Are They Ready for Kindergarten? The Pros and Cons of Redshirting Young Children

Kansas Inservice Training System (KITS)

Along with this packet, please read the articles Still Unacceptable Trends in Kindergarten Entry and Placement - A Position StatementDeveloped by the National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education which can be found in the archived papers at National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education.

Please also read He Has a Summer Birthday: The Kindergarten Entrance Age Dilemma by Sandra Crosser which can be found on ERIC Institute of Education Resources - The link will take you to the summary page of the article where you can download the full text PDF. 

 

Feel free to print and/or copy any original materials contained in this packet. KITS has purchased the right to reproduce the copyrighted articles included in this packet. Any additional duplication should adhere to appropriate copyright law.

The example organizations, people, places, and events depicted herein are fictitious. No association with any real organization, person, places, or events is intended or should be inferred.

 

Compiled by Misty Goosen, Ed.S. and David P. Lindeman, Ph.D.

June 2004

Kansas Inservice Training System

Kansas University Center on Developmental Disabilities

Adapted for accessibility and transferred to new website October 2022

 

Kansas Inservice Training System is supported though Part C, IDEA Funds from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.

The University of Kansas is and Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer and does not discriminate in its programs and activities. Federal and state legislation prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, disability, and veteran status. In addition, University policies prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, marital status, and parental status.

Letter from the Director

June 2004

 

Dear Colleague,

Delaying enrollment into kindergarten, or “redshirting”, has become a common practice in school districts across the country. Redshirting was first coined to describe college athletes who delayed participation in sports in order to make them more competitive.  Providing an additional year of growth and maturation is believed to provide a competitive advantage to athletic redshirts.  Parents and educators often share this belief regarding academic redshirting.

As with any practice, parents and educators must be fully informed to make the best decisions possible for individual children.  This technical assistant packet is, therefore, informational in nature. The intent of this packet is to provide the reader with a basic understanding of the practice of redshirting and pros and cons of this practice according to the latest research.  An extensive bibliography has been provided to allow for additional study on the topic.

We hope that you will find that the packet contains helpful information. After you have examined the packet, please complete the evaluation found at the end of this packet. Thank you for your interest and your efforts toward the development of quality services and programs for young children and their families.

Sincerely,

David P. Lindeman, Ph.D.

KITS Director

 

Back to top of page

Introduction to The Pros and Cons of Redshirting Young Children

 

What the Research Says...

The following section presents two articles that summarize scientifically-based research regarding redshirting. These articles discuss both academic and social development issues and effects on young children.

Please read Opportunity Deferred or Opportunity Taken? An Updated Look at Delaying Kindergarten Entry by Hermine H. Marshall from the September 2003 issue of Young Children (this article has been archived by NAEYC but can be viewed at Reading Rockets - The link will take you directly to the article page. 

Please also read Children Who Enter Kindergarten Late or Repeat Kindergarten: Their Characteristics and Later School Performance from the June 2000 Stats in Brief by the National Center for Education Statistics of the U. S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

 

True or False?

  1. Research clearly indicates that academic redshirting is detrimental to individual children.
  2. Research indicates that retention in the early years provides the additional support necessary for children to be successful in their later school experiences.
  3. Children in affluent families are less likely to be redshirted than children of less affluent families.
  4. Given background and developmental characteristics, children who are retained do less well than most other first and second graders, but no worse than would be expected.
  5. Redshirting provides an extra year for the child to “catch up” with her peers.
  6. The practice of redshirting is making it more difficult for teachers in the early grades.
  7. The practice of redshirting makes it more difficult for non-redshirted children (with summer birthdays) to succeed in kindergarten.
  8. Retained students are more likely to be male, younger than classmates, from lower socioeconomic class, black or Hispanic, and have a behavior problem or be immature.
  9. Positive effects of retention are seen throughout a child’s educational experience.
  10. School districts continue to retain because they erroneously believe it works.

 

True or False?

  1. Research clearly indicates that academic redshirting is detrimental to individual children.
    • False. Children whose parents held them out for a year of kindergarten were found to be doing at least as well in the first and second grade as their younger classmates who entered school at the prescribed age (West, Meek & Hurst, 2000). However, there is no statistical significance between these two groups after 3rd grade (Graue & DiPerna, 2000).
  2. Research indicates that retention in the early years provides the additional support necessary for children to be successful in their later school experiences.
    • False. Parents whose children have been retained in the early years report that their children are doing worse than their younger classmates on most school performance indicators. When compared to non-retained peers, children are 66% more likely to receive some negative feedback from teachers (West, Meek & Hurst, 2000).
  3. Children in affluent families are less likely to be redshirted than children of less affluent families.
    • False. There is a slightly higher incidence of affluent families choosing to redshirt their children with the hope of providing them with an additional year of development. Some argue that families making such choices are families with high parental involvement in the educational process. Higher levels of parental involvement correspond with higher levels of academic achievement. Children in such families are more likely to be provided with additional support from other educational or learning programs outside of kindergarten (West, Meek & Hurst, 2000).
  4. Given background and developmental characteristics, children who are retained do less well than most other first and second graders, but no worse than would be expected.
    • True. There is no evidence that retention provides a beneficial effect on school performance. However, studies in the adolescent years suggests that children who are a year or more older than their peers have more behavioral problems than their classmates (Katz, 2000).  Others suggest that children who have been retained in early grades have been misdiagnosed and may have developmental disabilities (Graue & DiPerna, 2000).
  5. Given background and developmental characteristics, children who are retained do less well than most other first and second graders, but no worse than would be expected.
    • True. There is no evidence that retention provides a beneficial effect on school performance. However, studies in the adolescent years suggests that children who are a year or more older than their peers have more behavioral problems than their classmates (Katz, 2000).  Others suggest that children who have been retained in early grades have been misdiagnosed and may have developmental disabilities (Graue & DiPerna, 2000).
  6. The practice of redshirting is making it more difficult for teachers in the early grades.
    • True. Schools who practice redshirting and retention are making it more difficult for kindergarten and early primary teachers in the long run. Young children by nature vary a great deal in their development. By adding another year through redshirting or retention, the school has created an ever larger disparity.     
  7. The practice of redshirting makes it more difficult for non-redshirted children (with summer birthdays) to succeed in kindergarten.
    • True. Parents of children with a summer birthday may feel pressured into delaying school entry for their child because of the higher expectations of kindergarten teachers imposed by an overall student population. Parents may feel this pressure even when they are sure of their child’s ability to succeed in kindergarten. In years past, schools encouraged the practice of “skipping a grade” in order to get ahead, now they hold children back for the same gain (Meisels & Liaw, 1993). 
  8. Retained students are more likely to be male, younger than classmates, from lower socioeconomic class, black or Hispanic, and have a behavior problem or be immature.
    • True. The only contrast between this group and children who are redshirted is that the socio-economic class is higher and a higher percentage of children are non-black or Hispanic. (Karweit, 1991).
  9. Positive effects of retention are seen throughout a child’s educational experience.
    • False. Studies which present longitudinal comparisons show that any positive effect of retention fades out over a two or three year period (Karweit, 1991). In addition, children themselves rate the possibility of retention as extremely stressful. In one study, only going blind or losing a parent were rated by children as more stressful than the possibility of retention (Yamamoto, 1980).
  10. School districts continue to retain because they erroneously believe it works.
    • True. Without controlled comparisons, retention looks like it works in the short run. Districts do not carry out experiments to compare a particular child’s progress when retained with what it would be had he been promoted.  They do not look at a child’s progress after third grade to site effectiveness (Shepard & Smith, 1989).  Children who are retained continue to perform lower on measures of reading and math than their peers (Meisels & Liaw, 1993).

 

References

Graue, M. E., & DiPerna, J. (2000). Redshirting and early retention: Who gets the “gift of time” and what are its outcomes? American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 509-534.

Holmes, C., & Matthews, K. (1984). The effects of non-promotion on elementary and junior high school pupils: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 54(2).

Kagan, S. L. (1999). Cracking the readiness mystique. Young Children, 54(5), 2-3.

Katz, L. G. (2000, November). Academic redshirting and young children. ERIC Digest EDO PS-00-13. Retrieved August 16, 2004, from http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-3/young.htm - Page address has since changed to secure site (http to https)  https://www.ericdigests.org/2001-3/young.htm

Karweit, N. L. (1991). Repeating A Grade - Time To Grow or Denial of Opportunity? Center for Research on Effective Schools for Disadvantaged Students, Report No. 16,

May, D. C., Kundert, D. K., & Brent, D. (1995). Does delayed school entry reduce later grade retentions and use of special education services? Remedial and Special Education, 16(5), 288-294.

Meisels, S., & Liaw, F. (1993). Failure in grade: Do retained students catch up? Journal of Educational Research, 87(2), 69-77.

Shepard, L,. & Smith, M. (1990). Synthesis of research on grade retention. Educational Leadership, 44(3), 4-88.

West, J., Meek, A., & Hurst, D. (2000). Children who enter kindergarten late or repeat kindergarten: Their characteristics and later school performance. (NCES No. 2000-039). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Yamamoto, K. (1980). Children under stress: The causes and cures. Family Weekly: Ogden Standard Examiner, 6-8.

 

 

School Entry Decisions: A Guide for Parents

How Do We Know if a Child is Ready for Kindergarten?

Are there benefits to delaying kindergarten entrance?

Are there benefits to starting kindergarten early?

Kindergarten readiness is the concept that children have developed a group of skills necessary to learn.  It can include readiness to read, write, and count; to sit and listen; to follow two-step directions; to ask an adult for help; to interact appropriately with other children; to toilet independently. These and numerous other factors related to readiness are found in popular and child development literature, but there is no universal set of behaviors required for a child to enter kindergarten. In fact, the sole requirement for kindergarten entrance in the United States is chronological age; children must be five years old by a certain date, usually by September first.

What we know about readiness in young children: Young children learn at different rates and markedly so from preschool through age eight. For example, while most children can learn to decode words during their sixth year, it is normal for children to learn as young as four and as old as seven years of age. This wide but normal range is also true for drawing, writing letters and numbers, counting, speaking articulately and following multiple directions. So it is to be expected that a typical kindergarten class should include children entering with wide variation in their school-related skills.

Factors in Delaying Kindergarten Entrance

Although readiness is legally defined as reaching the age of five by a certain date, many parents and educators have become concerned that some kindergarten-aged children seem socially or physically immature or lack the skills to read, write and compute. Over the last 20 years or so, delaying entrance to kindergarten by one year has become a common response, especially for boys who turn five within four or five months of the kindergarten cutoff date. A review of the research on delayed entrance and on children who are the youngest within their grade has shown that:

  • Delaying kindergarten until age six has not resulted in improvement in reading, writing or math skills;
  • At kindergarten and first grade, youngest children do score lower on achievement tests, but the difference tends to diminish as grade level increases, usually disappearing by third grade (one researcher noted that six-year-olds should look more skilled than five-year-olds in kindergarten; they have been alive 20 percent longer);
  • Delayed entrants 4 to 12 years after entering school were no more academically skilled, athletically involved or socially successful than students who had entered kindergarten after just turning five years old;
  • Students who are one year too old for a grade level are much more likely to drop out of high school.

Factors in Starting Kindergarten Early

While some parents choose to delay their child’s kindergarten entrance by one year, there are others who request that their child enter kindergarten one year early, at four years of age. With birthdates one to three months after the kindergarten cutoff, these children tend to be early and quick learners, socially mature and most often girls. Schools that allow early entrance usually require some formal testing and possibly a simulated or “trial” kindergarten experience to determine if the candidates are advanced beyond the typical kindergarten skills. Research on early entrance to kindergarten has shown that when the early entrants, boys or girls, have superior intelligence, and when their parents and the receiving teacher support the decision and have realistic expectations of the child:

  • Academic achievement, athletic involvement and social adjustment were at least as great as children of similar intelligence who entered at age five;
  • One researcher who reviewed several studies noted that “there is no reason to conclude that the early entrants would have achieved more and adjusted better if they had entered school at the usual time.“

Recommendations for Parents Considering Delayed Entrance

All parents and educators want children to be successful in school. When parents believe their child may struggle or fail in kindergarten, delaying entrance by one year has become a common practice and some educators have recommended it. However, experts in child development generally agree that, rather than trying to fit the child to the program, schools should tailor the program to accommodate the individual differences in the kindergarten class. Teachers should assess each child’s entrance skills and design curriculum to advance him or her to the next skill level. So before deciding to delay a child’s entrance to kindergarten by one year, parents should consider:

  • Meeting with the prospective kindergarten teacher to discuss how the school program would meet their child’s individual needs and skill level, keeping in mind that the only school entrance requirement is to be five years old; and/or
  • Requesting formal educational assessment if there is concern that the child may have an educational disability. Preschool special education services may be available.

Recommendations for Parents Considering Early Entrance

When parents believe their child is advanced intellectually and socially, early entrance may be one option. Before deciding to request early entrance, parents should consider:

  • Meeting with the prospective kindergarten teacher to discuss how the school program would meet their child’s individual needs and advanced skill level if the child entered at the regularly scheduled time.
  • Exploring enrichment options available in the community during the year prior to regular entrance to kindergarten.

Resources

Bredekamp, S. (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8: Expanded edition. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Gredler, G. (1992). School readiness: Assessment and educational issues. Brandon, VT: Clinical Psychology.

Martin, M., & Waltman-Greenwood, C. (1995). Solve your child’s school-related problems. New York: Harper Perenniel.

Peck, J. T., McCaig, G., & Sapp, M. E. (1988). Kindergarten policies: What is best for children. Washington DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).

Shepard, L.A., & Smith, M. L. (1989). Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention. New York: Falmer Press.

 

Laidig, P. (1998, February). School entry decisions: A guide for parents. National Association of School Psychologists.  Retrieved November 10, 2004, from http://www.nasponline.org/ publications/cq265school.html. - Article webpage address has since been removed - Reprinted with permission from National Association of School Psychologists, Bethesda, MD, NASP Online

 

Back to top of page

Steps to Take

The following article provides administrators, teachers and parents with possible alternative action steps to holding children out of kindergarten.

Academic Redshirting and Young Children by Lilian G. Katz from ERIC Digest November 2000 which can be found at ERIC Digests

 

Redshirting, Retention and Transition Alternatives

Alternatives to redshirting, retention and transition include —

  • Mixed-age classes that allow children to progress at their own pace.
  • A curriculum that is both age and individually appropriate for each child.
  • All day kindergarten that is developmentally and individually appropriate and that provides children additional time in school without adding an extra year to normal school progression.
  • Individualized instruction that is tailored to meet the needs of individual children.
  • Parent/caregiver assistance programs that not only involve children’s caregivers and families with schools, but also provide assistance in helping children with homework and study habits.
  • Recognizing and valuing differences among children, rather than striving for homogeneity in classroom placements.
  • Using tests appropriately to design and evaluate curriculum that meets the needs of each child, rather than to make placement decisions which involve removing children from the regular classroom.
  • Reducing class size to allow for increased individual instruction.

All children, regardless of skill level, achievement, culture, social class, or background, deserve the right to be educated with peers and to follow normal school progression. Schools must begin concentrating on meeting children’s needs in the classroom, rather than penalizing children with ineffective programming that removes them from higher-achieving and more socially mature peers and that adds an additional year to their normal school progression.

From Carlson, L., & Galle, L. (2000). Alternatives to kindergarten retention and transition placement. Fact Find. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Early Education and Development. Retrieved June 16, 2004, from http://cehd.umn.edu/CEED/publications/briefsandreports/factfind/ff2000.htm - Webpage has since been removed. 

 

Back to top of page

 

References and Resources

References

Carlson, L., & Galle, L. (2000). Alternatives to kindergarten retention and transition placement. Fact Find. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Early Education and Development. Retrieved June 16, 2004, from http://cehd.umn.edu/CEED/publications/briefsandreports/factfind/ff2000.htm - Webpage has since been removed. 

Crosser, S. (1998, September). He has a summer birthday: The kindergarten entrance age dilemma. ERIC Digest EDO-PS-98-7. Retrieved August 16, 2004, from http://www.ericdigests.org/1999-2/summer.htm - Webpage has since moved eric.ed.gov

Graue, M. E., & DiPerna, J. (2000). Redshirting and early retention: Who gets the “gift of time” and what are its outcomes? American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 509534.

Holmes, C., & Matthews, K. (1984). The effects of non-promotion on elementary and junior high school pupils: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 54(2).

Kagan, S. L. (1999). Cracking the readiness mystique. Young Children, 54(5), 2-3.

Karweit, N. L. (1991). Repeating a grade: Time to grow or denial of opportunity? (Report No. 16). Baltimore: Center for Research on Effective Schools for Disadvantaged Students.

Katz, L. G. (2000, November). Academic redshirting and young children. ERIC Digest EDO-PS-00-13. Retrieved August 16, 2004, from http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-3/young.htm - Webpage has since moved to a secure web address (http to https) ericdigests.org/2001-3/young.htm

Marshall, H. H. 2003. Opportunity deferred or opportunity taken? An updated look at delaying kindergarten entry. Young Children 58(5), 84-93.

May, D. C., Kundert, D. K., & Brent, D. (1995). Does delayed school entry reduce later grade retentions and use of special education services? Remedial and Special Education, 16(5), 288-294. (ERIC Journal No. EJ510039)

Meisels, S., & Liaw, F. (1993). Failure in grade: Do retained students catch up? Journal of Educational Research, 87(2), 69-77.

National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education. (2000). Still! Unacceptable trends in kindergarten entry and placement. Retrieved June 16, 2004, from http://www.naecs-sde.org/STILL_Unacceptable_Trends_in_Kinderg.pdf - PDF has since moved naecs-sde.org - Please note that this link will take you to the Archived Position Papers and Letters page.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2000, June). Children who enter kindergarten late or repeat kindergarten: Their characteristics and later school performance. Stats in Brief. Retrieved June 16, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2000039 - The webpage has since moved nces.ed.gov - The link will take you to a summary page where the PDF can be downloaded. 

Shepard, L., & Smith, M. (1990). Synthesis of research on grade retention. Educational Leadership, 44(3), 4-88.

West, J., Meek, A., & Hurst, D. (2000). Children who enter kindergarten late or repeat kindergarten: Their characteristics and later school performance. (NCES No. 2000-039). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved June 16, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000039.pdf - The webpage has since moved nces.ed.gov - The link will take you to a summary page where the PDF can be downloaded. 

Yamamoto, K. (1980). Children under stress: The causes and cures. Family Weekly: Ogden Standard Examiner, 6-8.

 

Other Resources

*Bredekamp, S. (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8: Expanded edition. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Bredekamp, S., & Shepard, L. (1989). How best to protect children from inappropriate school expectations. Young Children, 44, 78-86.

Brent, D., May, D. C., & Kundert, D. K. (1996). The incidence of delayed school entry: A twelve-year review. Early Education and Development, 7(2), 121-135. (ERIC Journal No. EJ520504)

Byrd, R. S., Weitzman, M., & Auinger, P. (1997). Increased behavior problems associated with delayed school entry and delayed school progress. Pediatrics,100(4), 654-661.

Carlson, L. (1995). Relationship between entry and exit kindergarten measures, parent/ child attitude, and fourth and fifth grade measures of reading and math achievement (Doctoral  dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1995).

Coley, R. (2002). An uneven start. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Diamond, K., Reagan, A., & Bandyk, J. (2000). Parents’ conceptions of kindergarten readiness. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(2), 93–100.

Golant, S., & Golant, M. (1990). Kindergarten: It isn’t what it used to be: Getting your child ready for the positive experience of education. Los Angeles: Lowell House.

Gnezda, M. T., & Bolig, R. (1988). A national survey of public school testing of prekindergarten and kindergarten children. Paper prepared for the National Forum on the Future of Children and Families and the National Association of State Boards of Education.

Graue, M. E. (1998). What’s wrong with Edward the unready? Our responsibility for readiness. Young Children, 53(2), 12-16.

Gredler, G. (1992). School readiness: Assessment and educational issues. Brandon, VT: Clinical Psychology Publishing.

Grissom J., & Shepard, L. (1989). Repeating and dropping out of school. In L. Shepard and M. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 16-23). London: Palmer Press.

Hollomon, S. (1990). Retention and redshirting: The dark side of kindergarten. Principal, 69(5), 13-15.

Holmes, C. (1983). The fourth r: Retention. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 17(1), 1-6.

Kundert, D. K., May, D. C., & Brent, D. (1995). A comparison of students who delay kindergarten entry and those who are retained in grades K–5. Psychology in the Schools, 32(3), 202-209. (ERIC Journal No. EJ517406)

Martin, M., & Waltman-Greenwood, C. (1995). Solve your child’s school-related problems. New York: Harper Perenniel.

*Meisels, S. J. (1999). Assessing readiness. In R. C. Pianta & M. J. Cox (Eds.), The transition to kindergarten (pp. 39-66). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Miller, A. (2002). Frequently requested information: Full-day kindergarten. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education.

Ostrowski, P. (1994). Transition classes: Alternative learning environments that perpetuate in appropriate curriculum in surrounding grades. (ED 370 190)

Peck, J. T., McCaig, G., & Sapp, M. E. (1988). Kindergarten policies: What is best for children. Washington DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Phillips, N. (1992). Two-tiered kindergartens: Effective for at risk five year olds? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 205-224.

Pipitone, S. (1986). Longitudinal study of the developmental kindergarten programs in the Glen Cove City School District. (ED 276 500)

Prohaska, L. (1991). Effects of two-year kindergarten programs at the end of third grade. (ED 340 463)

Shepard, L., & Smith, M. (1988). Escalating academic demand in kindergarten: Counterproductive policies. Elementary School Journal, 89(2), 135-145. (ERIC Journal No. EJ382617)

Spitzer, S., Cupp, R., & Parke, R. D. (1995). School entrance age, social acceptance, and self-perception in kindergarten and 1st grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10(4), 433-450. (ERIC Journal No. EJ516737)

West, J., Denton, K., & Germino-Hausken, E. (2000). America’s kindergartners. (NCES No. 2000-070). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. West, J., Denton, K., & Reaney, L. (2000). The kindergarten year (NCES 2001-023). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Zill, N., Loomis, L., & West, J. (1997). The elementary school performance and adjustment of children who enter kindergarten late or repeat kindergarten: Findings from national surveys (NCES 98-097). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

 

*These items are available from:

KITS Early Childhood Resource Center
2601 Gabriel, Parsons, KS 67357
Email: resourcecenter@ku.edu
Phone: 620-421-3067

 

Websites

Center for Early Education and Development

Starting kindergarten late: How does it affect school performance?

Education Commission of the States

National Association for the Education of Young Children. NAEYC position statement on school readiness. 

 

Back to top of page

Packet Evaluation

Please take a few minutes to complete the brief online survey above. Your feedback is central to our evaluation of the services and materials provided by KITS.

 

Back to top of page