JohnnyU
Footballguy
Before I begin I did do a search on this topic and didn't find anything.
The big thing the last few years is to hold kids back from Kindergarten for a year if they have a summer / fall birthday to give them an advantage academically, socially, and athletically over the other kids in their class. Some parents hide behind the premise of maturity issues as the reason, when in reality they want their kid to be the biggest and strongest in their class in hopes it increases the chances their kid excels physically over the other kids in his class and also increase his chances of being a leader rather than a follower. Kindergarten redshirting is twice as likely to be done with boys than girls.
There can be pros and cons to this issue. There is no argument these kids will probably be the biggest kids in their class and one can argue it helps with their confidence and gives an advantage athletically and socially if they are the biggest and oldest. This can be the case all the way through middle school and high school. Some feel this can actually help a kid get a college scholarship. Kids who are held back are more likely to attend a 4 year college as well.
One could also argue holding a kid back can be a disadvantage. Even though there is no longer the stigma of being held back as there was 30 years ago, especially since it is happening at such a young age, but these kids will wonder why they aren't going to kindergarten with the rest of their friends, which they will probably lose as a result. It has also been proven that kids held back for the wrong reasons can become bored with class because it is too easy and will eventually stymie their ability to learn and can lead to behavioral problems. Kids who start kindergarten at the age of 4 or 5 instead of 6 or 7 are more likely to figure out early on they have to try harder and fight (figuratively) for everything they get. Whereas kids who start later may not develop the necessary drive to succeed later on. Kids who are 18 or 19 in high school are more likely to drop out as well.
Is it fair to younger kids? I see a moral issue here. What kind of precedence does it set to let our children know it's OK to be held back so they will be bigger and stronger and for the short term smarter than the other kids? Shouldn't there be rules in place to curb this? Should it be taken solely on a case by case basis and applied where it really is needed, other than parents wanting their kids to have an advantage over their peers? Also, the middle class and upper class are far more likely to redshirt their kid over the poor and minority families because of the cost of day care. Poor families need to save on day care so they put their kids into kindergarten as quickly as they can.
The big thing the last few years is to hold kids back from Kindergarten for a year if they have a summer / fall birthday to give them an advantage academically, socially, and athletically over the other kids in their class. Some parents hide behind the premise of maturity issues as the reason, when in reality they want their kid to be the biggest and strongest in their class in hopes it increases the chances their kid excels physically over the other kids in his class and also increase his chances of being a leader rather than a follower. Kindergarten redshirting is twice as likely to be done with boys than girls.
There can be pros and cons to this issue. There is no argument these kids will probably be the biggest kids in their class and one can argue it helps with their confidence and gives an advantage athletically and socially if they are the biggest and oldest. This can be the case all the way through middle school and high school. Some feel this can actually help a kid get a college scholarship. Kids who are held back are more likely to attend a 4 year college as well.
One could also argue holding a kid back can be a disadvantage. Even though there is no longer the stigma of being held back as there was 30 years ago, especially since it is happening at such a young age, but these kids will wonder why they aren't going to kindergarten with the rest of their friends, which they will probably lose as a result. It has also been proven that kids held back for the wrong reasons can become bored with class because it is too easy and will eventually stymie their ability to learn and can lead to behavioral problems. Kids who start kindergarten at the age of 4 or 5 instead of 6 or 7 are more likely to figure out early on they have to try harder and fight (figuratively) for everything they get. Whereas kids who start later may not develop the necessary drive to succeed later on. Kids who are 18 or 19 in high school are more likely to drop out as well.
Is it fair to younger kids? I see a moral issue here. What kind of precedence does it set to let our children know it's OK to be held back so they will be bigger and stronger and for the short term smarter than the other kids? Shouldn't there be rules in place to curb this? Should it be taken solely on a case by case basis and applied where it really is needed, other than parents wanting their kids to have an advantage over their peers? Also, the middle class and upper class are far more likely to redshirt their kid over the poor and minority families because of the cost of day care. Poor families need to save on day care so they put their kids into kindergarten as quickly as they can.
Last edited by a moderator:
