should be based on other factors, not age.

DH, DS8 and I all watched the program. I asked DS8 if he thought we made the right choices with him and his schools (he was effectively accelerated twice, now doing 4th grade work at a base level). He said we made the right decisions.

I think that probably any parent wants what they perceive as best for his child, but this redshirting has become a sort of epidemic with mediocre evidence to support it. I think a lot of parents are misled and swayed by peer pressure, unfortunately. But I did like Gladwell's comment about how if everyone does it, there will be no benefits. So will we now see twice redshirted kids to get that leg up?

My daughter, like my son, has a spring/summer birthday but we lived in the city when she was five and nobody redshirted. She started reading before kindergarten but not as early as my son and she never took an IQ test. I was a single parent and couldn't afford it. I think she might be gifted. She was bored in school and didn't care about grades. Her social life was more important and her friends were usually a little older. I think it would have been a mistake to hold her back also. If she was bored when she was kept at her grade level I can't imagine what it would have been like for her if she had been redshirted.

My birthday is after the cut-off date for a lot of schools. I was usually the best reader in my class even though I was one of the youngest kids in class. I can't imagine what it would have been like to be held back a year.

I made the mistake of telling people in our small town what I thought about the redshirting policy and they didn't like it.

bgbarnes, what I am is frustrated and bitter, not competitive. One of the excuses I have gotten from my son's school as to why acceleration will not be allowed is that he is already so young for his grade, there are already several kids a year or more older than him in grade, and that it would be even worse if he were skipped a grade. My son's birthday is early spring, we live in Texas with a 9/1 cutoff, and yet he is the youngest boy in his grade. It's ridiculous.

I know that there are times when a child should be held out for another year, especially in times of medical issues like with your son or in cases where there are actual learning or developmental issues. I said in my post that I don't want children pushed to school before they are ready- but for some, how do we know until they are in school? What the parents or even the teachers *think* will happen might not. It just seems crazy that we don't even let the kids try, for heaven sake. And as others have mentioned, it's just one more way for the poorer children to be further diadvantaged.

And I guess I've also run into the competitive parents too often to think that the legitimate delays exceed the frivolous. I know anecdotal doesn't trump scientific, but... For example, when my son first started school I was approached by a mom who I later learned thought that I had held my son back because he could read so well. She started talking to me about how she agreed with me about holding boys back, that she had held her son back to gain an edge, but that he wasn't reading as well as she'd hoped and she was wondering what program I'd used? I must have looked at her like she had 3 heads, and I couldn't even respond because at that point I was quite naive about schooling issues and didn't know what the heck she was talking about. Long story short, where I live, this redshirting nonsense is all about gaining an edge, making their kids appear smart by pitting them against those 1 year younger, and planning ahead for the all important football years.

I'm sorry if my post offended you. I know there are times when children need an extra year, but I really can't believe that 15% do (the most recent estimate I've seen).


And on edit, in case I wasn't clear (and I'm sure I wasn't!): The reason I care is that redshirting indirectly hurts advanced students in those instances where the range of students' ages is used as an excuse to justify refusing acceleration. Fairly common reason given, from what I've been able to determine.

The blond woman from the segment said she wants her son to have advantages, though she doesn't want the other children to be disadvantaged.

My birthday is at the end of October. Back in the day, I started school early- you made the cutoff, so you started. I was always the youngest and shortest kid in the class. I was socially immature- probably average for my age, but compared to my classmates, not as mature.
Academically, it was no problem but it wasn't until college and medical school that I caught up socially.
My son has an October birthday too. When his preschool suggested we wait a year, we did. He's small for his age, so it's not like he will be a star football player in high school. It made alot of sense for us to do that. If he had an August birthday, we wouldn't have done that.
I think if he were a grade ahead now, academically it would be fine but socially it would be harder. I also think for boys that the physical part is very important- if you are the shortest, slowest boy at running, it really can affect your self-esteem.
He is more mature than some of the kids, his handwriting is excellent, etc. I think it is for him b/c we waited. I think it can make a huge difference for alot of kids to wait.
Supposedly a fair number of Chinese immigrants in our area lie about their kids' ages (if they are babies) when they come over, to give them that advantage.
I can see it makes a huge difference in our elite swim team. Kids who are bigger get better coaching and get into the harder workouts, which feeds into them getting even better, etc. It really is exactly as Malcolm Gladwell outlines in his book, Outliers. I suspect it is also true for redshirting and academics.

This is a really interesting issue, wish I would have seen that show. Fortunately, not many people in our area redshirt. I only know of one and he had an August 15 birthday (our district has a Sept. 1 cutoff), and I really think it was more to get him on par developmentally/socially with his classmates rather than to gain some sort of advantage.

I'm curious, though, did the show offer any research that demonstrates either an academic or sports advantage in the long run, say by high school? Or was it just focused on the parents' belief that there is such an advantage?

My perspective on this comes from my kids' birthdays, neither of whom I redshirted, BUT DS8 was born Sept 4 and DS5 was born May 30. So, DS8 was 6 just about his entire kindergarten year and DS5 will be 5 until the last week of school. Right now, this age difference seems significant, although DS5 has had no problems in K, but by the time they are in high school I feel like that difference will have faded. Sometimes now I wish DS8 had been born a week earlier so that he could be in 3rd grade now instead of 2nd, but honestly at age 5 he would have struggled alot socially (especially since we had not yet recognized his SPD and the related behaviors).

So, I just wonder if there have been any demonstrated benefits of redshirting beyond elementary?

There's a link on the 60 Minutes site to the full segment. The research on the "pro" side was Malcolm Gladwell's incremental / snowball advantage theory and a paper by a woman researcher (forgot her name). An academic on the other side scoffed and said that the research is split.

Monetfan- sorry if I got so upset but I live in the great football state of Texas too so I understand the prolific red shirting for sports! I guess I have given up on expecting the school to provide any serious acceleration academics for my son- because I really believe a public school's only job is require a basic education- those parents on this board that are able to get more out fo them are lucky. My school does the best they can- the rest is up to me. When my child in the beginning of 3rd grades tests in the 87th percentile of 10th graders for Science knowledge- there is nothing that school can do- and he is not ready to attend high school or middle school- it would be the worst thing i could do for him. The principal just looked at me shocked in his 504(for PANDAS) when I talked about how can you manage the academic needs when she looked at his scores. We go to an exemplary school too.

My son is a good athlete and I get pressure all the time- why isn't he playing sports any more you know "Johnny" really wants him to play.( I also never let him play footall- even before he got sick). My head wants to spin around and say don't you remember he has that autoimmune issue and we lived through hell and it just has not worked and his health is too important??? Instead I say- he's just going to be a different kid- he'd rather have his nose in a book( I leave out it is a high school biology book). Parents probably think I push him academically because we do an outside math class(common in our school district- especially for the Asian and Indian children) and by the books he reads- but it has nothing to do with pushing it's finding the way to challenge him and his interests- granted I do push him some because as smart as he is- he would play video games or turn into a slug in front of the TV if I let him. If I let him just do the class work he would be in a world of trouble every day since he needs more than his typical school work.
Regarding the 15% it does not sound off to me- there are so many preemies these days that survive when in the past they would not have and normally their academic development needs to be counted from when they should of been born not when they were born- many of them need to be redshirted too.
In a class of 20- 15% would mean 3 kids need to be redshirted- that really does not seem off to me. My daughter was 1 of those kids, the preemie twins add the other 2- there is your 15%.
I wish you luck if grade acceleration is what you want and WOW! If your child can socially handle!!!!

I had a child who fell right on the school date cut-off for K enrollment and red-shirting is very prevalent in our district. When I was deliberating the issue, there was only a few bits of advice that I could find:

1) You won't know if you made the right choice until 3rd or 4th grade.
2) If you don't red-shirt, your child will be going to school with many children who are 16 and 17 months older than she is.


The impression I got was that there was no "downside" in holding them back, which knowing what I know now about bright/gifted kids is absolutely ridiculous.

Anytime I hear of someone thinking about red-shirting, I try to remember to send them "What a Child Doesn't Learn".

Yes. Whatever wisdom there may be to redshirting kindergartners doesn't apply in the same way to gifted kids, and applies even less to highly gifted kids. Acceleration is often the best choice overall despite the emotional/physical age mismatch. For kids past a certain threshold, the argument about being seen as one of the smarter ones just doesn't apply-- that's not any extra benefit.

I agree with what Austin wrote in a different thread, that high intellectual activity in younger grades can be seen as emotional immaturity. That's often more of a problem than making sure that HG+ kids get attention; they're often already getting it, but sometimes the wrong kind.

Nor do I think that redshirting would be good for the HG+ kid who likes to fly under the radar; that sort will just be a physically more mature average-seeming kid, and may even run the risk of appearing below average to a teacher! It's the rare HG+ kid who will tend to appear moderately highly achieving.

It boils down to this: I'd rather have an intellectually engaged kid who's learning, and sort out the rest as necessary, than a dulled kid who's assertive because he's one of the biggest in his grade. The reason that "A Nation Deceived" etc. exist is because normal thinking doesn't apply to HG+ children.

I agree with MonetFan. There are definitely appropriate reasons to hold a child back, but I doubt that most who redshirt their kindergartners have what I'd consider to be valid reasons. To hold a child back to put others at a disadvantage is inequitable, and if everyone were able to do it would merely result in retarding academic progress for all, with no benefit to any. It's just not based on good social sense, whether it works to some children's advantage or not.

My 5th birthday fell right before the first day of K, and I come from a long line of late bloomers, so as a male with some of these physical disadvantages that redshirting is supposed to prevent, I have some perspective.

Bullying was a BIG problem up 'til the end of 7th grade. After that, not it tapered off. I only had one fight with someone who picked on me in 9th (and I won), in 10th I had a guy bothering me all year but it never got to a physical exchange, and 11th on there were no issues.

Fitting in socially was also a problem... til the end of 7th grade. Noticing a pattern?

Sports were not really a problem. I played football outside of school, in Pop Warner. They group people by age and weight, so grade isn't a factor. After I quit that, I didn't have any further interest in organized sports, because I was doing other things. I played informally with my friends, and did well enough.

Probably the most important indicator is who I hung out with in high school. Everyone I hung out with was older than me, often by more than one year. As I moved through the years, I became more exposed to kids younger than me, and I just had no interest whatsoever in them. So, take that and factor in what a sheer torture the slow pace of school was for me in elementary school, and there's no question that redshirting would have been the wrong choice for me.

Oh, we had a lot of experience with this topic! Our son's birthday is in the last few days of August, with a September cutoff. It never occurred to me to hold him back, and his preschool teacher didn't recommend holding him back. Then I found out that EVERY boy at his school--through even March & April--was staying back. The school director showed me the birth dates of the kids going into the 2 kindgergarten classes, and the closest boy in age to him was going to be 6 months older than him, and the oldest would have been 18 months. He was a preemie (he was due to be born in mid-October), but healthy. He is/was gifted, and was showing all the signs, but I wasn't really picking up on them yet, despite things his teachers were saying (I thought they were just being "nice"). HIs pediatrician convinced me to hold him back, saying that he was really due in mid-October, in which case I wouldn't have been allowed to send him to K. I ended up falling for the "there's no downside to staying back and doing the pre-K class", so that's what we did.

K was fine; he loved school and his friends. Then in October of 1st grade, his teacher and the enrichment teacher called us in and wanted him to skip to 2nd grade. This is not common in our school district--he's the only kid who had skipped a grade in the past 5 years--but they really thought it was for the best. It was stressful to do it mid-year (it didn't happen until Thanksgiving time), and we worried about what other kids would say, since it was a pretty obvious switch. But it was totally fine. And I was kicking myself for technically "redshirting" him in the first place--we could have avoided this whole situation.

Fast forward to 7th grade. Now I have mixed feelings. Yes, he has continued to excel academically, and is going to be going to the high school for math next year in 8th grade, so it has not been a problem academically. On the other hand, I don't think it has been a huge benefit academically--the next grade really isn't all that much harder, so once you make the adjustment, for truly gifted kids, school is STILL way too easy, and skipping one grade doesn't solve that. Even skipping 2 grades doesn't turn regular school work into a challenge. Fortunately, he is a polite but social child, so I try to appreciate a lot of the social elements of school, and know that he is more challenged by things like Science Olympiad, MathCounts team, his writing assignments, reading exceptional literature, etc.

But there IS a downside to skipping ahead, and to me it rears itself in middle school. Puberty, etc. Fortunately, he is a taller kid, and there is SUCH a range of sizes in 7th grade, that he doesn't look out of place physically. But I do think he will be a later bloomer puberty-wise, and the things I am hearing that the kids are into absolutely SHOCK me. I really have no wish to have him spending all of his time with boys who are 12-18 months older than he is--I'd prefer to let him be a little kid a little bit longer. So while I wasn't concerned during elementary school, now I have some regrets about him being the youngest.

But SOMEBODY has to be the youngest!!!! And logically, if the August people keep their kids back, then the Julys will want to, then the Junes, then the Mays....until you have 9 year olds going to K.

My wish: that just like we can't choose to skip our kids into K early, I wish you couldn't hold them back unless there has been some sort of evaluation that determines they need to be kept back (obviously the medical issue mentioned above would qualify). I also agree that if you redshirt for no other reason than to "give your kid a leg up", then they shouldn't be in g/t programs in K, 1st, or 2nd grade--if they are academically ready, they should go to school! I never would have tried keeping him back if all those other summer & spring people didn't do it. I don't mind him being the youngest, but I just wish it was within a 12 month band, with some other boys his age, or near his age, in his grade.

I admit, I'd rather see ability grouping happen than skipping grades--my son would learn so much more in a high-ability 6th grade class than in a heterogenous 7th grade class. I have not found skipping to be a fantastic solution :-(

I was going to say the same. I do wish that they'd interviewed the lady who wrote this article. She said in the article that the research mostly pointed toward no lasting benefit from being older.

I, too, have late summer/early fall kids who started young. My youngest had a child in her K class who was on his second year of full-day K and who was very advanced academically (as a result of the two years of K or b/c he was very able, I don't know). She has friends who turned 7 in K b/c they were redshirted. She was six weeks shy of five at the start of K.

The main areas where I find that this bothers me are related to:

1) Teachers (at least ones I've met) often confuse high achievement with giftedness. Having kids who are this much older in the early grades exacerbates this problem IMHO and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

Six and half year old kindergarteners may be better readers or appear much more mature. They are tracked into high achieving groups, chosen for enrichment pull outs, etc. like the 60 minutes segment mentioned. At the elementary where dds started, those early pull outs consisted of essentially test prep for the tests used for GT ids later. Not surprisingly, this increases the odds that these kids will be placed in GT placement later which increases the problem with the GT classes not being designed for gifted kids b/c they are filled with so many kids who have learning needs that are not quite the same as those of gifted kids. See this article on the difference btwn the needs of gifted kids and high achievers for what I'm getting at.

2) My dds are being, probably fairly, compared to kids who are older than they. However, there are parents who get around this too. For instance, my oldest who was 12 at the start of 9th (late bd combined with grade skip), has entered contests like writing contests where she is compared with much older kids b/c they are based on grade. When she did talent search, she registered using her actual grade. There are parents, though, whose kids are either in their appropriate grade or redshirted and then subject accelerated in many subjects (and sometimes by more than one grade in math) and whose kids participate in things like talent search or contests by the younger grade they are in although they are enrolled in similar classes to kids in the older grade.

As I've said before, though if the choice is being compared to much older students and being placed appropriately educationally or appearing even more advanced because dd is placed inappropriately, I'll take the former over later.

My kids are both midwinter birthdays, so this isn't a question for us. However, I have always thought the whole redshirting trend was not a good one, and have seen it cause issues in DD's class. That said, there were two studies recently showing that simply being young for grade dramatically increases a child's chance of being diagnosed with ADHD. That's a huge problem, and if I had a squirrelly child who was going to be young for grade, I'd feel forced to consider the possibility that someone was going to try to slap on that label even when not warranted.

Yes.

The district adjacent to ours has great GT programming. It is common knowledge that parents hold their kids back so they can "get into the GT program".

Those children aren't gifted. They're OLD.

Very interesting topic. You'd think people would be intelligent enough to see a child who is "advanced" for his grade due to redshirting is not actually advanced at all. Like herenow said... they aren't gifted, just "old".

If standardized tests were scored based on age norms rather than grade norms, academic red shirting wouldn't happen. Of course, the grade norms serve a purpose... *sigh*

This topic makes me so angry, so I'll leave it be for the most part. Needless to say with three boys, all with August birthdays (august 30th for two of them) I've encountered this with other parents numerous times and the conversations rarely go well.

My belief is that there should have to be valid proof of academic failure to hold a child back, especially at that age. Parents wanting to artificially get their children ahead by holding them back is downright cruel. My children were/are bored enough in K already...they'd really hate me if they had to do it again!

Are there cases where it should be done, absolutely! But those are not the ones that are the subject of "red shirting". I know many who do it, and it is all for the parents...not for their children. Examples like above where they appear smarter and are placed into gifted programing in later years due to it, thereby ruining the GT program with kids that don't need it and lowering instructional standards for those that do!

I'm very new to all this so forgive me if this is a stupid question, but aren't the tests to get into gifted programs calculated by age rather than grade?

IT depends what test. If you take an IQ test, it is normed to your age. My son took the OLSAT in school for entrance into the gifted program, and that seemed to be normed to his grade.

Dd took the OlSat this year and I believe it was based on ages within three months. I would be mad if she didn't make it and other older children dis if it were based on grade. Not only do people in my town redshirt like crazy, but they talk about others who don't like their poor decision to send their four year old to kinder is holding the whole class back and how could they do that to the rest of us!

I don't understand the perspective that if a child is born for example August 15th is held back for a September 1 cutoff that people think they should not qualify for GT programs. Many of GT kids have asynchronistic development and may need to mature emotionally before entering K, especially if they are 2E. The difference between an Aug 15th birthday and a Sept 2 birthday that has to wait a year in maturity is huge. Why should a child be punished based on an arbitrary date- Sept, Oct, Nov birthdays get the advantage over June, July and Aug- what is "fair" about that? I know of private schools that won't let you enroll a boy born after June-even though there is a Sept 1 cutoff- they go to a TK program. Saying a redshirted child does not belong in GT program would be like PG parents saying that HG and MG kids should not be in the same gifted class as their kid because they are more gifted- irrational right?? That would tick off the MG and HG parents who know their kid is deserving of the pullout curriculum.

Our GT program is based on COGATS and NNAT( I think that is the acronym) when they do the test it is AGE based. You either score over 132 and make it or you don't. Now if you have MAP scores in the 95% of the district( not national average because our district is higher than the national average) exceptions can be made but exceptions are based on teacher observations and recommendations too- not just MAP's.
If your child qualifies they get in- there is not a limit to the amount of kids in it. It also does not give accelerated subject work at 3rd grade- he does critical thinking and a deeper study of topics taught in regular class. Honors don't start until Middle school and non-gifted good bright students get into those too. I think that is appropriate. There are a number of Children in the local Asian community that take classes to boost their COGAT before taking the test- I say if they are that desperate- let them do it and let their kid into the GT class- it's not hurting our kids because the curriculum is what it is and all of our kids are so different with different strengths and weaknesses no program could be a fit all program. The real gifted kids are not being harmed by their presence( my son wonders why a couple kids are in his GT class- saying "Joe" just does not really seem like a PACE(GTprogram) kid- but does not see it as a bad thing). I know my son really needs to get his academic acceleration outside of a traditional public school- because they normally are not capable of accommodating the acceleration needs.

I know of a redshifted child with an October birthday with a cutoff of Jan. He is obviously verbally gifted. My dd befriended him in kinder. He was six and she was five. It was super nice to have someone in the class who interested my dd and had conversations with her. But he was so much taller and wiser and when he latched on to her as a kindred spirit amongst all the other "babies" he had a hard time letting go. I wanted her kindergarten year to be about exploring frienships since she already knew how to read. But this boy had three years in preschool and ha was done exploring friendships and he found the woman he was going to marry. I had to put a stop to that. I guessmy point it, though the redshirted kids are great playmates for my children, and I'm happy to have them in the class, sometimes it is so bad for the one being held back, especially a held back, tall, gifted boy, that it stunts their growth and there really is no answer as to how to fix it. Even though a friend like my dd is what he needed, my dd needed to explore. Unfortunately, this boy has not been moved up a grade and still has to learn to read with the babies. Also I have to mention that the parents know very well that this child is gifted.

He might have some coordination problems that interfere with his handwriting, but they have had to fight for him to get harder spelling words and such. Why would you want to hold a child back a year and then have him singled out for needing harder work? Idk.

O am still trying to figure out that whole thing and it's a year later. So, my gifted six year old will be competing with a gifted child a year older for top of the class. I have a feeling that this poor boy will lose interest in school though before we get to that point. I really don't know why this child was held back other than many other late birthday boys were also held back.

I didn't see the 60 minutes segment, but I think what the posters above are saying is they think kids are being redshirted who really wouldn't make the GT cutoff if they were in their age-appropriate grade, but parents hold them back thinking they will have higher academic achievement simply because they are older. I'll be honest - it doesn't make sense to me that that would happen! And maybe it doesn't happen in all school districts, but most of the G/T programs I've heard of have *some* component of ability testing required for elementary, which if it's a true ability test you can't prep for it and it's normed by age not grade - so kids who aren't meant to be G/T aren't going to qualify just because they are held back for a year.

We haven't redshirted any of our kids, but fwiw our EG ds has a very late birthday. Even though he needs subject acceleration, it's been a good experience for him to be one of the oldest in his class socially and emotionally. My middle dd is right smack in the middle of the age range for her grade, and to be honest, there have been *quite* a few times I wish we had redshirted her - not to get her into a GT program but because she is on the later side of emotional maturity and by the time she hit 3/4 grade that started impacting her schoolwork.

I haven't known many families who redshirted their kids, and I don't think it's terribly common where we live (my kids haven't had redshirted kids in any of their classes as far as I know). Of the families I know who've held their kids back when starting K, they didn't do it for getting their kids into GT programs, they did it because their children weren't just quite ready for full day school either emotionally or behaviorally. Most of those kids are in middle school now and overall have done well with being redshirted. Most of the families I've known who felt their kids should be in G/T fought hard for acceleration rather than being interested in redshirting.

polarbear

I found this video much more interesting. I have been saying for a while that the educational system does not fit my DS. He is bored of sitting in class all day doing work sheets, feeling unable to explore and really learn, and at the same time draining his creativity. I wish the education system would listen more to Sir Ken Robinson.

I just saw a report on the news that says younger children are more likely to be misdiagnosed with ADHD when it is really immaturity. Before we knew my son had PANDAS and we were searching for an answer as to what was wrong- one psychologist said he was "severely impaired with ADHD" she also said that I would be doing damage to my sons life if I don't medicate him. He was barely 5 ( summer birthday) and she said I should retain him- saying his intelligence was not really a factor in the decision since he had such bad ADHD. My Mommy gut said no to the retention and ADHD and I did not medicate and kept looking. She spoke in a baby voice to my son so I honestly discounted any diagnosis she made- I could see my son did not respect her( which meant he tested and pushed every boundary she had . Now we realize we were dealing with PANDAS at the time not ADHD. What she saw was him being a boy- a gifted immature boy with synchronistic development that does NOT need medication!! So if you are 30-40% more likely to get an ADHD diagnosis for being the youngest due to immaturity- why wouldn't you hold back??? Why risk getting you child labeled a trouble maker which effects the self esteem and the rest of how you function in school?? Before my son was Sick he was a big trouble maker- not able to handle the immaturity and intelligence being the youngest in the class. After being retained for medical reasons he handles his intelligence SO much better being one of the older kids. He does not get in trouble nearly as much( I wish I could say ever but he is still a handful :)) and every person at his 504 hearing for PANDAS was shocked when I told them a Dr once tried to diagnosed him with ADHD- every single person said- he does NOT have ADHD. My Dad told me if you are a hammer everything looks like a nail- this Dr was not able to distinguish immaturity in a gifted boy from ADHD. So glad my Mommy Gut was so strong not to medicate but she also was really adamant I should retain him because of the immaturity- which we eventually had to do for medical issues a few years later and it did have very beneficial results in how he functions in the class. He is a leader when he was the trouble maker before(in fairness his PANDAS contributed greatly to that perspective) I look at the kids a grade older at boy scouts and I can see the difference in maturity still- but I also live in a heavy redshirted district. My ds can talk to them- generally they can't keep up on certain topics but the social interaction maturity is just off.
I still think it is the parents decision and the child should not be denied access to gifted programs- but why wouldn't you redshirted if immaturity is an issue and putting your child in jeopardy of being misdiagnosed and possibly wrongly medicated?

Why we didn't redshirt despite immaturity and 2Eness:

1. Need for appropriate academic work; we felt that our particular kids pay better attention and behave better when there's something novel in it for them.

2. Our most trusted developmental ped. is against redshirting even for kids with disabilities because it's stigmatizing (even the kindergartners know and talk about who's a year older and why) and it deprives them of challenging growth opportunities.

Even in cases of disability or immaturity, redshirting is usually not a clear-cut decision in light of these issues, and the choice should absolutely be made case by case based on what's available at the school as well as the capacities and needs of the child.

Despite our copious challenges, we are still glad we didn't redshirt.

DeeDee

ETA: BGbarnes, I'm not questioning your choice, btw, and it sounds as though it worked out well for you. Just answering your question: I do not think the risk of an ADHD misdiagnosis should automatically indicate redshirting.

What's true for the right side of the bell curve -- mental age, not chronological age should determine placement -- is also true for the left side.

A child with an IQ of 80 will have a mental age of 4 when he is 5 years old. It may make sense to delay putting him in KG until he is 6, when his mental age will be 6*0.8 = 4.8, especially if most of the other kids in KG have mental age >= 5 and the curriculum is designed for such children. The low-IQ 5yo may belong in preschool instead. Concerns about stigmatization should weighed against a child's frustration of being in a class that is over his head.

Yes and no here. Placement in GT/honors/accelerated classes is based nearly entirely on achievement in the district my girls attend. The district GT page specifically states that a GT id doesn't mean placement in GT classes, that achievement and work habits need to be in place. Kids without that id are also placed in those classes if the achievement is in place. A formal id does require two separate areas of indication that the child is gifted. Those two areas can be achievement (grade level normed, so being older may help here), ability (one part of the CogAT or OLSAT that hits the 95th and is age normed), performance (grades, teacher recommendation, etc. which are also potentially benefitted by being older), or behavioral characteristics (which are, again, influenced by the perception of the teacher who is identifying those characteristics).

So, for instance, a child could be identified as gifted in language arts based on As in reading and an advanced CSAP/TCAP (CO's NCLB tests) score in reading or writing even if the verbal part of the CogAT is not above average and the child has never taken a IQ test. S/he could also be identified as gifted in language arts, like my dd11, b/c she has a 99.7th VCI score on the WISC and 99th+ individual achievement scores on tests like the WIAT. Both of these kids get the same GT reading class and the later child actually may not wind up in the GT reading class if, like my dd and another child I know, the child is 2e and have behavioral issues or erratic achievement. My dd did stay in GT reading despite 2e, but I know gifted kids who have not. I also know gifted kids who are underachieving and also wind up with no services beyond supposed in class differentiation.

And over here, there's a matrix score required to receive the GT label. One of the components is an IQ test, and the other two are achievement tests (language arts and math). The first is age-normed, and the other two are grade-normed.

The state tries to cast a wide net for GT, so it doesn't miss anyone. So at a certain IQ level, achievement results don't matter. As you slide down the IQ scale, achievement matters even more... to the point where a 1SD high-achiever can be admitted to GT with high achievement scores and a staff recommendation.

And that's where the redshirt manipulation factor comes in, because a more mature high-achiever pushed by a tiger mom is exactly the kind of kid who will get a staff recommendation.

This is the type of scenario I was referencing with my earlier remark.

This is the type of thing I was referring to as well, and it is done in the state we reside in ( which I believe is the same as the poster).

Well, we live in a district where some of the kids in the GT program are in the 50th percentile for ability testing, and the average percentile for ability testing is the 70th percentile. Virtually all these kids are included in the GT program because of their scores on state testing, MAP testing, and teacher recommendations. So, the GT net is huge and kids who are redshirted have an advantage. Rather than a score cutoff, there is a set number of students that can qualify for each school. Every kid deserves the kind of enrichment that kids in the GT program get, but the quality of the enrichment can be affected when you're targeting it at students at different ability levels, and it means that an EG kid still may not have a peer group or a challenging environment and may still need acceleration beyond the GT program.

What really gets my goat are the parents who brag loudly that their kids are subject or grade accelerated when they were redshirted in the first place.

OK, I was coming from the perspective of living in a school district where there is a matrix that is used for qualifying for the gifted programs which includes ability scores as well as achievement plus teacher recs. Where we're at, if you don't meet a specific ability score, it doesn't matter what the rest of your matrix is in elementary school. In secondary schools, there are two tracks - honors classes and gifted magnet program. The honors classes are based on achievement only, for the gifted magnet you still have to have high ability scores.

I am really surprised to read that in some places the average ability scores for GT programming are in the 70th percentile for ability. Also surprised to read of a state trying to cast a wide net so that no one is missed - that would be the polar opposite of the school district I'm in lol.

polarbear

I don't think 70th percentile is the norm in many places, but it is an example of how some districts have other criteria which are much more important than actual ability testing scores and how redshirting can confer upon some children the label of being "gifted" by virtue of the fact that they older. It can be interpreted as trying to meet the academic needs of as many students as possible, but when gifted programming is designed to meet the needs of high-achieving vs. gifted, the needs of some of the kids (at both ends) are surely not being adressed properly.

The district in which I live is the worst of both worlds, it both limits the number of students admitted to the 1 GT class to 15 students and highly considers achievement testing and teacher recommendations, though ability testing is also a component. Redshirting even a slightly above average student can give that child a huge advantage in GT entrance.

FWIW, none of this affects my child since he attends a private school (where redshirting is just as bad, but the whole curriculum is advanced anyway). I just don't think it's fair to the kids in our public school to have parents unfairly gaming the system. It's also too obvious who the redshirted kids are because they have to play league sports (also huge in my area) with their agemates, so other parents clearly see what's going on. Absent extraordinary circumstances, it just doesn't pass the smell test for me. Just my personal opinion, and obviously there are many different points of view on this subject.

ETA: BGbarnes, I'm not questioning your choice, btw, and it sounds as though it worked out well for you. Just answering your question: I do not think the risk of an ADHD misdiagnosis should automatically indicate redshirting. [/quote]

DeeDee- I don't think it should automatically indicate Redshirting either but only the parent knows what is best for each individual child and should not be prevented from GT services if they qualify. It is much better being one of the mature ones vs being the immature one getting in trouble all the time. I actually chose not to Redshirt my gifted son when the Doctor suggested it do to what she thought was ADHD and experienced my son being the youngest and very immature. I only "Redshirted" when my son got seriously ill, missed over 30 days of school and we had no idea what his recovery was going to be like over the next year. It was not my plan. He technically was held back due to absences not for Redshirting purposes. However, having experienced K, 1st and 2nd being an immature youngest smart kid and the older smart kid in 2nd and 3rd-there is NO QUESTION it works so much better for my son- maturity wise being older in the class-even though that was not the reason he was held back. Since his brain has healed and is back to functioning back at his accelerated pace(it took almost 1 1/2 years to recover-easily his entire 2nd 2nd grade year was about recovery-mentally,emotionally and physically and relearning what was lost during his illness)- I honestly did not know if he was still going to have a gifted mind after he recovered- he had lost so much when he was sick. Now that his brain is turbo charged again not even the 4th grade class would not have the right curriculum in the classes that he needs acceleration in-(Spelling he definitely needs grade level-OUCH!) but the school does a good job of managing him and we supplement outside so letting him develop those positive social skills and self esteem beats the alternative of probably getting picked on. However, it is interesting to note that my sons birthday is after the baseball cutoff (June 1st is the age cut off) and we always had to play up a year to play with his friends from school before he got sick- quite the opposite of the redshirt for sports kids mentality. My daughter is the one we held back-repeated Kindergarten for maturity reasons-not academic. Yes- I Redshirted her-best decision I ever made for her and she helped make the decision. I have not tested her in any way yet as she does not present as gifted like my son did. With my son it hits you in the face when meeting him . She will get testing done in the next month- just for our reference. She is a good student- smart but not sure if she is gifted and if she is, it is in very different ways than my son.
So I have experienced this from many different angles- choosing not to redshirt when recommended. Being forced to due to illness ( I actually was given the option of having him go forward even though he missed so much school because he scores were so high but he was just so sick- I picked the safe route and if he missed a lot of school again the next year- it would not matter as much.....) and choosing to Redshirt with another child. Every single decision was based on the individual child's need and never once did the thought come into my head about is this going to help him get into a GT program. I think in Texas most parents do it for sports vs. getting into the GT program. Just to mix it even more-I should mention that my step son ( we really use the word bonus instead of step) that I got when he was 12 is the absolute youngest in his grade- 17 Senior and was in the GT program since 1st grade-Duke TIP kid, is a great student, has a great GPA, ACT,SAT offered scholarships to every school he applied to. He is the most mature Senior- level headed teenager I have ever met and he is the absolute youngest in the grade. So it all depends on the child- the parents knows what is best for their kid. All of mine had to be handled differently- since they are all different kids. I know I have been pretty vocal on this topic but I have had a lot of experience with it in a number of different ways and at the end of the day the child should not be punished for a parents decision and it is the parents right to make the decision that is best for their child.

We may have a semantic disagreement here, but I don't consider repeating a year in light of a known issue (be it medical, academic, or social) to be redshirting. It may be that 60 Minutes did (I didn't watch the piece), but redshirting in the elementary school context usually means delaying entry to kindergarten in the absence of any known issue.

I wouldn't consider either of your kids to have been redshirted, any more than I'd consider DD's (extremely bright, extremely immature, despite being old-for-grade) classmate who repeated K for maturity reasons to have been.

This made me ponder... the kids in those leagues are obviously talking on the playing field, and at some point the question has to come up for the redshirted kids: "Why are you only in nth grade?"

How many of these kids respond (internally) with, "because I'm dumb"?

No, the lady interviewed clearly said that she held her kids back because "you give your kids every advantage you can". Not that I think holding kids back gives them a long term advantage (a la Gladwell's 10,000 hours). But I support her efforts to parent her kids how she sees fit. I don't think it's fair that she can redshirt & I couldn't get early entry (which I think would have given my kid a behavioral advantage of having the bar set higher for maturity.)

My mom always said they did it backwards, they should send kids to work since they have energy to burn and adults to school because they would enjoy it.
Eta: I don't even know if redshirting's available everywhere, but I don't want to see that "loophole" closed. I'd like to see more parental discretion encouraged, not less.

If I had taken the kindergarten teacher's advice to redshirt my child who had a mild muscle weakness and fatigue issues, he wouldn't have been able to move ahead and learn as fast as he needed to learn. We had no way of knowing that at age 11 he would need to start wearing a painful brace and he would need to wear it for years. Because he was ahead academically, it didn't worry me as much when we had to take breaks.

It has been very difficult this year and we had to take a lot of breaks. He did almost no math at all for three months while he was getting used to the new, more painful brace. We took time off when my mother died. We are taking time off to help my dad who lives next door and just had knee replacement surgery. My dad is in a lot of pain right now. We went through the stress of knowing that he could suffer severe complications like my mother did and be left severely cognitively impaired for the rest of his life. Sometimes we take time off for a mental health day and sometimes it is for me when I am overwhelmed by all the pain I see around me and know that there is nothing I can do to alleviate my child's and my dad's pain except to be there. My son and I also have a hard time getting enough sleep so we have to work around fatigue issues. Then there is the problem with our internet. We never know when it will work and we have no other choices here in our small town.

With all that we are dealing with now, I am just so glad that I never held my son back. Since we homeschooled after he finished kindergarten, he is not behind academically because I let him learn at the rate he was capable of and move ahead when he had the chance.

Alexsmom- I would agree my son was not Redshirted but how do you draw a line about what gets services and who doesn't because the district wanted to forgive his absences. My daughter was redshirted- she could have gone on to 1st grade- it would have been harder on her and she most likely not be the same confident leader she is today but her scores were good- not like my sons but high and I made the decision based on how her emotional development would be affected. Her whole world was rocked when her brother got sick too- so it all happened at the same time. So I think it is fair to say I redshirted her .

I guess that I'd say that in a perfect world, to remove outside influences on who is placed in GT programming I'd like to see the following:

* GT placement based on age normed individual IQ scores not achievement, teacher recommendation, or other subjective factors
* individualized GT programming that doesn't exclude 2e kids b/c of erratic achievement and focuses more on abstractions, depth, and self paced work so it better meets the needs of gifted kids who don't just need more of the same faster but still honors that some gifted kids need significantly increased pacing (thus the self pacing)
* no studying for GT placement tests (no outside tutoring, no teachers who prep the kids who they think ought to be in GT, etc.)

Of course, this would cost a small fortune...

Do we all want to move somewhere and start our own school like this, lol? I recall a bit back someone in the Mensa Bulletin talking about starting a planned community of Mensa members (e.g. something like this.)

I guess that if we want to nullify the effect of redshirting on GT placement, we'd want to take out the impact of teacher recommendations too.

The advantage is to have them academically compete for valedictorian with people who are younger than they are, assuming that valedictorian = more college $$$.

Scholarships and GPAs are a zero sum game. If I get more, you get less. If I'm higher rank, you are lower rank.

It has little to do with the GT issue or success in a given field, such as Gladwell's 10,000 hours. It only applies to the zero sum game aspect of education.

I don't know. Maybe I am thinking that graduating high school at 16 as my oldest will, with a lot of AP classes and in the top chunk of the class, if not as the valedictorian, might look as impressive to scholarship committees and colleges as graduating as the valedictorian at 19.

This is our first go at high school, though, (she's our oldest), so I could be wrong. Even if I am, I suspect that we would have put her into college grossly unprepared to work had we held her out a year and not agreed to skip her b/c she'd be sleeping through 7th grade this year with straight As for bothering to step foot in the door. That would leave her with terrible work habits when she got to the point of needing them even if she was #1 in her high school graduating class.

For that matter, she could have chosen to attend our assigned high school or pretty much any other high school in our area other than the one she choiced to and been more likely to wind up valedictorian even with graduating at 16. She's in the highest performing high school in the area save for one charter. Point being, we didn't stack the odds in her favor if all we were looking at was making her appear to be #1. We have, however, hopefully placed her such that she is learning something.

Are parents really saying that they'd rather their kids look great and learn little than learn more and have to work harder at it? I don't believe in putting kids in over their heads, but this seems to be a bit too far in the opposite direction.

Yes.

And yes, that seems to be a bad idea for the development of the child.

I don't see where age or date-of-birth is requested on the Common App
https://www.commonapp.org/CommonApp/Docs/DownloadForms/2012/2012PacketFY_download.pdf , and since older students will not call attention to their age, I don't think 19-year-olds are penalized by admissions or scholarship committees. Younger students can choose to mention their age in their essays, but I don't know if they get any credit for this.

ETA: As someone pointed out, the Common App does ask for date of birth, near the top.

Actually sports more often exacerbates the problem by encouraging parents with "younger" kids to deliberately redshirt. We live in a community where the little league baseball (which is huge here) cutoff is May 1 with the school district cutoff on September 1. So my June birthday son couldn't play baseball with his grademates (no exceptions allowed regardless of athletic ability). Our soccer league is more enlightened and actually forces the older kids to play with their age mates, but lets the younger kids automatically play up (provided they are young for their grade). In our community more than 80% of August birthdays (and practically all of the boys), 70% of July birthdays, and 60% of June birthdays are redshirted. Even in May, the average is like 40%. Since redshirting is done much more often for boys than girls, one can only imagine the percentage of boys that are redshirted when the percentage of boys is broken out.

I actually think that there should be a high school league prohibition on 19 year old high school athletes. This would stop the redshirting problem in its tracks.


Birthdate is the third line down at the top left of the first page.

And replace it with, "I don't agree that my kid who can't read should be made to repeat a year, because then he won't be able to play sports senior year, and won't be recruited / get an athletic scholarship / make it big in the NBA."

There's no system that people won't game, if they perceive gaming the system to be to their benefit.

See "the practice of law" for further details.

Oops, my error. But none of the books on college admissions I have read say that admissions committees penalize redshirts and will prefer an 18yo to a 19yo, other things being equal.

In my previous life (before motherhood) my job was at a medical school and part of the work I did was with the admissions department. While age wasn't looked at too closely, I will admit that we did notice if a kid was anything other than the typical 21 or 22 year old.

If someone was in their 30s (rare) we knew they were probably trying for a new career and/or had a story. Having a few older/non traditional students in the mix - so long as they are highly qualified - can sometimes round out a good mix for a class.

If they applicants were younger than typical - say 20 or 19 - we knew they were probably extremely bright. Sometimes the young ones needed some extra hand holding while in school just due to maturity issues, but often they did not. Sometimes their parents were a bit overly involved - sometimes they were not.

If applicants were a bit older than expected... well, to be honest that was a bit of a red flag. Red flag - not meaning we immediately tossed their application aside, but red flag meaning we looked closer to see "what went wrong?" Were they not able to complete college in 4 years? Were they held back in grade school? Sometimes there were explanations in the essays, sometimes not. It did indeed make us pause and wonder what happened. Was there some problem that we couldn't see on the application or with the test scores?

Sorry to sound judgmental but when you have nearly 7,000 outstanding applicants for 125 spots in a class, you look for any reason to dismiss an applicant. When you are talking about an ultra competitive area like medical school, seeing a kid that was 24 or 25 before graduating from college is an unwritten (and sometimes unspoken) red flag.

Again, this was for medical school admissions. I'm sure undergraduate admissions would have their own take on things. They would have a better view, perhaps, of what happened earlier in their education to put them a year behind. They would at least have the high school transcripts - our applicants only provided undergrad and previous grad school transcripts. Also, admissions philosophy going to vary a lot school-by-school.

When all things are equal in terms of MCATS, GPA, volunteer experiences, interviews, and quality of undergraduate institutions, I know we would most likely take the 22 year old over a 24 year old. This isn't a written admissions rule - just a gut instinct on the level of administrators and committee members who vote on which students get an offer.

Being Canadian, I am not familiar with SAT.

Does age, even a year or two, make a difference on scoring? I you are 16 or 19, will it be affected by the curve?

Ren

The SAT is not normed for age.

Generally, the older you are, the better you do.

I did not catch the program so if this concern was previously addressed, I apologize. As a criminal defense attorney, I would strongly advise against holding a kid back. The age cut off of eighteen is used to differentiate whether criminal cases are filed in adult or juvenile court.
I recently saw a situation where a group of highschoolers vandalized some property. The group contained mostly 17 year olds but one older kid who was 18. The 17 year olds were charged in the juvenile system where there are several options to keep such things off the kid's record. The 18 year old was charged and convicted with a felony. The prosecutor argued that the increased penalty was justified because he was the leader of the group.
This doesn't even get into the problems that can occur with 19 year old male students sharing the halls with 14 year old female students in a 9-12 high school.
Of course no one is thinking about this stuff when their kid is five but it is something to consider.

SAT scores from 1999-2001 for 7th and 8th graders, and scores from 1997-1998 for older students, are at http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/highered/ra/sat/SATScoresNontradTestTakers.pdf .

Here are the means, verbal followed math.

7th grade: 426, 447
8th grade: 493, 518

by age:
<20 477, 491
20 473, 477
21-24 486, 476
25-29 516, 474
30-39 525, 461
>=40 508, 437
all 483, 483

Verbal scores increase up to the age range 30-39 and then decrease. Math scores decline, especially after the 20-29 age range. People taking the SAT at age 30 differ from those taking at age 17 in more than age, so these numbers should be interpreted with caution.

For the Duke TIP 7th grade talent search of 2010-2011 http://www.tip.duke.edu/talent_searches/grade_7/7GTSResultsSummary.pdf , the average SAT scores were 430, 450, and 410 for Critical Reading, Math, and Writing. I have not been able to find comparable results for the Johns Hopkins talent search

The existence of math academies such as Russian School of Math
http://www.russianschool.com/results.html boosts the number of 7th and 8th graders with high SAT math scores -- their page boasts of many with 700+ scores.

I am curious- how many of the parents that want to deny Redshirted children access to GT programs have children born within the first 6 months of the school year according to their districts deadlines? Or is it more the parents of the younger kids that did not redshirt that have an issue with it?
I would also love to hear someone give me a really good answer as to how a child born Sept 1 should qualify and a child born say Aug 15- 2 weeks earlier and was redshirted should be denied access? All of us spend a lot of time figuring out how to get the most out of schools for our kids- whether it is subject acceleration, grade skips etc.... So why would you spend you time and focus on a policy restricting other children? I just don't get it. If there is one thing I learned from this board it is all of our kids are different, different strengths, weaknesses, challenges and opportunities- so who is convinced that a school adminstrator can make an exclusionary policy with accuracy when all of our gifted kids present so differently? Can anyone that wants restrictive policies think they can determine who deserves the services and who doesn't?
The way I want to focus on my children's development is what can I do for them and not take away from others. I know life provides challenges and if you are young for your grade- you will deal with that the rest of your academic career-I did and hated it- regardless what I academically was capable of.

JonA- why exclude 19 year olds from competing in high school ball- if your child is good it won't matter. I played 2 college sports- was asked to graduate high school early to play for the top team in the nation in college(did not do it b/c my Mom did not want me going to college at just turning 17- so I went the next year)- I could compete with the college athletes early into my high school career. Once again I feel like people only want the system to benefit their children. Colleges are the one who started the practice of athletic redshirting -they commonly redshirt male Freshman. The fish rots from the head down- all of the athletic redshirting is filtering down from the colleges.
Generally redshirting is then kids whose birthdays fall in then last 3 months of the schoo year- not Sept birthdays. Y'all are trying to restrict kids a few months older than the "age right" kids. It is no different than a Jan birthday upset because a Sept birthday child has an advantAge by 3 months. I live in a heavy redshirt school district and I have yet to meet a child born before March that was redshirted. The norm is June, July and Aug.

I see redshirting in NJ for summer birthdays. They have an Oct 1st cut-off for K so people redshirt earlier. I think redshirting is dependent on the K cut-off. Hence you have a kid with a fall birthday, like mine in a place where redshirting is not allowed, NYC) who will be going to college with kids sometimes 2 years older. I think there is a significant sexual maturity difference between a 19 year old and a 16 year old, even though both are freshman in college.

Ren

I agree with you, but I also think some parents are redshirting for poor reasons, and they may only realize this when their children are bored in elementary school. Schools should create grade-skipping guidelines for elementary school that enable parents of normal kids to undo redshirting and parents of gifted children to accelerate.

Our school district absolutely won't grade-skip, I guess because they have an excellent full-time G/T program that starts in 4th grade.
I noticed on the high school website that kids in high school here can only take one college course during high school that can "count" for their GPA. Our local public school offers something like 22 AP courses, so I guess they don't want kids also taking a million university or community college course that will "count" to raise their GPA.
The redshirters I've met did it only for boys born within 3 months of the start deadline. I haven't met anyone who redshirted more than that. I do think it is a good idea for many boys, who frankly tend to be in the first few grades more immature emotionally and have poorer fine motor control. IMHO.

If anything being younger is probably a strike against a candidate. But, younger students can absolutely be highly ranked and have great test scores - in fact most of them probably do or they wouldn't have been skipped in the first place.

Valedictorian status doesn't typically factor into college admissions as the results aren't available until after college decisions are made anyway.

The class rank is available to colleges when you apply. For most top colleges, they use some (unknown) formula with grades and test scores playing a major role. Unfortunately, if your child doesn't exceed whatever those scores are, they will probably be rejected- unless they are a star lacrosse play or something like that.