Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy Red shirting

I don't like this term. It feels like people are not considering all the factors that go into making this type of decision. Sometimes holding back a child back for maturity can be a good thing. On the outside it is hard to know all the circumstances. There may be some people who hold back kids for the wrong reason but that's very personal so how would we really know to judge?

I don't mean to pick on anyone. I just think this is something to consider.

Glad you said something, onthegomom. I've been feeling the same way. My dd was always homeschooled, but we always said if we put her in school we'd hold her back a year. She was reading well by her 4th birthday and chapter books by kindergarten. Still, her birthday is a couple weeks before the school cut-off. At that time, she still just seemed so much younger than the older 5 year olds. We didn't want her to be the last of her friends to hit puberty or get her driver's license. The way we figured it, she was already going to need special gifted services, even if we put her in the grade for which she was technically was old enough.

The problem with 'red shirting' or whatever you want to call it, is that it changes the whole dynamic of what a Kindergarten class (or later grades) should be. Exceptional circumstances for red shirting make sense, but the regular use of red-shirting doesn't help anyone. When a relatively large percentage of a class (often boys) are red-shirted, this changes the average class age, and the maturity expectations of Kindergarten. This in turn gives false indications of what should be happening in a Class, from academic ability, to structured work and the length of time the children are expected to sit still without talking! It may help a single child to be one of the oldest in a class, but obviously someone has to be the youngest. I think a better solution is to expect the class to be one year group (use Malcolm Gladwell's age sorting for reading etc. maybe), but have the teachers, including those for Specials, and even Lunch time helpers, be clearly aware of who the young ones in a class are, and let them make exceptions for these children. Better this than classes we have now, with often 18 month age differences, but no differences in expectations made.

I totally agree. Our local PS kindergarten is basically first grade IMHO. It's all day and it's quite structured. I know several kids that it was definitely the right decision to hold them back. I know a couple other very young for grade kids who weren't held back, that struggled for K and beyond. For a sensitive child, to get pigeon holed as a behavioral problem can be damaging. And I do know other kids who were held back that definitely shouldn't have been.

I have a 5 year old I assume is GT and can read, write, do math, composes music, writes her own poems and stories. She turned 5 in the summer. She would have had a really hard time emotionally holding it together in all day kindergarten. We are homschooling "K" for her.

It's just a difficult problem that there need to be 25 kids in a classroom that are all at very different places emotionally, socially, and academically. So I don't necessarily fault parents for making these tough decisions.

Oh, I definitely don't fault individual parents for holding back either, with the system we have, I see why many parents do.

I think I agree that the maturity of Kindergarten has changed and made it more difficult for children who are at the right age. If a high percentage of the population holds their children back due to maturity concerns, then Kindergarten might as well have a 6 year old entrance age. I think it also sets unreasonable expectations of the maturity and energy level of children in Kindergarten especially boys as another person who replied said. We already have a school system that lets boys down more than girls...it worries me to perpetuate yet more ways that boys are at a disadvantage.

I see this issue with my son, who is right at age level. He is younger than many children in his class, so he is seen as not acting his age. At the same time, holding him back would have caused bigger problems. Both he and his brother need intellectual stimulation, and their behavior in pre-k was getting worse due to lack of good material.

The term red-shirting around my area doesn't really have anything to do with kids close on the border or near the age level. It's used for kids who are far beyond the age level who have been held back, primarily for sports reasons. When you have a "5 by December 2nd cutoff" and kids with August birthdays who are 6 start kindergarten, that makes them sometimes 1 1/2years older than a chunk of the class.

I actually do fault parents sometimes- just being honest! If you need to hold your child back for emotional, social or academic reasons, I get that. However, in our area, the most common reason to hold a boy back is to force a situation where he is physically bigger than the rest of the group and therefore, a better football player. I wish I were kidding but I'm not. As a teacher, I've had 6th grade boys well into puberty because the family was raising a football player. Earlier puberty means likely making varsity as a freshman, regardless of actual skill.

That's been my experience, too. Our grandson's stepmother tried to redshirt our grandson before starting K because her family eats, sleeps, and breathes football. Luckily, our son didn't go along with that and GS started K just after turning 5. I can not imagine where we would be now if he had been held back a year. Sometimes he complains about being one of the youngest in the 5th grade, there are boys that are easily 15-16 months older. The quickest way to stop that complaint is to ask him if he'd prefer being in the 4th grade right now and be one of the oldest. He's already way ahead of 5th grade academics, so the thought of doing 4th grade work right now makes him realize that being the youngest in 5th is not so bad.

I agree with this, and it does complicate things when kids are so much older than their peers. As has been stated by PP, having a 1.5+ year spread is huge! Mulit-age classrooms can be good for many kids for a variety of reasons, but this is not it.

The big problem comes when it is a generalized practice. I also agree that individual cases have to be considered as such; but still I think even in most of those cases, a school should not be forced to accept a child that is more than a couple of months past that age limit (summer b'day for most of the country with a 9/1st age requirement).

Our private school apparently saw that manyh of the summer birthdays were too young compared with the rest. This year, kids have to be 5 by June instead of September. There are a couple of other independent schools with the same "older" requirement.

Around our area, many children are held back for possible sports advantage as well, which raises the average kindergarten age. There have been two main issues:

1. Many girls are been held back because their parents do not want their daughters to attend schools with boys who are 2 years older. (As one mom put it, "It can't be a good situation when the hormone go crazy during teenage years.") Some also indicated that "it is hard for the child to be the last one to drive, etc."

2. When there is a gifted child, teachers are reluctant to recommend early entrance or whole grade acceleration because the child could be as many as 3-4 years younger than his/her classmates. With the current education system, where children are placed in a particular grade by age (instead of academic ability), this big gap in age is a big no-no for many teachers.

It is also interesting to note that in this sport dominating district, many teachers ask "why the rush" for academics. "Why are you pushing your child in math? They should be kids!" (I try to explain to them that we usually spent maybe 20 minutes per day "learning." Although, what I really want to say is that DD and DS's brain are regressing!) Yet, I have not heard any criticism for parents who are making their children practice sports 2-3 hours per day. Is this consider a double standard?