Welcome to the Commenting Pixie Party!
you know, i started to read that story online and when i got to the bottom of the first page and saw it was going to go on for five more, i clicked away to something else. i've got enough to worry about these days w/o the nyt telling me that i need to stay up nights about when to send the girl to kindergarten. thanks for saving me from that fate w/ your usual well-thought-out analysis.
and it sounds like lg did great this year, which means you and mr blue did, too.
It was hard not to feel judged while reading that article. My daughter is a later August birthday. She was 2 weeks early. I spent my entire pregnancy (pretty much from announcement of the due date on) worrying about whether we should push her ahead (reverse red-shirting?) or start her on time. When she came in August, I was relieved to have the decision be mine. I can't say I really thought about holding her back. It seemed like it would be hard the rest of her schooling. I also polled the dozens of people I knew who had late August or early September birthdays about what they remembered. Was it good to be young? Was it hard? The consensus seems to be that they were fine. The shorter boys remembered sports being a pain, but that was about it.
We have a few more complications--like starting her in a public Montessori program that has a lottery for admittance and was much easier to get in at 3 than 4. She was and is extremely tall for her age. But she lagged behind in speech.
Now, three years later, she is doing very well academically. I have had some doubts about the program (see Wed whining 2 weeks ago 
but I guess I haven't tied it to her age. I thought Montessori would handle that age variation better. In fact, I spent her first year worrying that she was being left behind because her speech was lagging.
I have to say I was relieved that my second child has a Feb. birthday. I do wish there were a way to have a tighter age cohort. We've moved to a more affluent area and my daughter will start first grade here. She is still quite tall and speech therapy has allowed her to say all of the smart thing she thinks. I wonder how she'll fare...
I only have "friend of a friend" bullshit experience. I think it has a negative effect on kids socially, especially as they become teenagers.
I know two people who held their kids back because they thought they were not mature enough for kindergarten. The kids struggled with being the oldest kid in their class. They bitched about it. These kids are both Mallory's age. They wanted to do things socially with the group ahead of them. Other kids and other parents would comment about them being "held back" in a negative context.
I think unless you see a compelling reason in your individual child, it's best to let them go with their peers, study be damned.
Up here in Toronto we have two kindergartens, jk (age 4) and sk (age 5) both half days, both public school standard & funded.
The cutoff is Dec 31 and the spread is even greater if you think about it - from 3-going-on-4 to been-4-since-Jan.
What this has meant in my limited observation is that the teachers & schools have gotten good at managing the variable levels.
We still do have redshirtting though, but it works like this: everyone starts jk, and then if a child is still struggling at the end of it, s/he does jk again (so three years of kindergarten). But I haven't heard of too many people trying to leverage this, it's more a school-driven thing.
We also have split grades though (a grade 1/2 classroom, a grade 2/3 classroom, etc.) so there is a certain amount of massaging available as kids go through the system.
Hmm. I can only talk about this from the perspective of having started kindergarten at 4. And then starting 1st grade in another school district, and having them try to switch me into 2nd, but decide that I wasn't physically or socially ready for it.
I do wonder if I would have been seen as less of a class brain if they had gone through with the skip (and thus I would say that contrary to all the second-guessing that the article promotes with its stats, if a child is intellectually ready for kindergarten then holding them back a year because of age can cause problems, too, like making them feel overachieverish. And from what I know of LG through your blog posts, he was ready. I guess I'm saying that being at the top of the class isn't always the fabulous experience that the NY Times would have you believe.
(My handwriting was bad too, by the way).
I've never even thought about the issue of lost years, though. I haven't even got the start of an answer. But it's an awfully good question.
I'm a September birthday and my parents started me in Kindergarten at 4-almost-5. (I think the cut off at the time was Sept 30.) But we moved all around (military brat) and it was always a hassle. Some districts (with Sept 1 cutoffs) actually wanted to hold me back!
My daughter is Nov. and my son is mid-Sept. Our cut-off is Sept 1. So, they *should* be among the oldest in their class...but with Red-Shirting, they aren't.
I always liked being the youngest in my class. If the cut-off had been Nov 30, instead of Sept 1, I would have sent both kids as scheduled (even if they were the youngest.)
I agree with the article on one point: it is the affluent who are holding back and it is causing even more disparity within individual classrooms. My daughter's 1st grade class has 14 kids. Two are reading at the 5th grade level. Two can barely read. The rest are in-between. It's a tough job to teach that range of kids.
I don't see many kids skipping grades these days in our district. I suspect that they want to keep the "smart" kids in their current grade level to help with test scores? Or am I being too cynical?
Thanks for writing about this. Both of my boys are September kiddos, and here the cutoff is September 31. I almost wish the cutoff was earlier, so my hands would be tied. But no, the decision is squarely on my head. Joy.
It might not be a tough decision with AB. He's an early September baby, so he will be 5 (and a day or so) by the time he starts K. He's big for his age (not huge, but big enough that he probably won't be the smallest in his class, even if he's the youngest), but while that seems to be a concern of many redshirting parents, relative size doesn't really matter to me in the grand scheme of things (says the slightly-over-five-feet loudmouth petulant litigator). Emotionally, I think he's right on track. Yeah, he still has fussy spells, but he's still 3, fercrissakes. And he certainly behaves better than some of the older youngsters I've seen in the local mall. Likewise, we've got no reason to worry about his intellect--he does well in his pre-K class.
ALB is an unknown entity in many of those regards, and his birthday is much later in the month. It could very well wind up that, though they are 3 years apart in age, we will make the decision to keep them 4 years apart in school.
Things I don't need to be worrying about, I know. Sorry for the long comment. This is what happens when my thoughts are all pent up because I'm not blogging regularly...
With youngest, given her autism and all the related issues (slow to toilet train, etc.), we were vacillating between starting her a year late or not. In the end, we kept her out of JK but started her with her peers in SK. Our SK was a full-day program and she transitioned well from her preschool (because of her special needs, a gov't. agency even paid to have one of her daycare workers come to the school the first two weeks and assist in the adjustment).
I appreciated the article's point that the very well-to-do and educated families will see their children prosper, whether held back a year or not, while the poor families who rely on indifferent or no childcare resources and struggle to advocate for their kids won't benefit from holding their kids back a year.
The cutoff here in BC is Dec. 31st, too -- meaning the kid just has to turn 5 in the calendar year. My boy's birthday is in June, so he will be right in the middle of his class, in age, and yet the same age (approximately) as LG when HE started school. And will there be any difference in their experiences because of that? One is "young", the other is "average" -- does that create a psychological difference? I have no idea.
There are kids in B's preschool who are 4-5 months younger than he is and were more "ready" for preschool -- socially, at least -- than he was. There's so much variation between kids, that how is it possible to gauge their readiness by calendar age?
I dated a guy from Bangladesh who found out in his late teens that he was a year older than he thought he was. Apparently, among affluent families there, they sometimes redshirt kids to give them an advantage in school -- but they don't just keep them back a year. They CHANGE their birth certificates. And the decision was made early enough that this guy actually believed he was younger than he was. I think his mother told him the truth as an adult, but I'm not sure why she would do that.
"The question of whether or not going to a Fancy Pants University is a make-or-break measure of adult success is beyond the scope of this post."
I think, given the parental anxiety quotient alluded to and driven by articles like this one, admission to FPU's is a measure of parental success. Or at least it is in this neck of the woods, where at least one local preschool has a plaque at the front entrance listing the names of alums who have gone on to Ivy League schools. (Presumably the kids who went on to Berkeley or MIT or wherever don't count...)
Not that parents don't love their kids and want them to do well, but really, the question of the hour for many is, "How do I know I'm a good parent?"
well, i'm commenting from the far end of the pre-university spectrum, since my daugher graduated HS today!!
i'd like to share the story of N, a longtime family friend who graduated magna cum laude today. she and my daugher have been classmates since pre-K. N has a march birthday, and began K at age 4 because she was ready.
her older brother -- who is just as smart, had all the same good educational opportunities and same encouragement from home -- is still kind of floundering around. he did a year of college at a state U; did this year at a community college; and may work this next year, because he is not ready to commit to what he wants to do next. and that is just how it is. his parents did the right thing for him in kindergarten and all along the path, and he is a good person. all that doesn't predict outcome. none of us can ensure our kids will follow a particular road. all we can do is the best we can to nurture, protect, and provide opportunities.
in the scheme of things, every year presents its challenges and opportunities; every year we do our best. what happens in high school may have a far, far greater impact on a particular individual's eventual course; and parents will have far, far less control over how that goes.
we got the same kind of scare stories 15 years ago, when my son was about to enter kindergarten. you must choose the right school! should you hold your child back?! no matter what you do, it won't be good enough!!! phooey.
Well, this got me worried. My eldest is sort of redshirted: he's a February birthday, and so he's starting this fall at 5 and a half and already reading.
But my youngest son is born end-of-september. Which will make him quite young.
Fret fret fret.
My Zilla has a 11.21 birthday. My state has a 12.1 cut-off. While Zilla will always be one of the youngest students in his grade, he is also going to be one of the tallest. He meets and/or exceeds academic targets.
However, he does seem less mature than his classmates. There is a certain babyishness to him that his peers lack. His fine motor skills are also less developed. Do I think I should have held him back?
No. His older sister has a Feb birthday and still has poor handwriting. She did not adjust well to kindergarten and hers was only a half-day program compared to Zilla's full day program. Matter of fact, it took her until the December break to adjust to first-grade.
Instead, I worry what this push for accountability is going to do to these kids once they hit junior and high school. From what I've seen of the college students I have worked with , too many kids tune out around grade 4 never to tune back in until life starts dealing them cruel blow after cruel blow. These are kids from good families and good school districts. I really think that the Denmark model that the article mentions may be something to look into instead of dumping higher and higher expectations on very small children.
I was always the eldest in my class. The cut-off was December 1, and I was December 6. It didn't occur to my parents to question it. I was small for my age.
I struggled in junior high--mightily--I was bored out of my mind and got in all sorts of trouble.
I really wish that the school systems took into account that children mature at different rates and, rather than setting an arbitrary date, just tested children, interviewed parents and figured out who is ready for kindergarten.
Of course, I also think kids should take a gap year or two before college, so I'm just an all round age based rebel.
I've not read the article yet - so will likely blog about it afterwards - but some brief reactions:
I was put into kindergarten at age 4, and was the youngest by far. I was smaller and as an only child, much more comfortable with adults than kids. Thus, I didn't really form relationships with the other kids. I was skipped a grade (3rd) and then it all went really downhill for me academically (traumatic 4th grade). Although I liked being the youngest - I was ill-equipped for it, and it was hard going through developmental stages later than everyone (esp. hard when other girls' hormones started raging - and I had to pretend in order to fit in).
I think there are so many factors to consider - sociability and social skills are not the least of them. Only kids may have a rough time of it if they don't have peer relationships and if they are isolated (huge issue for me growing up).
Clearly there were many factors that contributed to it being hard for me - and if I had a more supportive home environs, it may have worked out just fine.
Very little redshirting in our small collegiate NY state town. Every member of Primo's K class was born in the year 2000. Every member of Secunda's preschool class next year will be born in 2003 or in late December 2002 (ie after the cutoff)... we're a real throwback.
And the little ones do fine. Beecause the teachers expect that they will have a range of kids.
Found an interesting article (which I will find a cite for if you're interested) from the Journal of Elementary Education. It's from back in the late 80s, and they were already talking about the constant pushing-back of the start dates for K, from March, to December, to October, to September, and now in some states to July.
Bascially, every time the line moves back, teachers will *still* complain that the youngest quarter to third of the class "just aren't as ready." Because teachers tend to teach to the high middle, and whoever is the youngest/smallest prompts the "they'd be better off waiting a year" thing.
So the important thing is what your district is like, what the redshirting tendencies of your school are like... not some hard and fast rule that "all Summer Birthdays should be held back." Because once all summer birhtdays are held back, then what happens (has happened in Missouri) is that now the Spring babies are the ones that are too young and should be held back. And suddendly kids born in Jan-Feb-March are the youngest kids in the class, and half the kindergarten is turning 7 before school gets out.....
All I can say is that already at the end of 1st grade in Primo's class, it doesn't seem to be the summer/fall birthdays who are having inordinate numbers of issues.
Easy for me to say, of course, since Primo has a March birthday and thus is in the oldest third of our old-school school...
I didn't read the article and I probably won't. I certainly don't need any additional sources of guilt. However, Dancing Girl, our youngest, is a late-August baby and we did redshirt her. It was the right decision in our case, but I don't necessarily think it would be for everyone.
The main reason we held DG out was our district was in the midst of a big transition the year she turned 5. They had acquired a new building and would be changing from 1/2 day to full-day kindergarten. However, the new building wasn't going to be ready until late October, so they decided to make the change at semester--fall would be 1/2 day in the old building, and spring full-day in the new.
That made us nervous. Academics were a non-issue- we knew she was ready there. Size was somewhat a concern, because DG was (and is) tiny--at almost 19, she's a little over 5'2". However, as the others have pointed out, she would have been short no matter when we sent her. However, the biggest consideration was maturity. DG was still very much of a "momma's girl" at 4 1/2, when we had to make the decision. We were concerned that the chaos created by the transition plus the immaturity would have been too much. I think if the district had waited until the next academic year to switch, we'd have sent her on her 5th birthday.
In the end, I think DG would have been fine no matter what. As it is, she was an honor student and a leader at our rural high school. A big frog in a small puddle. I know I feel more confident about her tackling the Big Apple knowing she'll be 19 when we pull away from the dorm, and thus 1 year more mature. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure she would have been an honor student and a leader had she started kindergarten at 5.
Ultimately, as parents we weigh the evidence, consider the options and then close our eyes & go, knowing that it's a crapshoot.
NUD
Personally, I think the actual *age* of the child has little to do with whether he or she does well in kindergarten or not. The maturity level of the child is much more important. And, the desire of the child to learn. And LG *burns* to learn. He thirsts for knowledge, and soaks it up like a sponge.
As someone who has had both older kindergartners and younger kindergartners in her class, I will say that it wholly rests on the child. I have had what you might call "prodigy" students who enroll early and do well, and the same type of child flame out spectacularly. And this year, I had a child who was a repeater -- he'd been in kindergarten last year, and was far too immature for the experience. He did not do well academically, so therefore, he was bored, and he constantly got into trouble. This year, he was much more mature, and was like a different child. He was much more confident, and not a problem in the slightest behaviorally. Of course, he may have found the work easier this year because it was all stuff he'd seen before.
I think, from what I know of LG, and what you list here, that he will be just fine. I would think redshirting him would be more of a detriment than a help. He's highly articulate, he's reading above grade level, he's mastered the math concepts -- if all you are really concerned about is his handwriting and drawing, I think that's pretty low on your list of worries. Now, I'm not making light of your concerns, but I will say that all of the small-motor toy play that he does will be a big help with the writing and drawing. And, keep in mind that while he may have been drawing for a while, the writing, in the overall scheme of things, is still a relatively new concept. From the things you've posted, I think his writing is right about on target. It's legible, he's learning the proper use of capitalization and punctuation, and he expresses himself quite well through the written medium. At this stage, that's pretty much all you can ask for.
As far as second-guessing sending him to kindergarten, what the NYT neglects to take into account is that a lot of parents who put their children into the schoolroom setting early(at least it's true in this neck of the woods; it may not be quite as true in the land where Fancy Pants Universities proliferate) are people who are looking for free daycare, and they have no intention AT ALL of backing up what learning their child gets at school with additional learning at home. You and MB certainly DO NOT fall into this category.
While LG may unfortunately lag behind in the height department, I don't honestly think you have anything to worry about as far as his academic progress. I really think that he is well-suited for first grade, and I think he'll do very well there. And that's my opinion from the peanut gallery.
For reasons still unknown to me, my parents started me in first grade at the age of 5. I didn't turn 6 until January. No kindergarten, no preschool, just one day playing with my mom, and the next day in first grade. It sucked. Now. Would I have liked it better a year later? Not sure. Was I a "chronic underachiever" because they started me early? No clue. I think I'm just a chronic underachiever. I hated school, and I'm not sure I would have hated it less if I had waited a year. I don't remember being socially bothered by it, and I know I was able to keep up academically with the other kids, some of whom were a full year older than I.
All three of my girls have May or June birthdays. Older Daughter did fine, Younger Daughter should have been started a year later, but I couldn't afford day care another year, and Gigi stayed back in third grade. I have no idea what any of this means-I guess it means it depends on the kid.
I have a December birthday and I was always one of the oldest in my class b/c when I started school there was an Oct. 1 deadline. NSLS was the same: born Nove. 2 with a Nov. 1 cutoff. The Kid otoh started kindergarten when he was still four (turned five in mid November) --clearly one of the youngest in his grade.
So I've seen it both ways. Do I think I could've started schoool sooner? Yes. So could NSLS. Do I think the Kid might have benefitted by waiting a year? Sometimes I do but not for academic reasons. But do I think any fatal parenting errors were made? No. In the case of the Kid, the only case in which there was a real choice we acted on his preschool teacher's recommendations and my understanding or recognition that as a younger kindergartener he might be behind in some developmental things.
I'm not sure though as a (former) college teacher, that it wouldn't be better for kids to be a year older when they start college. But as PPB says, that perhaps should be a gap year between hs and college
One of the many things I'm looking forward to about moving from Washington State to British Columbia is that B.C. has a December 31 cutoff date, so the Mermaid Girl, with her late-August birthday, will be close to the middle of the age range in her class, rather than the very youngest as she has been at her Smartypants Yuppie School.
I'm glad we didn't reshirt her-- she was dying to go to kindergarten and would've been bored out of her mind if she'd had to have another year of preschool--but she has worked very, very hard for the last two years. She's not an early reader; if she'd been in kindergarten rather than first grade this year, I bet her reading level (even without the benefit of first-grade-level instruction) would be way above grade level, rather than just barely at it. She'd think of herself as smart, and a good reader, rather than as (she informed us matter-of-factly sometime this winter) "the worst reader in the class."
I think we've weathered that self-esteem bump, and it's a measure of our fancy-pants station in life that that was our biggest worry about her this year. But I think Sara's right, and teachers adjust their expectations according to where the bulk of the class is (or, possibly, they're forced to adjust their expectations due to "accountability" issues brought on by high-stakes tests, and then states just respond to their complaints about developmental inappropriateness by bumping the cutoff dates even earlier in the year) and from what we've seen of the Vancouver schools, MG will be right comfortably in the middle academically, rather than continuing to struggle along as she has been here. It's not the main reason we're moving, but it's a nice side-effect.
(wow! That was a novel!)
Thoughtful and thought-provoking post.
Caveat: I absolutely HATE redshirting. HATE IT.
OK, so now you know where I stand. Here's our story. My twins b'day is August 24. They started kindergarten at 5 years, 1 week of age. They attended a full day private kindergarten (SSDS). My son was reading prior to kindergarten, his sister was not. Because they had both attended full day Gan for 2 years prior to kindergarten, they were both deemed kindergarten ready by the preschool teachers. But we applied to three private Ks, and the public school. All of the Ks tested for K readiness. In all cases my kids were deemed totally and completely ready.
They were the youngest kids in their K class, even though the cutoff date was Dec 31. They continued to be the youngest kids throughout their school careers. At the end of 3rd grade, my son skipped into 5th grade. He is now 14 and going into his junior year of high school. He is academically and socially fitting in very well. He had some social issues in middle school (and who doesn't?) but he's 2-3 years younger than his academic peers and he's just FINE.
We're already looking at colleges for him, and he's only interested in small schools. Oberlin, Amherst, Grinnell and Swarthmore are all schools he's interested in. None of those are lightweight schools. They aren't IVY schools, but that's fine with me. I'd rather he considered IVY schools for grad school.
Do I think I damaged my kids by starting them on time and not redshirting them. Absolutely not. Not for one second. I think it's absurd to keep boys back (it's mostly boys) so that they'll be more successful in sports. When my kids were in K, there was a 7 year old in my son's K class. How STUPID were those parents, to hold a kid back so long? Can you imagine him in high school, as a 16 year old freshman? How mortifying.
Kids all sort of even out by the time they're out of middle school. There are fast tracks to colleges through AP classes and Honors tracks, but those don't always lead to the best schools. A well rounded kid with a passion for something is what colleges want to see. If your son can be a kid with a passion, he'll do fine in whatever college he gets in to. Don't worry, you didn't do anything bad. You're fine!
Another great post, Phantom.
I'm reminded of a conversation we had with our doctor when we ran into her last week. She was praising the preschool we were checking out for Lucas (it's in the aging hippie neighborhood adjacent to ours, whereas our current, albeit much beloved, daycare is across town and $200/more a month--hence the change). Anyway, she had sent her two older daughters to Montessori preschools and had been dissatisfied with them. So she picked this preschool because "they let the kids run around barefoot" and they have a "pig day" where the kids play around in the mud."
As she described its wonders, Mr. Trillwing piped up, "But don't you have to send your kids to a Montessori school if you want them to go to Fancy Pants University?"
"Well, do you really want that?" Dr. Wonderful replied.
I don't. Seriously. I really, really don't. I know we'll never be able to afford to send Lucas to my perfect alma mater, but the last thing I want for my child is for him to feel compelled to compete, compete, compete all the time.
I wouldn't worry much about LG. I'm confident that once he gets the physical skills under control, he'll blow them all away with his smarts and his wit.
When I was growing up on Saskatchewan, we had a Dec. 31st cut-off, but parents could choose to put their children in later with November/December birthdays, or even earlier, with January birthdays (that was rarer).
Both Mr. QWP and I were born within days of each other, in December. I started kindergarten when I was 4; he started when he was 5. Both of us turned out fine. It was occasionally awkward for him, always being the oldest in the class, but it didn't really matter to him. I was always in the top of my class. Coincidentally, in my high school class, all the top students were the very youngest ones (December 8, December 31, and a student who skipped a grade). And December 31st and I currently hold the most degrees of our graduating class. If you extrapolated those last two facts, you could even claim the exact opposite of what the NYT claims.
LG will be fine, and the New York Times can go sit on a tack.
A fascinating discussion. Here in my state of Australia, we start children (according to the rules) six months earlier than you do, so you can legally start at 4 yrs 6 months. The redshirting debate used to be between 4 yrs 6m and 4yrs 9m, and now its moved to 4yrs 9m to 5 yrs (with the lower socioeconomic groups continuing to send kids when they qualify for age.
But in Germany, they don't start at all until they turn 6. And there are other countries in Europe that wait until 7. If you look at educational outcomes for the country, I think Germany does better than either Australia or the US (but there are many other different things about their education system also).
I blogged about this a while ago: http://penguinunearthed.wordpres...l-starting-age/
hope you don't mind the link.
I'm so happy to have this discussion as a complement to the Times article. I'm not a parent, but can offer two anecdotal contributions (and no conclusions) from family experience:
I have a mid-August birthday and started K when I had just turned six. My sister has a November birthday and she started K when she was 4-going-on-5. We grew up to do almost identical work in the same college major and are now both teachers of the same obscure subject. We're probably good evidence for the theory that kids from socio-economically-intellectually advantaged backgrounds will do fine anyway, but we can also stand for the principle that it's fine to do what's right for each kid's level of social readiness.
My sister's two older kids are 22 months apart. The oldest, a girl, has a December birthday and did K the year she was 5 turning 6; her brother has a September birthday and my sister, having been a young K-er herself, expected he would start K the month that he turned 5, but the school insisted he wait till the following fall, when he was turning 6. At first my sister and her husband were dismayed because they thought he was ready for and needed the intellectual stimulation of K at 4-turning-5, but now they realize there are advantages to having the two kids two grades apart rather than one. The boy is very precocious in physical skills, reading, etc. (if not in social skills), and his older sister feels him breathing metaphorically down her neck as it is. They're very competitive with each other. Having a little space between them in schooling gives them a little more room to have their own school experiences and has allowed the girl to come into her own during first grade.
I blogged about this too, though more briefly than you because I was torn about what to blog about-- a lot of interesting articles popped up this weekend.
More anecdotal evidence ahoy:
My husband and my high school boyfriend were both held back in kindergarten. HSB had moved to the US from Brazil and was still more fluent in Portuguese than English, and Husband had moved from Puerto Rico and was also having English fluency troubles.
I think for both, also, their parents felt they needed the extra year of transitioning, for emotional maturity reasons, before starting first grade. But once they got older, for HSB, the only big difference was that he could drive before all the other boys . Both ended up at very good schools, though not Ivy, both have graduate degrees and are successful professionals in their fields.
I found the article incredibly depressing. The ultimate conclusion, it seemed to me, is that our ridiculous emphasis on starting academics as early as possible is WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Instead, we should have government-funded preschools that allow ALL kids to develop the social and emotional readiness skills to learn academics. I was struck by the fact that the age gap is negligible in Denmark, where academics don't start until age 7. If only we could have a nice social democracy here (if you want to weep, talk to a Scandinavian about their daycare system).
I also think it's ridiculous to personally wring your hands over this. I am an August birthday and was consistently one of the younger (and smaller kids) in my class. I was also one of the top academic performers, though I turned out to be not so athletic (I don't think that had anything to do with my birthday). Every kid is different.
When Lyra started at her current daycare, she was placed in a class where she was one of the oldest. Although the teachers were terrific, she clearly was bored with her peers (she wasn't interested in playing cooperatively with kids who don't talk). Then she moved up when she passed an age milestone--and thrived as one of the youngest, feeding intellectually off her older peers. Her best girlfriend at school is a girl who is 11 months older than she is.
So, remember that social science studies are looking at aggregate results and are not necessarily a guideline for what to do with your own child. If LG is happy, then you did the right thing. There is also the risk that redshirting may leave some kids bored and frustrated with school work that is "too easy". Bored kids don't apply themselves, and they don't achieve.
Hmm, maybe I'll blog about this too. Briefly, my son's like LG--young(ish). With an Aug 1 bday and an Oct 1 cutoff he's almost always one of the youngest in the class. If it's affected him socially we haven't seen it; it certainly hasn't affected him academically yet. The redshirts around here are almost all in the pricey suburbs, and almost all boys.
My daughter, now 17, is one of the oldest in her class w/a late December bday. When I was her age I had already graduated from high school (I was very early; another story); she has another whole year. She's bored, but socially I think she may have done better w/the extra year--like her mom, she's a bit of a late-bloomer. She's talking gap year now between HS and college, and though that will make her a 20-year-old freshman, we're all thinking that might be just fine. Most college students (imho) are too young to appreciate it anyway.
More on my blog later, I think...
All these articles do is make me more passionate about equity. The ideal solution: developmentally appropriate kindergarten. The practical solution: universal high quality preschool. What every kid really needs: good parents.
A former kindergarten teacher once told me that if a kid could skip, she was ready for kindergarten. Seems about right.
I love how this is supposed to be a Brand!New!Debate! because the NYT says so. The article made me sad, because I have to think that there are a lot of kids out there that aren't loving kindergarten because of the academic pressures. Childhood just seems to be getting shorter and shorter, which can't be all that healthy.
My sister's bday is Dec. 28. She was always the youngest. My stepmom (herself young in her class with a January bday) tortured herself with the decision. For years. My sister did fine, became an excellent athlete and a good student, went to a Fancy Pants-ish college (even though I thought she'd do better elsewhere, but nobody asked me). I think she could have used a year off between hs and college to travel or pursue other things, but that really had nothing to do with her age (I think) but her mindset.
When I was in school, everyone born in the same year was together. It all seemed to work out. But hey, we were also in the suburbs of DC, in excellent schools, with educated, involved parents. And my birthday is in March, so you can't go by me anyway.
I am glad, though, that so far I've had spring/early summer babies. Deciding where to send them will be enough of a soul-torturing debate, without the when.
Mrs. Coulter -- thanks for mentioning Denmark! I was skimming a book on literacy several years ago, that said the Danes don't start kids learning to read until age seven, and they've got almost 100% literacy. Apparently at age 5, only a few kids are ready to read -- by age 7, almost all of them are. That's a whole lot of kids who don't have to suffer the "bad reader" stigma from the get-go.
I was hesitant to cite that because I can't remember the name of the book (being myself functionally illiterate).
I cannot imagine that you have made any "fatal parenting errors," even if that's what the New York Times wants you to think because anxiety sells newspapers and/or page views.
I don't think great harm would've been done either way. But generally, it seems like LG was very ready for kindergarten, has learned a lot there academically, socially, and generally (school skills / motor skills). He's so smart and wants to learn things so much, which makes it seem more likely that he was suited for kindergarten and is now suited for first grade.
Small motor skills will come. J's handwriting was a matter of teacher concern from preschool through kindergarten, and now in first grade it's improved so much. (His drawing is still definitely behind his peers, but again, that's not the worst thing. It's not a talent of his, and it's a useful place to remind him that everyone has strengths and challenges, and that practice makes things better, as it did his handwriting.) (And LG has such artistic talent in other areas, according to the gorgeous paintings etc. you've shown us.)
My mom taught kindergarten for many a year. Her perspective on redshirting is from the other side. Maybe once a year, she would recommend to parents that they hold their kids back and have them repeat kindergarten. The parents always took it as a huge blow (understandable why they would react like that, but it's not really a negative at all).
What prompted her to recommend redshirting was not academics, sports, or penmanship. It was social. The ones she recommended redshirting were not interacting with the other kids at the same level of maturity. The reading skills, math, penmanship, and athletic abilities would all catch up, but she felt that social interactions had such a strong formative effect on kids, and that social patterns seemed to stick once they were developed, that it was important for kids to interact with their peers in "appropriate" ways.
I didn't read the whole article (that sure was a lot of words), and I guess maybe it's getting at more of the upper class idea of redshirting to make kids "the best." I think the idea of trying to be a perfect parent and make one's kids the best is hilarious. That is so much pressure on the kids... which doesn't seem like the kind of thing a perfect parent should do. At some point, isn't it enough to do "good enough", to have educated, literate, thoughtful, and kind kids? Does it really matter if they are the best athletes or have the best penmanship? (Unless they're going to go on and become calligraphers, in which case they're pretty much f*cked.)
I'm an August birthday so I started school at 4 [UK] I was the youngest and smallest in the class for ever.....
but when I fractured by spine and had a year off school.......
Best wishes
I was a "straight to first grade at 5" person -- working class, both parents had to work. Socially, it was rough. Academically, it was boring and remained so until college. I'm now a professor and I write books for a living and stuff, so I guess I'm an outlying data point. However, my kid has a borderline birthday and we opted to let her enter first grade at almost seven. She's an only child, so having the ability to be a peer leader to younger kids in her multi-year classroom was an important experience for her at the time. Now, she's a little bored academically toward the end of every three-year cycle, but she's socially a lot more adroit than either of her parents and is a happy confident kid. That's the only outcome I'm really worried about now.
Madeleine is having problems with HaloScan, so I'm pasting in her comment:
If anyone is interested in actually asking the Times why they keep printing this crap (not that we'd necessarily get a good answer, so I'm not saying anyone should bother unless they are in the mood), the
national editor is taking questions this week and she was previously in charge of issues including social trends in child-rearing.
Phantom, I'm so sorry, I don't have time to read comments, and I'm going to put something up on my blog now, but I wanted to say three things.
(A) Being able to tell who's older by the straightness of their running or the neatness of their penmanship is a neat parlor trick to haul out, but it tells us nothing we didn't already know. Not that it affects the conclusions of the piece, but I just wanted to throw that out there to the teacher quoted.
(B) There's a problem of the commons here (or maybe it's some other economics problem? there's definitely a dynamic optimization issue at stake, too) -- when some parents hold their kids back, the youth of the youngest kids becomes an issue. If no one could hold their child back, the youngest kids wouldn't stand out as much
(C) If kindergarten really were a last year of preschool in a big-kid environment, designed to introduce at-risk kids to school in a way that let them love school and find it delightful (which love, research shows matters far more for achievement than almost anything else school can do in the face of gross familial inequalities), the kids who did learn to read in the new "kindergarten is really first grade" regime would still have a delightful lovely time without hurting their future FPU chances (which are, for all intents and purposes, nil in a world where FPU et al. reject two or three classes of applicants with equally dazzling resumes of those admitted) AND the kids who crash and burn would have an actual chance at success AND we would spend far less time noticing or worrying about the age disparities between kids, not least because no one would be worrying anymore "about whether my five year old can handle kindergarten."
And NO, because the question is bound to arise, I do NOT think my kids would have been bored with another semester or two of preschool.
I wonder how much freaking out about current kindergarteners' future chances at college is due to the current baby boom echo where there are tons of kids who could fill each class at each FPU, so tons of exceedingly-well-qualified kids get rejected? And some moderately-qualified kids get rejected from all their schools, or all but one?
Whereas by the time current kindergarteners are applying to college, there should be many fewer kids applying, therefore less "competition," (much though I hate to think of it that way), therefore hopefully less pressure?
hmmm. great post, great comments. I, too, have a late-August birthday, and started kindergarten the day or so after I turned 5. I was already reading, so I got bumped up to first grade halfway through the year. My brother, on the other hand, has a late November birthday, and turned 6 the fall he was in kindergarten. Moving up was the right thing for me, in the end; I would have been frustratingly bored if I hadn't, and my brother would have been out of his league if he didn't stay. There were frustrations, of course, when my friends passed some milestones before I did, but my mother's words of comfort? "It'll all come out even when you're thirty." OK, not so helpful when you're seven and all of your friends are riding bicycles while you still struggle with the training wheels, but she was right. If LG can navigate the social world of kindergarten as well as you describe, then he'll do fine in first grade and beyond.
I agree with you, Phantom, that having an extra year or two after college as a kind of cushion for existential self-examination is a welcome thing. Not all of us need it; my brother came out of college knowing what he wanted to do, and has a happy career well underway. I've postponed my year of floating until now, and I'm quite happy to use it now that I need it.
In the end, though, you and Mr. Blue know him best, and you'll make the right decision, whether or not the NY Times agrees with you.
So many good comments already that I'm hesitant to add my two cents, but, um, that won't stop me from saying my piece. And maybe more.
1) Daughter is youngest in her class this year, and it's completely fine. Her birthday is November 28, and our cut-off is December 4. For her, this was absolutely the right choice, as she's learning and trying and sometimes even getting the wrong answer, something her two brothers and her parents never got comfortable with. We wanted her to have to work a little, and so far, so good.
2) There are other kids in her class who are struggling. Economics are the issue more than anything; parents who can't afford preschool may not have the resources to do all the things people who read the NYT and wring our hands over our childrearing decisions do at home.
3) Oldest son, who was the youngest boy in his kindergarten class with a mid-August birthday, is graduating from sixth grade next week and is also thriving. The red-shirted boys in his kindergarten class have had various outcomes, including skipping grades later on. They are, without exception, bigger and more into adolescence than the other kids in his class.
4) The red-shirted boys I grew up with didn't fare well in high school. They were physically mature earlier and didn't fit in. They were driving our freshman year of high school, which had various not-good consequences, and they were just ready to be out in the world long before high school ended. Of course, being 18 in high school means one can write one's own notes, so they really were out in the world most of the time.
5) My sister who came from Korea at 4? My parents kept her back from starting kindergarten. That's what red-shirting is for, in my opinion. There are times when it's appropriate, but to me, it seems like it's overused by parents looking for guarantees that everything will be okay. I'm sympathetic to that need, for sure, but I don't think red-shirting makes all our problems go away.
Here's my little horror story: Z. goes to a day care that I love and she loves and is populated by a lot of nerdy Jewish parents who are all going to send their kids to private school in a couple of years because this is Philadelphia and I'm sorry, but that is the truth of the matter.
There is a "transitional" classroom for kids who start the year at 2 1/2--the cut off date varies a little depending on the exact age of the kids in the infant/toddler rooms, but 2 1/2 is the general idea. It's kind of preschool-lite. They learn the days of the week and things like that. Potty-training is part of the curriculum, while passive resistance is the official potty-training position in her current infant-toddler classroom. (Z. uses the potty at home when prompted.)
The cut-off this year was Feb. 28. Z. was born at 2 am on Mar 2, but my labor began at 11pm on Feb. 26. So missing the cut-off is entirely a function of her having her hand over her head and being otherwise malpositioned during labor. I put this to the director while making the case for Z. staying with her two best buds from her classroom, who are one week and 8 weeks older than she is, respectively. Z. still didn't make the cut-off.
The rational for not moving her up? She would be the youngest(BY ONE WEEK) and wouldn't it be better for her to have an extra year (a THIRD year) in the infant/toddler room? After all, it's good for her to have all the advantages she can get in kindergarten. But she has a March birthday, and will be entering kindergarten smack-dab in the middle of her cohort--this same cohort, mind you--whatever happens next year.
I pitched a little fit, pointed out that she's on the cusp of potty-training already and likely to have behavior problems from boredom by the end of a third year in an infant-toddler class. That got her on the wait-list, I monitored the wait list, and now she's in, but if I hadn't fussed, I'd begin next year fighting to have someone take her to the bathroom.
Then I found out that one of the kids from her room who'll be three in August, who I figured would be going to the super-fun three-year-old room, is being redshirted into the transitional room so that he has three full years of preschool.
Cynical me feels that the staff ratio in each of these rooms is affecting these decisions (youger kids means higher staffing means higher tuition.)
Isn't the question really if any given, individual child is ready or not? When we made this decision for our daughter, we thought about...her! Not a class of children, not a demographic group, not her college possibilities: just her. Seems to have gone well - she's brilliant, creative, kind - is there more I would have hoped for, for her?
Interesting she doesn't quote decades of extremely well-done early literacy research - probably because it doesn't meet her assumptions and expectations. Here in the wilds of Connecticut, we don't do a lot of the things she says schools claim not to do but really do anyway - and we have well-constructed tests. Sure there are variations, but the whole point of Tomlinson's differentiation philosphy and the UbD folks work (now merged in UbDi) seem to be lost on her.
(And, just for the record, Dr. A still can't draw for shit, nor does he have legible handwriting - he compensates by being brilliant at other things, in what appears to be a pretty good trade-off)
I'm glad that we just worried about Daughter! We thought (and continue to think) that's what parents are for.
As a principal at an elementary school I find this topic of interest. I went to NYT to read article but frankly it bored me. Yes, I know people who 'redshirt' kids in Kindergarten. I also know children who go to private kindergarten early so they can enter 1st grade younger than our cut off dates. I guess the issue I want to address is the idea of "fatal errors" in parenting decisions. Frankly I can almost guarantee that each of us have or will have made mistakes in raising our children. So did our parents. And yet somehow we survive and most often thrive. Most decisions can be made over and over again with any changes that need to be done. Children who start too early and struggle with maturity can repeat a grade and kindergarten is a good one to repeat if necessary. Immaturity is one of the easiest things to cure, you just have to wait a little and it takes care of itself. What sports to play, groups to join, friends to have can all be changed over and over. There are very few decisions that once made can be life defining - unprotected sex, drunk driving, experimenting in drugs, running across the road without looking - but what college you go to, what you major in, how you cut your hair, are not. We need to get some perspective on what is critical and what is not. And the media and our government need to stop trying to scare us all to death. All parenting decision do NOT have a critical effect on our children for a lifetime. I wish parents today were as comfortable in being parents as there grandparents were. They didn't have so many 'experts' telling them what to do. They used common sense and their children were 'the greatest generation'. I would love to see more common sense and a lot less worry with the parents today. Good luck, stop feeling guilty, and do what feels right. It all comes out in the wash anyways.
I've been so mulling this article over for some time now. Lately I've been kicking ourselves for NOT redshirting Liam and for sending him on to kindergartne. But our guts told us that it was right to send him--that he was ready. But now we are wondering...and agonizing...and it's all moot anyway because he's starting first grade next year.
But there's much to think about.
I agree that we need to look at the individual kid, not just his birthday. My son began K1 at 4 almost 5 and after the first day was skipped into K2 because he was ready (he'll be bored out of his mind was how principal put it) even though he missed the cutoff by 19 days. Now he's in second grade and still working at the top of his class. Spending your elementary school career being bored and having everything be easy is harmful too.
Hmmm.
I read part of the article, but lost interest after not very long, partly because the system really does seem to be a little bit different up here in the Socialized North, but also because it really seemed like much ado about nothing.
We have junior kindergarten in our school board, and you can enroll your child in September as long as he/she is four years old in the calendar year. Simon was born 32 days too late to be enrolled for this September, so he'll have to wait for next year, and I think it's a shame because he's so ready for it now. (Well, aside from the toilet training thing. Hopefully we'll take care of that this summer.) I am so convinced of the benefit that an early enrollment will have for him that I've turned our finances inside out so we could hire a nanny who will drive him to and from a well-reputationed preschool starting in September. I'd enroll him in JK if I could, but I don't have the choice.
Interesting discussion, as always!
I read an interesting blog piece about this issue at the website gop3.com. I think the gal was right it is selfish to redshirt and it screws up the class and gives a teacher trouble
New to this but needing to vent on this issue. Here goes, my middle child is a late Aug bday, actually making the cutoff by days. He just finished preschool and his teacher felt that he was socially immature and would benefit long term from another year. He is a very quiet shy boy, who I fear will easily get lost and overwhelmed in a kindergarten class and also the kind of kid who will not ask for help.
Commenting by HaloScan
