In the new article "No Holding Back: Why I didn't 'redshirt' my kindergarten-age son," Holly Korbey writes about how when she moved to Texas she was pressured to hold her perfectly normal four-year-old back from starting school. Everyone's doing it, parents on the playground told her.Korbey writes: Recent studies done on kindergarten redshirting have shown that growing numbers of summer birthday boys are being held back a year before starting kindergarten, especially in white, affluent areas of the country. In Carroll, Texas, a wealthy south Dallas suburb, 158 of 452 kindergarteners were six at the start of the 2007-2008 school year, while 165 of 504 first graders were seven. In Highland Park, Texas, a small city within the city of Dallas, 96 of 452 kindergarteners were six, and 79 of 436 first graders were seven, or eight(!).
So why are so many people choosing to hold their children (boys specifically) back a year?
Nobody mentioned academics. These moms were more concerned with the social advantages that came with being older and bigger: dating, driving, and - oh, yeah, one more thing. There was one more reason, a blip on the radar, every single mom mentioned to me, however sheepishly: sports eligibility.
Of course, this makes sense in Texas, where sports are so important, but it also seems pretty short-sighted. If redshirting really catches on and everyone gets held back, no one will have a competitive edge.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 3)
1. My younger son had a November b-day, so he was involuntarily "red-shirted." This despite I felt he was ready for kindergarten at 4 years 9 months. I guess it worked...he's a pretty good pitcher;)
thermal54 at 10:21AM on Sep 9th 2008
2. Yep. I refused to redshirt either of my twins--son or daughter. Frankly, I feel it's becasue kindergarten has become 1st grade. Some very stange poepl think that the kids somehow will be better off academically if the kindergarteners are forced to behave and learn like first graders. Of course it's the rage to hold back, now that first grade starts a year early. I am also seeing a ton of "pre-first" grades popping up. Um.,,doesn't this mean that just MAYBE kindergarten ought to go back to being kindergarten? EVERYONE seems to agree, or they redhirtsing woudl not be happening.
Wendy at 11:19AM on Sep 9th 2008
3. Well, it looks like, according to the statistics, this is still only a small number of people holding their sons back. But how sad that some parents have the priority of sports over academics. Only a tiny fraction of males ever make it into the pro sports world. But most males definitely need a college education and then some to be really successful in a career.
David S. at 12:38PM on Sep 9th 2008
4. I'm sorry, but I want my kids in school as soon as they are old enough. Why keep them back? It is healthy for them to be amongst other children to learn social skills. I am sending my son to pre school as soon as he turns 3 next year.
Dee at 12:58PM on Sep 9th 2008
5. I was four when I started kindergarten, because I was so excited about it, I would have gone whether I was enrolled or not. My cousin is the same age as me, and his mom decided to hold him back.
Almost 17 years later, I'm in my third year of college, full time student at the top of my class, working a full time job and getting ready to accept a competitive internship. He's just started his second semester at a local, tiny tech-school, taking one class at a time and barely passing, and mows lawns.
I don't think it has anything to do with when we started school, I think it has to do with the way your parents introduce you to school. with me it was always "you're so smart! you're going to love kindergarten! show daddy how you can sing your letters!" and with him it was "it's ok honey. you didn't learn it on your own, so we'll keep you back a year. you just aren't ready yet. school is hard, come watch tv"
It seems like moms are expected to go work, so kids go to daycare, where they watch movies and don't learn a thing. I've noticed that kids with stay at home moms are better behaved and tend to do better in school. they're not like those wierd, homeschool kind of kids, but like the polite, sweet kids that don't pitch a fit for McDonalds at the mall.
hannah at 1:04PM on Sep 9th 2008
6. Hannah, you can't say that. I am a full time career woman and mother. My husband works as well. My children are very well behaved and very intelligent. My son is 2, he knows his ABCs and he can count. My mother also worked and I was well behaved and I am educated. How do you expect to send your kids to a good college without any money to do so.
If you do not have any children then you really do not know how expensive it is to take care of them. Whether or not a mother works really does not have any impact on how well behaved they are. It is up to the parents to instill discipline when they are home and to make family time.
Dee at 1:19PM on Sep 9th 2008
7. The author of the story in question is understandably turned off ny this trend given the reasoning for from all of those she talked to. Reading it, it sounds rediculous to me too. However, I keep coming back to the academics and the statistics from other countries like Finland who do start their children's education later and have higher "success" rates with their children's learning as a result.
thinkin at 1:36PM on Sep 9th 2008
8. I came from the very 1960's notion that a "late birthday" was in November or December, but when my son (who was born in June) was in pre-school, his teacher counseled me to hold him back one more year. He could already read all the Dr. Seuss books, so I couldn't see why it would be necessary and we sent him on to kindergarten. What I didn't know was that every other family had also been counseled to hold back their children as well, so he was the youngest child in his class from kindergarten to high school graduation. I remember protesting once to his 3rd grade teacher that she send home work that actual 8 year-olds could do by themselves, and she reminded me that most of her students were 9 and could do the work alone. (Teachers like to have all their students to have turned that age before January of that year.) Socially and athletically he was fine (he was always kind of tall for his age), but academically he could have done better if I had heeded her advice. He still graduated with a 3.66 GPA and won several scholarships to college, but he was always young and immature (especially concerning schoolwork) compared to his classmates. He is a sophomore in college and just turned 19, and he is still a little immature when compared to his 20 year-old peers. Like - he just got his first girlfriend.
Now my daughter has a September birthday and I didn't hesitate to hold her back. She falls in the median of birthdays in her class - aboout half her high school junior classmates are older and about half are younger. I have to say - I was her Girl Scout leader for many years - I could tell which girls had a "late birthday" (born after January) by their maturity level.
Now, my youngest is a different story. He suffered a birth injury with some physical and brain damage. He was in physical, occupational and speech therapy four times a week for many years. So, I held him back once because he has an August birthday. Then his kindergarten teacher told me up front he would have to spend 2 years in her class because in spite of all the work we had done, she "couldn't read his writing or understand a word he said." I burst into tears, thinking she was saying we had not done enough for him. But, it turned out to be one of the best decisions I've ever made as a parent. He just turned 12 and started 5th grade where he is thriving - he makes excellent grades, has many good friends and excels at sports. Fortunately, he is small for his age, so physically, he fits right in. Most of his friends are 10-11 years old, so I'm aware we face challenges when he will be old enough to get his learner's permit in 8th grade, and he won't graduate from high school until he is 19, almost 20 years old. (Friends of ours had a similar situation with their son and he quit high school after his sophomore year, as he had already turned 18 and wasn't going back for 2 more years of high school!)
So, after all that, what would I recommend? First of all, you have to decide for each child individually. And, you have no control over what other people are doing that may put your age-appropriate child at a disadvantage. (You aren't going to change the school's curriculum by sending your newly 5 year-old son to kindergarten.) Don't base your decision on wanting your child to stay with a certain group of friends in a class (or because you want to be a part of a certain group of parents). The kids that were in my son's kindergarten class the first time turned out to be the biggest, meanest bunch of boys - my son would have been eaten alive by that group. Now, he is with a really sweet bunch of boys now who play together well and love each other and my son is truly a leader in that group. Every year their teachers comment on how well they all get along. If you are going to hold your child back a year, it is easier to do before they start kindergarten or in an earlier grade. It is going to be more traumatic for the child if you end up having to make them repeat a higher grade. My son's kindergarten teacher told him (and a couple of his friends) that she needed them to stay and "help her one more year." They were thrilled to do it, and he has never even asked me about having to repeat that year, so don't make a big deal out of it or express your disappointment to the child. And most importantly, it is always better for your child to be at the top of the heap than at the bottom of the pile, so err on the side of giving him every advantage.
Sarah at 1:46PM on Sep 9th 2008
9. Hannah- YOU can say THAT!
1- because it's Aamerica
2 - Because it is TRUE for majority
Staying at Home - Believe me when My child was in first grade the teachers said how they can TELL the Difference in The Kids who had stay at home MOMS Because they were weel BEHAVED.
My oldest IS now In college+ I have always gotten Compliments Because he IS nice. Polite+ Independent,was a Leader In His HS.
Now with my youngest- Most teachers go Back In 3 months after their baby anyway-so they dont Get It.
IF you DONT think staying home affects Behavior you are fooling yourself.
YES_ you can DO IT On 1 income-It's called a bit of Sacraficing By the Couple- Cut out dinners out+ Big Vacations for a few yrs.
you cant see the Benefit of staying home when they are BABIES-3 yrs? well ,the BABY can.
Kathy at 3:04PM on Sep 9th 2008
10. Kathy I was not being rude to Hannah. On these blogs everyone takes things so personally when comments don't concern them.
It is NOT true that all working parents have
ill behaved children. How do YOU know that it is true for the majority?
And NO Kathy it is NOT possible to do it on ONE income. Take a look out your window. Have you seen the economy lately? Did you ever stop and think what would happen to your family if your husband loses his job? What would you fall back on? Maybe I'm just strong willed because my parents taught me to be smart about life. You can lose everything you have at the drop of a hat. Where will your little angels be then? THINK!!!
My children will be attending private school,they have savings accounts and college funds thanks to my TWO income household.They won't need to take student loans. Just becuase your a stay at home mom, Kathy, does not mean that you are a better mother than a working mother.
I'm sorry, but I hate this mentality.
Dee at 3:56PM on Sep 9th 2008
11. This is sound russel kirk republicanism. Dumb you down.
The republican philosophy holds that there should be no middle class, only a sea of commoners and a small extremely wealthy and privileged ruling class. The common class should not be well educated nor should they be healthy nor should they live comfortably or for a long time lest they overthrow the ruling class.
The past eight years have given them a good leg up on advancing this atavistic 16th century philosophy into practice.
Since neoconnism, we're only 42nd in longevity, 24th in education, not first in anything anymore since neocons have had control over all three branches of government.
I'd say the odds of the U.S. surviving as a nation longer than mccain as a, uh, surviving POW is pretty slim.
I expect we'll get overextended overseas almost immediately, the housing bailout of investors and the ensuing depression and food shortages from unregulated gas speculation will probably trigger the same unrest among disenfranchised whites as we saw with blacks in Watts in 1965 and every other major American city for the next three summers.
I don't think the country can stand another neocon episode without violence erupting. Neocons simply don't recognize the danger of stealing so much the majority have nothing more to lose.
Unfortunately, it isn't sectional, so it will get really bloody on a street by street basis if it happens, and it's beginning to smell like it might.
Neoconnism is nothing more than fascism and naziism but on a suicide mission to outsource the government while privatizing it!
Nothing short of satanism could be more heinous as our fall from grace in the world the past eight years proves.
If they can exterminate 600,000 Iraqis for oil, they can certainly do it to Americans, and I think they've met the standard right there to be called not only fascists, but Nazis. Karl Rove's engineered luring of Russia into South Ossetia stinks of Nazism too.
They call democrats marxists. Only fascists could do that.
YOu have two choices in today's politics - liberalism in the tradition of Jefferson and Lincoln and Roosevelt or fascism in the tradition of Bush, Reagan, Pinochet, Franco and Mussolini.
This may be your last chance. You can't vote a privatized government out and that's what they want - 100% privatized government.
Clif Kuplen at 6:19PM on Sep 9th 2008
12. What really worked for me was to send my children to an experimental shared living commune as volunteer junior farmhands. They were well-taken care of, learned the value of hard work, and were exposed to alternative religious/lifestyle choices, all of which I think just might have helped them to develop open minds. I can drive out to their commune any time I like and, with the help of binoculars, see them in their own element, hard at work and happy as they till the soil for their keep.
helas at 6:35PM on Sep 9th 2008
13. Sarah, I agree with you! The most important thinkg you can do is consider the individual child. Some are ready when "kindergarten time" first arrives, while others benefit from waiting. Both of mine were enrolled "on schedule," and this has worked well for both of them. Of course, we put academics WAY ahead of sports, and our kids have always been academically ready for the work they were given. Do what is right for EACH child! Laurie
Laurie at 6:37PM on Sep 9th 2008
14. I agree with Hannah, stay at home moms tend to have better control over the young ones. Not to say that a working mom can't be a great parent, but realistically, when you're busting your ass at work all day it's kinda hard to come home and play nurse/teacher mommy.
My mother's workaholic attitude was luckily offset by my independent nature, so perhaps that's an example of behavior also depending heavily on the kid.
Lemons at 10:00PM on Sep 9th 2008
15. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with "redshirting" a child, but I worked part-time night shift when my older two were little, and slept the 4 hours they were at mother's day out. (The sacrifices we mothers make!) I had to quit work with my third child because he required my attention 24/7, and I have not worked since he was born although I volunteer countless hours at school and church. I have seen parents who send their children to private schools be more reluctant to "redshirt" them because it means paying an extra year's tuition. And, I have seen parents hold their children back a grade purely to increase their chances of getting an athletic scholarship, but I don't think that is a good reason to do it.
Sarah at 11:05PM on Sep 9th 2008