My grandnephew was born on June 1. When the time came for him to be admitted to class 1 the school informed that as per rules, a child should have completed 6 years of age to be eligible for starting school. This child missed the mark by one day, and hence he had to continue in kindergarten until the next year. While this child’s parents were not unduly bothered by this, several parents in similar circumstances are greatly bothered by the fact that their child was obliged to “waste a whole year” just because of the difference of one day. In ‘the race’ as it were, for the child to be always ahead, many parents today start the child on the long journey of education that lies ahead, with an anxiety of ‘being left behind’. They are concerned that the child will be older than its peers (albeit by a few months) and that this will be a continuing concern right through its education. Some parents even resort to a variety of tactics to convince the school to relax the rule, especially in cases where the child ‘misses out’ by just a couple of days.
But if we really think about it, what exactly is the child ‘missing out’ on? An early start to the rigidity of a timetable, stress of homework and the structure of a prematurely heavy academic schedule? As compared to continuing another year of the relatively more relaxed environment of pre-school? How much of a difference will this make 17 years down the line?
This race in India and, I suspect, many other countries starts where there are pre-schools that take children in even as early as one and a half years. Parents are keen that children enter the ‘system’ as it were, asap!
I recently read about an opposite take on this approach. This approach, that has adherents in the United States, advocates postponing a child’s entrance into preschool or kindergarten. This is in cases where the child meets the official enrolment age requirement but it is the parents’ decision to postpone its school entrance.
This approach is called Redshirting.
Redshirting is different from ‘holding a child back’. It is based on the judgement of a parent, who needs to gauge whether the extra year will give a child more time to mature in emotional, social and physical areas. It is anticipating that this will compensate for baseline learning difficulties as a school may not be able to give a single child the necessary attention and support. It is also incumbent upon the parents that they have the requisite wherewithal to be able to provide this attention and support.
There has been much debate on whether or not redshirting has positive or negative long-term effects on the child. The reasoning is, that holding the child back a year means that the child may be physically stronger and bigger than its peers when in first grade. Looking ahead, it may also provide the child with an advantage in athletics when it reaches high school. But at this early stage all this would be mere speculation, or simply wishful thinking!
In terms of academics some research has shown that delaying kindergarten can give a child a temporary boost as compared with its peers, as it is a year older and (presumably) more mature. This may also give the child a competitive advantage. But research has shown that this advantage disappears by the first or second grade. What is does not seem to cover is the other advantages of peer learning and socialization that kindergarten offers.
However this delay may be a sensible choice for a child who has a genuine requirement, such as a special need, physical or intellectual, or lacks the emotional maturity to handle a more structured kindergarten environment. It is proven that brain development between the ages of five and six is very significant. In such cases coming into school with an extra year of development may be helpful for the child.
Research supports the idea that early education is critical to developing young students’ learning and social-emotional skills and also crucial to their long-term academic success. However it is controversial whether delaying a child’s entry to school helps or hinders this process.
More intriguing is the term itself. Why ‘redshirting’? The origin can be traced back to sports, particularly college sports, where redshirting refers to the practice of student-athletes sitting out a year of competitive play to extend their eligibility or develop their skills. The term is said to have originated in the late 1930s at the University of Nebraska, where Warren Alfson, a player, wore a red practice jersey without a number, as Nebraska’s team colour was red. This practice of wearing a red shirt during practice to differentiate from players who were competing became associated with the concept of redshirting.
Interestingly ‘redshirting’ became a popular trend following the publication, in 2008, of Malcolm Gladwell’s bestselling book Outliers. Based on data from the ages of the players for the Canadian Hockey League, the book claimed that the players who were born in the first four months of the year, and thus older than the other team members, were more likely more likely to be identified as talented and ultimately more likely to play professional hockey. Following from this Gladwell argued that the same principle extends to children who are older than their classmates, in that they may have an academic advantage.
In a sports-crazy society like America, some parents reason that by holding the child back for a year, it will potentially be physically stronger and larger than its peers once it reaches high school, providing it with an advantage in athletics.
It is difficult to prove either way. Redshirting may have benefits for some children, but it is not a guarantee for any future advantage; it may even go the other way. Personally I find it rather difficult to make sense of this trend. And wonder if being a year younger or older than your classmates is likely to have such profound and life-changing consequences. What does ring true is this observation: ‘America is living on a calendar of age; age determines when we can start school, drop out of school, drive, vote, work, consume alcohol, buy tobacco. Age, by society’s standards determines individuals’ readiness, maturity, and ability to handle certain situations. America has let age define an individual’s experience and progression beyond just celebrating another year of life.’
–Mamata
Millennial Matriarchs 