The risks of ‘redshirting’
On Sunday night 60 Minutes did a feature on “redshirting,” the practice of holding children back from starting kindergarten with the intention of giving them an advantage by gaining an extra year (see video below). This is distinctly different from holding a child back due to legitimate behavioral, social, or learning development concerns. The parents interviewed cited the additional social development a child gained that would carry forward even to middle school and high school. They mentioned the potential behavioral development and even the physical advantages their children would have in sports. There are statistics to support the idea that there are real advantages to this practice. In his bestseller, Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell even discusses how the month a child is born can create an advantage in certain arenas.
Something about this practice strikes me as discordant with the heart of the gospel. I do not mean to cast aspersions on those parents who do it, but rather to bring to the surface some questionable and possibly unnoticed undercurrents of redshirting.
There is an inherent selfishness to such practices. While a parent may say, “I am simply trying to give my child all the advantages she deserves,” there is a subtle (or maybe not-so-subtle) attempt to get a leg up on other children. Our society is so individualistic in its mentality that we think nothing of others when we seek to bless our children. In the effort to put our children first we are, necessarily, seeking to put other children behind. I do not believe most parents are actively seeking to create setbacks for other people’s children, but it is a requisite effect of putting our own children first.
There are societal down sides to redshirting. Less privileged families don’t have the freedom to do it. It is inequitable. It can create a gap between the redshirted and the unredshirted. But these ills are just symptoms of a deeper issue, a heart issue.
What does it teach our children when we put them above everyone else around them? What does it say about our hearts that, while we may not be trying to disadvantage others with our choices we care nothing at all that our choices do disadvantage them? Is this, while a small decision, also a small evidence of being willing to gain the whole world for our children while forfeiting our souls—and theirs?
As the parent of a kindergartener I realize, very clearly, that redshirting is not itself a damnable offense. But it points to a mentality, a culture that has substituted self-glory for the glorification of Christ. And as Christians we cannot participate in that. We must be representatives of a better ideal, one that emphasizes humility, love, and the interests of others before our own.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top70 Comments to “The risks of ‘redshirting’”
Years ago Kindergarten was for socialization and play. Now children have to learn to read in Kindergarten or they are behind. If they struggle in first grade they get labeled ADD and the teacher wants them on medicine.
As the mother of a child who was born in September, on the other end of this issue is whether I wanted to send a 17 almost 18 year old off to college or an 18 almost 19 year old off to college.
I don’t see this as “class” or “priviledge” and if you can’t afford the care for your child don’t have them. It isn’t the government’s responsibility to provide day care so you can work in this particular case. There are lot’s of pre-schools out there and if you are poor enough WIC will help subsidize day care.
Report comment to moderator
I was very surprised to read this article. As a mother of four (all now in their 40’s) I paid close attention to what was best for my children, especially in the area of education. I held two of my children back. The older of the two was put into kindergarten at the age of 4 (her birthday was one week before the cut-off). She struggled for four months and the teacher was only concerned that she was disruptive to the other students. If I had considered the others I may have left her in school which would have been disastrous. She was not socially ready but, because she was held back until she was ready, she excelled in school, was a leader for the other students and encouraged them. The younger one’s birthday was also one week before the cut-off
Report comment to moderator
A parent should not make decisions for a child’s life based on what it might do to the other students but rather what is best for their own child.
Report comment to moderator
Thought-provoking article. Facepalm-provoking comments.
Report comment to moderator
“Thought-provoking article. Facepalm-provoking comments.”
Not at all. This article is amateurish.
The education system, college admission process, sports scholarships, regular scholarships, etc, all create a little competition between students; it’s true. But working to advantage your own children doesn’t have the 1-1 effect of disadvantaging others that the author claims (even if that’s not apparent from the rhetoric of some parents).
Respectfully, this author is in hysterics, and taken to it’s logical conclusion this case is one against providing your own child with math tutoring, piano lessons, sports programs etc. unless they can be made available to all children.
I send my kids to private school…so yeah they are statistically more likely to go to college than some other people’s kids. But that’s not “un-Christian”!
Now, I am not opposed to socially and politically allocating the resources required to give all kids the advantages my kids have…but that’s searching for political will not often found in these parts.
Report comment to moderator
My only experience with redshirting was in first grade t ball. We were soundly thrashed by a team from another town that had all been held back a year. They were all a full year to a year and a half older than we were. At that age a year is a lot of difference in physical and mental maturity.
Report comment to moderator
“Respectfully, this author is in hysterics”
It’s “respectful” to attribute “hysterics” to the author of calmly toned article that takes multiple opportunities to explain that he does not think the practice he is questioning is inherently terrible, merely because you think his concerns are unnecessary?
Interesting use of the English language.
Report comment to moderator
Okay, then it’s not respectful, Penta. It’s still hysterical and riddled with hyperbolic “Christian” outrage. Try dealing with a logical points. What’s the difference between red-shirting and putting my kids in private school?
Report comment to moderator
As a pastor/teacher/principal, I have never heard a parent regret the decision to wait for their child to start school, especially with those birthdays close to the cut-off date. I have heard of parents regret pushing their child to fit into the age-bracket system prevalent in the school system, especially when it comes to the Junior High & High School years.
Furthermore, I disagree with the author’s basic premise that this is a zero-sum ‘game’ – the children that are more mature actually help those that are less so in the classroom setting. The latest research agrees with my classroom observations on this. While some families may treat it as a way for Junior to ‘get ahead’, I think that the proper way to view it is to let Junior grow at his own Divinely-given pace – the wrong-headed viewpoint of some does not change the wisdom of waiting for others…
Report comment to moderator
Socially, physically and mentally boys are behind girls through grade school. Boys don’t seem to catch up until high school or later. How many girls complain that boys their age are “babies?”
Many boys would do better in school if they started a year later than girls.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t need to “deal with” the article because I neither wrote it, nor objected to it. Thanks for admitting calling someone hysterical with very little foundation isn’t respectful, though, that’s what I was concerned with.
Only because you ask, I think you have a point and I do agree with your objections that benefiting your own child doesn’t precisely equate to harming another. I just know which of you sounded more “hysterical” and which sounded more “respectful.” I didn’t hear any “outrage” at all — even though I think that Barnabas did go into non sequitur territory in questioning the practice of redshirting and don’t entirely agree with his take on it (though I think it’s valid to raise some questions about it), I didn’t perceived a hysterical or outraged tone at all. I think we have more of an issue here with the beholder, than the writer.
Report comment to moderator
It seems to me that there is a significant difference between conniving and manipulating circumstances simply to give advantage to ones self or ones children; and prayerfully and wisely making the best use of the options available to us or our children.
You don’t have to be around parents and their children very long to recognize the difference. Some parents spare no effort to make sure little Johnny gets whatever his precocious little self deserves and wants. And obviously there are some parents who don’t appear to care much one way or the other. But I think most parents simply want to support their children as they move through the very challenging process of growing up in a hostile world.
I would guess that Mr Piper has been watching some parents of “little Johnny,” and is responding to their hurtful attitudes and behaviors.
Report comment to moderator
I have heard of divorced women who do this in order to get an extra year of chid support..
Report comment to moderator
Hmm, it really does depend on the child, and the wise parent knows this. Many experts say that a lot of boys do better if held back a year, especially if they’re in the younger half of the class. An extra year with Mom to be be prepared won’t hurt, though I can’t imagine an extra year in daycare will do that much good.
In my family, all my older brothers skipped a year. By the time I was going through school, schools weren’t double-promoting students, but I wished they were. School was boring to me, and I also preferred engaging with older kids–some of that was possibly snobbishness and for sure some was poor social skills, and ordinarily it would hurt socially rather than help to be promoted a grade. But I was tall for my age and was reading ahead and otherwise “advanced,” and it wouldn’t have hurt socially (it couldn’t have been worse)and might have helped. (And BTW I was in the younger quarter of my class, a kid with a mid-summer birthday who didn’t have a birthday until after the year was over.)
Meanwhile, one of my brothers who was double promoted always led his class academically. When he went to college, he wasn’t even 17 yet (December birthday), and Mom said one or two people had told her that he was “more mature than the other 18-year-olds,” not recognizing he was actually quite a bit younger than the other freshmen were, too!
In other words, in some cases it’s an advantage to hold kids back and let them be more ready for school and let them be more mature emotionally and more physically developed. But in other cases, you’ll doom them to academic boredom and it’s better to let them go through quickly if they can.
Report comment to moderator
If the system is open to being “gamed” by parents with the insight to do so then the system is broken.
My son turns six in July. We’re enrolling him public kindergarten this fall. We could have enrolled him last fall but chose not to. My reasoning went like this:
If if were the case that everyone enrolled his kid at the earliest possible age then I would have had no problem enrolling my son when he was five. In that case he wouldn’t be the youngest kid in his class; he’d be right there with all the other kids who have summer birthdays.
However, since almost every summer birthday kid at my yuppy elementary school will be enrolled at age six instead, if I enroll my son at age five then he really will be the youngest in his class. I’m not willing to do that to him. So he’s going in at age six.
I also have a summer birthday and started kindergarten at age five. I never struggled academically, but I have a sneaking suspicion some of my behavior problems may have been due to age-related immaturity.
@Cheryl: But in other cases, you’ll doom them to academic boredom and it’s better to let them go through quickly if they can.
Start them late and they can always skip a grade. That’s tough to manage, but it has way less stigma than being held back. If you start early then the only way to get back on the “late” track is to be held back a grade.
Report comment to moderator
Hmmm… I rather dislike this article, with all due respect to the author. I can see the legitimate concern from him, however, to be aware of humility, of not trying to make “little Johnny” (or little Jane, as the case may be) intentionally “better” than all of the other kids.
But that comes down to the issue of the intentions of the heart. As someone who has taught in public and Christian schools, I personally think Kindergarten is unnecessary (and anyone is free to disagree with me on this). I also plan to home-school my daughter. Like GrannyAnn12 in comment #2, my intent is to do what I believe is BEST FOR MY CHILD. My intent is not to make sure Lilia “gets ahead” of all the other little kiddos out there. My husband and I may change our minds regarding her mode of education once we see how she (not the other kids) responds… but inevitably, we will put her welfare ahead of other parents’ kids because SHE is our child and the one with whom God has entrusted us.
This does not preclude a hostile or unloving attitude toward another parent’s child. When we seek to bless our children, assuming that “bless” means to set them on the firmest spiritual path possible and to do what is best for them, then we ARE thinking of others, since their lives will (hopefully) overflow toward others as a result of how we have raised them.
Report comment to moderator
I confess. I have done this. Here’s the story.
One of my children was born November 2. When he started school in Connecticut, the cut off was December 31. I debated holding him and finally asked the pre-school teacher what she thought–since she was the professional.
“He’s ready for school. Send him.”
A gifted kid, he was in seventh grade in Washington when we got every Navy junior high parent’s nightmare: orders to Hawaii.
(We can talk about Hawaiian schools later.)
We were blessed–my parents offered to pay to send him to Punahou School if he could get in.
But Punahou’s cut off is June 30 for girls, December 31 for boys, so he would be a year ahead of all the guys in his class. Plus, his chances of getting in were greater lowered AND the curriculum was miles ahead of what he was getting in Washington.
So, using that birthdate as a guide, we applied for our straight- A to repeat seventh grade in Hawaiian.
He told us later he was so angry, he thought about throwing the placement test but being a good kid, took it, scored well and was accepted at President Obama’s alma mater.
The second day at school, we all knew we had made the right call and subsequent events, of course, only proved it was the perfect decision.
So, pray and decide for the good of your kid. Nothing else is really important.
(I’m also available to comment on the horrors of a college athletic scholarship on the whole person of your child. It’s really NOT worth it.)
Report comment to moderator
Anyway I think Kim has offered the best reason to do this. Consider if the kid will be ready for college at that age.
Report comment to moderator
It’s tough to know what to do… We had the opportunity to hold our son back a year, but did not do so. On the one hand I think it would have been better for him academically. On the other hand, he already had a problem with the immaturity of his older classmates…. If we had held him back a year, that problem would have been exacerbated. And that sort of thing does nothing for one’s learning ability.
I guess we shoulda home-schooled the kid…
Report comment to moderator
I think this procedure is cheating, plain and simple. There may occasionally be good reasons, but basically yes, the parents are trying to give advantages to their child, while, at least in their perception, disadvantaging others.
I’ll leave it to the theologians to justify disadvantaging others; as someone who believes in the old fashioned virtue of fair play, I don’t like it.
If my kids were to do it, I would discourage them.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass, yes, start them late if you see the need, but what do you mean “they can always skip a grade.” I haven’t seen that happen in decades–is it still done?
(I decided several years ago that if God gave me children, they would not be going to all-day kindergarten anywhere; I would homeschool for kindergarten and likely a grade or two after that, and then see what the child was ready for in terms of grades. But all-day kindergarten really seems unnecessary for a five- or six-year-old child. All that is irrelevant since it’s not going to happen, but it was what I came up with as the best start for a child.)
Report comment to moderator
Doesn’t the notion that redshirting disadvantages others fall into the “zero sum game” trap that liberal politicians use? There is a fixed pie and if the rich get a bigger slice it must be at the expense of the poor and only government can apportion the pie equitably? Just as the rich benefit society (including the poor) by creating wealth, perhaps there are advantages to society as a whole when certain kids are held back. But I think Barnabas was correct to raise the question, the question we should ask ourselves about every decision we make: does this glorify God?
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps some older, more mature children in a classroom will help the younger ones by setting an example of more attentiveness, better self-control, and higher academic achievement.
Why assume they are hurting the younger children?
Report comment to moderator
I agree that there is not much difference between redshirting as described here or putting your kids in private school or homeschooling as we do in our family…at least on the surface. But we really don’t know what is in the hearts of all the parents that choose to do these things. My wife and I choose to homeschool primarily to give our kids character training that will honor and please God. None of the public schools and very few private schools in our area come anywhere close to teaching character and virtues to kids at a level that we find acceptable.
I do not personally know anyone who has redshirted, but I would expect some might do it for the same primary reason that we homeschool. Now the academic achievement in my home and in many others that I observe is a by-product of the character training. A child that is honest, diligent, has patience, is humble, has self-control, and respects authority is much easier to teach. So many kids do end up well ahead of the averages academically due to redshirting or alternate schooling methods, but that is not what motivates many of us in the first place.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass, yes, start them late if you see the need, but what do you mean “they can always skip a grade.” I haven’t seen that happen in decades–is it still done?
Not sure how common it is now, but I knew at least two people who skipped a grade when I was in high school. I also know at least one person who finished all the requirements and graduated a year early. I could have done the same, but spent my last year of high school taking AP classes. My point is that it’s almost surely less emotionally damaging for a kid to be advanced a year than for him to be held back.
Report comment to moderator
The child born in January has the advantage of at least six months maturity over the child born in July or August. And if I hold my summerborn child back for a year because I don’t consider him mature enough to start school, it’s called “redshirting” rather than parental wisdom?
Report comment to moderator
These parents are doing what’s best for THEM (MY Johnny’s gotta be the best) not the kids.
Biblically, we should do what’s best for our kids – that’s our responsibility.
Report comment to moderator
Wow.
To even being addressing this article I would have to accept several assumptions:
1. God designed children to be institutionalized for 6 or more waking hours daily under the instruction of strangers (and very possibly the godless.) And that God did not mean Deut. 6 as the model for His idea of education.
Nope. I don’t buy those.
2. God designed every child to learn the same thing at the same time in the same order in the same room with up to 30 kids all the same age from the same neighborhood.
Nope. I think that’s silly. It’s also not historically the norm.
3. God designed children to sit most of 6 hours per day being spoon fed information in lock step from distilled textbooks and workbooks, then regurgitate that information back in the form of multiple guess questions and fill-in-the-blanks answer forms. Then, all children must do the same amount of assignments and homework regardless of whether or not the individual children have mastered the material. All children are grouped by age-not ability. all children must be taught with exactly the same approach, even if a different approach is more effective.
Nope. That’s sacrificing an education for schooling. It creates a disconnect between real learning and real life. It’s also very new historically.
Now for the article:
How is it to another child’s disadvantage if a child was held back? In what way are the others neglected? I have several very close friends and a relative who teach in government and private schools who lament the fact that children who are not ready for what some of us in the homeschooling community call “the conveyor belt” of mass production education are thrown in because of which day they were born. It can affect everyone in the class-teachers and students negatively. Maybe the author should talk to the teachers in the trenches.
I don’t see anything unbiblical about trying to give a child the advantage by holding them back because it is not causing a disadvantage to anyone else. The author has failed to give an Scriptural support for his assumption that holding a child back until the parent determines the child is ready is “discordant with the gospel.” He’s got a lot of ’splainin’ to do. It comes off as very collectivist/ socialist. Some have to endure real disadvantages by staring when it’s not the right time to avoid others experiencing an imaginary disadvantage by being grouped only with children who share the same ability.
This is yet another article here that accuses believers of something unbiblical with not much to back it up. The Celebrity Church Aversion article comes to mind.
Does anyone know who it is that choose the articles?
Report comment to moderator
“These parents are doing what’s best for THEM (MY Johnny’s gotta be the best) not the kids.”
You can’t possibly know that is true in every case.
“Biblically, we should do what’s best for our kids – that’s our responsibility.”
Of course. No one here would dispute that.
Report comment to moderator
The standard parents should use is what’s best for the child. It’s different in each case. It may be true that in some cases, Cactigal is right and the parents are doing it for themselves, and in such cases they’re using the wrong standard. Based on my own experience, few parents do it for that reason. Mostly they do it because it’s what’s best for their child.
I agree with some of the commenters on here that have sensed a kind of socialist undercurrent to the article (i.e., we should sacrifice our child’s best interests to the interests of the broader society). That kind of attitude certainly is not biblical. Furthermore, I doubt the author’s premise that our children will be getting the wrong “message.” At that age they’re not thinking in those terms. Rather, by doing what’s best for our children, our children get the message that we care for them. On the other hand, if we let them in with older children for the sake of “the greater good,” they would probably feel betrayed and it would be more difficult for them to trust in a loving God later on.
Report comment to moderator
I think that it may or may not make a difference. In a mental aspect, he may have a year on the other kids, but some of the younger kids could be brighter, and so the playing field would be leveled or even tipped the other way. The same goes for the physical aspect, though the chances of a Held back kid being bigger is higher.
Report comment to moderator
On another note, If he younger, and still bright enough too keep up with the class, then he gets to start college earlier, and has a jump start that way.
Report comment to moderator
There will always be something to grouse about, I guess.
Report comment to moderator
And speaking of grousing, the “held back kids” could always complain that they could have graduated a year earlier.
Report comment to moderator
Cactigal, #27: You make an EXCELLENT point. Again, it comes down to the heart intentions behind the choice, whatever mode of education is chosen (or the timetable by which a parent decides to start a child in formal schooling).
Homeschool Mom, #28: Thank you for the very sharp insights.
I didn’t see the particular TV clip to which the author is referring. My guess, though, is that many of the parents interviewed in that segment are not acting with the purest of motives, and perhaps it is this which causes the author to write as he does.
As far as the “inequity” of which he speaks: That is the PERFECT opportunity for the Christian church to step forward in service and sacrifice. Is there something we can tangibly do for those who ARE less fortunate, that they may be helped? A friend of mine tutored public school children in our church’s neighborhood (a very poor one) for free.
The author asks, “What does it teach our children when we put them above everyone else around them?” Well, of course it teaches them to be hedonistic little brats. But “red-shirting” one’s child for HIS OR HER well-being does not preclude this selfishness. That is a very poor implication.
Report comment to moderator
“Preclude” means to prevent, prohibit, or exclude.
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps you meant imply, suggest, or indicate…..?
Report comment to moderator
Geeze, these home schoolers come in with their uniformed assumptions about classroom education! It is possible to find schools where kids aren’t spoon fed information and asked to regurgitate it onto a multiple choice question test (some of them are public! gasp!!!), but where you do find them you usually also find the kind of people who worry about their kids being taught by the “ungodly” decrying liberal, “hippy-dippy”, “feel-goodery.”
Yeah, my oldest sometimes complains that he shouldn’t have to do math homework because he already knows how to do the problems. I tell him that’s called work. “I’ve known how to do what I do for longer than you’ve been alive”, I say, “But I still have to do it each and every day.”
Report comment to moderator
If I did not care enough about my children to homeschool them – I would certainly at least ‘red-shirt’ them to help them get a little bigger to be better able to handle the violence of the other children. One year wouldn’t be much help though against the 12 year-olds in the elementary school (where I live the 5-12 year olds all go to the same school). The other consideration, is that would also give the child one more year with their Mums spending the day with them and eating breakfast and lunch with them. Not to mention a one-year delay in being exposed to sex-ed. Children at such a tender young age deserve as much protection as their parents are willing to give them.
Report comment to moderator
I still think that half-day kindergarten is a good thing, but you won’t find it around here anymore.
Report comment to moderator
With the advent of more academic kindergarten, all day kindergarten, annual testing, etc., I wish that all parents would keep their children back as long as they can. Early academics does not equal an intelligent, well rounded adult. The parents may believe that holding their child back primarily gives them a competitive advantage over other children. But I believe that in reality, a child who starts school later is just more ready to sit still and learn. They are much less likely to end up being labeled with a learning disability. It is a shame some of these parents have bad motives. But whether their motives are good or bad, their children will certainly be better off for their decision. And I hope Christian parents who desire to do the best for both their children and other children will also be persuaded to start their children in school later rather than earlier.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl – one of my children did skip a grade when it was clear to the school she was ready to. That was in a private Christian school. Due to our financial situation, we subsequently had to change our children to public school a few years back (we could no longer home school for reasons I won’t go into because they’re irrelevant). I’m not sure how common it is in the public schools these days for kids to skip a grade, since there are more numeric-type credit requirements for graduation, at least in my town.
Notwithstanding Redwal’s protestations, I am seeing a substantial qualitative difference between private Christian school and public school. Our kids really dislike the public school after experiencing what I call ‘real’ education (i.e., a real training of the mind, where teachers spent quality time delving into philosophical subjects over the lunch hour, etc.), and what they get now: essentially an assembly line atmosphere. That is due to the nature of the beast: it’s unionized teachers who vote themselves pay raises but then refuse to teach (they often flat-out refuse to answer my kids’ legitimate questions on academic material, although their high school is ranked in the top 5% in the state!), and also they’re teaching to the 40th percentile, and also they’re teaching to the test to make the school look good. The no child left behind legislation only made things worse in that regard.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy, #36: Yes, you are correct. I ALWAYS use that word wrong. Man, I hate that!
Thank you for the correction.
Report comment to moderator
I have the ability to see “class” just about anywhere but not here. At the best level, its parents acting in the best interests of the child, ie good parenting. Its no secret that boys born in the latter end of the year are at least two years behind girls born in the beginning of the year so why not hold them back. Any elementary teacher can tell you the maturity gap between boys and girls doesn’t close until grade eight (my female collegues say it never closes).
As a middle school teacher, the growing gap between student performance is difficult to accomadate. Instead of adhering to age groups, we need to allow students extra time if necessary at the primary level and thus they arrive in middle school not necessarily at the same age but with less of a performance gap. I have frequently proposed a exit exam at the end of kindergarten and then again at the end of grade one. If a student fails they are held back. Once a student passes the grade one exit exam, we can advance them through.
Is the author’s opinion socialistic as some argue? As the resident socialist here, I think not. The traditional assembly like education system was first designed to fit the late 19thC and early 20thC mode of production — adherance to job assigned, assembly work, deference to authority, conforming to the accepted norms, etc. The education system is a middle class making machine. If the author believes that children should enter the system when told, he’s not a socialist he’s a conformist to the current social-econoic order which is not socialist. Sorry but the red menance is not here.
In relation to those who worry about sending their daughters away to school at 17, there is a solution. Send them to high school for a fifth year — they can take courses they may have missed but are required for their planned major, they can improve their GPA, they could work part time, etc. In Ontario, its called a victory lap.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, that’s not really an option in the U.S. Once you’ve put in your 13 years and achieved the required credits for graduation, the schools aren’t going to let you come back for another year. The only exception is special education students, who are allowed to attend until age 21 — but in those cases they’re not accumulating credits that count toward graduation, but are on IEPs just to provide them with some semblance of education during their minority years.
I mean, yeah, there are some fancy prep schools that will let you take a year after high school graduation, but those are far out of the reach of 99.9% of the population.
You could always stake a year off, and just work, or take part-time classes, or attend community college, but taking another year of secondary school isn’t really an option here. We don’t have an equivalent of the Canadian “Grade 13.”
My mom’s solution, FWIW, was to insist that commute to college “at least the first year.” I wound up doing that all four years. I graduated high school at age 17 years 7 months, and was 17 until a couple of months into my freshman year of college. That was back in the days when the public school cutoff age was dated from January 31! Now it’s as far back as May in some places, no later than August anywhere, I’m fairly sure.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy: (i.e., we should sacrifice our child’s best interests to the interests of the broader society). That kind of attitude certainly is not biblical.
It’s not?
As I read it, in the OT children are basically disposable (Abraham) or chattel (Lot’s daughters) or food.
In the gospels, Jesus encourages folks to make sacrifices for the less fortunate. Certainly this sounds like one he might consider to be one such “sacrifice”, indeed a very small one. And consider that your god actually sacrificed not just his son’s athletic success, but his son’s life for the sake of society.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you for writing about pride, grace, and humility in even such an article as this. As Steve Brown says, “Thanks for the reminder.”
Report comment to moderator
Having spent K-12 in public school and having very close friends and relatives currently teaching in institutional schools (two of my closest friends and a sister-in-law teaching in public schools in the district we live in and a friend who taught in Montessori schools ) I am familiar with what is currently going on. I get an earful from them on a regular basis. There has also been a very sharp increase in the last 5-7 years of certified teachers homeschooling their own kids and they have a lot to say about the current state of education in America.
I think discussions about education in America almost always focus on the wrong things. I think the problem here is the small mindedness of American “education.” Education used to be preparation for this life and the next. Now it is reduced to academics and some will argue socialization (although the social norms in most schools are nothing to emulate.)
What bothers me is that many professing believers have fallen into the modern view of education. Everything is trivia. Tests test trivia. In years past the Grammar Stage (facts) were the beginning of an education. Then came the Logic Stage (cause and effect) with the study of formal logic. Then the Rhetoric Stage (application, argumentation and persuasion) was the final stage. Only when these had been mastered using the great ideas and great works was a person considered educated and prepared for adulthood. Not anymore.
The absence of the great works and great ideas are the problem. As the saying goes in Classical Education circles, “Americans are barbarians with laptops.” Sure, we have some serious technical know how, but as a whole, we are a soulless people. C.S. Lewis covers it well in The Abolition of Man explaining how a good education builds a person with the right values and most are not getting a good education.
Important questions like:
Who is God?
What is the state of man?
How do we know?
What is good, admirable, and noble? Why?
What is bad, detestable, and base? Why?
What is right?
What is wrong?
What should our ideals be personally, politically, as a family and spiritually? Why?
Who can we look to for examples and how can we translate those examples to our lives today?
What is the role of the family? Of The Church? Of government?
What are the best aspects of culture? Family? Government?
What the worst aspects of culture? Family? Government?
How do we emulate the best and avoid the worst?
What characteristics of a people and leaders result in freedom?
What characteristics of a people and leaders result in tyranny?
How do underlying assumptions predict the views and behaviors of a person and a people?
What underlying assumptions should we have? Why?
No more is an education the answering of these questions (and many others like them) first using Scripture and then the greatest works by the greatest people in each subject. It’s one of the important reasons America is rotting from the inside. The most important is abandoning God, but even those who haven’t seem to think, “being successful means graduating from college and getting a good paying job.”
We have another saying, “We taught our children to take part in The Great Conversation and they have no one to talk to.” There is a feast of ideas on the table to be savored and devoured and this article seems to me to demonstrate that some people are squabbling over the crumbs that fall on the floor. Like Lord Marc said in the movie Tristan and Isolde, “Will you always be little men who cannot see what was or what could be?”
Education reform in America has been and still is going in the wrong direction for generations now.
Report comment to moderator
“The parents interviewed cited the additional social development a child gained that would carry forward even to middle school and high school.”
Seriously? People are arguing that not sacrificing their child’s additional social development is somehow proud, selfish, and contrary to the gospel? Nonsense. It’s very important to classmates and teachers to have all the children in the room as socially developed as possible.
” They mentioned the potential behavioral development and even the physical advantages their children would have in sports.”
With the shocking number of children with behavioral issues that affect classroom learning the author actually complains about parents doing what they can to make it better!?!?!
I have a very hard time believing an additional year would create such an advantage to sports (and by strange implication a disadvantage to children who started at 5 rather than 6) that we must shake our heads and “tsk tsk” parents for it. One more year of growth just doesn’t matter in school sports. Who cares if the odd ball parent out there makes an attempt at gaining this type of imaginary advantage? It just doesn’t matter.
“Less privileged families don’t have the freedom to do it.”
So, in other words, because poorer families have to use public school as daycare, all parents should too. Instead of keeping a child at home until he or she is ready, we need to give school teachers more children with more behavioral or developmental issues. We all know that’s not what school teachers want, but apparently the author does. Why?
As to socialism, nothing is more perfectly socialistic in America than government schools. Everyone is forced pay in at different rates (or not at all) and everyone is entitled to the same $10,000 per year per child education controlled, regulated, and dispensed by the government. Nothing could be more socialistic.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia – Jesus laid down his own life, as a ransom for many. He said, For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from me, but I lay it down on my own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from my Father.
It is difficult to equate that with mere humans sacrificing their children for the greater good of “society.” Rather, the Bible is clear that parents must provide for their children’s needs. See 1 Tim. 5:8 (”If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”).
Report comment to moderator
Homeschool Mom – #48 – wow, that is a great summary of classical education. Saying that public schools teach trivia is both true (my own teenagers affirm this, having moved from a classical Christian school to a public school), and ironic, since the grammar-logic-rhetoric progression you describe is classically known as the trivium, meaning “three ways.”
Report comment to moderator
HomeschoolMom, I agree with most of what you say other than your assertion that a year doesn’t matter in school sports. I was young for my grade, graduating at 17 and not turning 18 until September of my freshman year at college.
In high school senior year, as a newly-turned 17-year-old, I’d be playing against 19-year-olds who were clearly older and stronger, which makes a big difference in basketball. Soccer wasn’t as big of a difference since it isn’t as physical. I can easily see football players having a huge advantage.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia: As I read it, in the OT children are basically disposable (Abraham)…
Arcadia!
In the book of Hebrews, it says: By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.
I have a son named Isaac. I was helping a friend with some writing, and the story of Abraham and Isaac came up. I felt God tell me clearly, “You must lay Isaac on the altar. But he will not die.” He’d been having trouble with his intestines, and I was worried about him. A month later, he was hospitalized with Crohn’s, and the doctors offered no encouragement. I was able, by God’s grace, to leave the worry about his situation in God’s hands.
What a difference that made! I was able to be there and support Isaac with peace. He did not have to worry about me in the middle of his battle. I offered him strength and calm. In my natural state, I tend more towards hysteria.
Isaac did not die! That word continues to keep me going.
The story of Abraham and Isaac, to me, is a beautiful story, and I am so thankful to God for it. How many times do we have a choice to hold onto our children through situations in which holding-on does no good, or lay them in the hands of God? Those who don’t know Him have been inclined to actually kill their children for their gods, but I look and see – there’s a ram in the bushes, ready to be sacrificed for my son. Jesus is the ram. God’s son died so that mine never has to.
Report comment to moderator
I had one child who the school wanted to move up a grade. She was already doing reading with that teacher. As a result, I did not allow it. I knew the teacher enough after one conference, that I did not think it would be a good idea. Later, I learned that teacher was removed (Although, she taught at other schools–a common occurance.)She had some major problems, which were taken out on her students.
My youngest child graduated at seventeen. I homeschooled her in kindergarten and second grade; put her in Christian school for first and third and she went to public after that. She was at a disadvantage in some ways.
She did a local college for two years, which was a good thing, IMO. All my children did that. There are many younger students at the two local colleges near us, since they may opt to do that for their last two years of high school. One of my daughters did that, also. Parents do need to be aware that the college is limited in what they can share with you about your child. It is NOT like high school. It works for some and not for others.
As one commentator said on the video: children develope at different rates. Also, in the film different parents had different reasons for what they were choosing for their child. It is good to review in our minds what our goals are for our children; what they should be and act appropriately.
Report comment to moderator
If Barnabas Piper was saying that it’s inherently selfish to be concerned for your child’s development in such a way that you want to give him an advantage, or that every parent who decides that a child needs to wait a year and does so is unfairly advantaged because not everyone can, all this criticism would be deserved.
But I don’t think he’s saying that. I think his point is that holding a child back *can arise* from a mentality that wants your own children to get ahead at the expense of others, and is in fact selfish. I think he’s calling for a gut check on the uses of the practice not condemning the practice itself.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
The story of Abraham is a very special case, which — if you understood the Bible — you would understand.
God specifically forbids killing one’s children and offering them to him as the Canaanite religions did. He found the practice abominable.
So, not only was Abraham devastated to be asked to do this, but he was shocked and beyond surprise. The Israelites have NEVER offered child sacrifice as so many cultures have done.
But, the point God was making was for the generations to come. Abraham, in faith, was asked to sacrifice his only son through whom all God’s promises rested. Abraham’s faith was so strong, that he simply assumed that God would some sort of miracle, raising his son from the dead or something.
When God supplied the ram, he was showing us that Jesus would be the replacement for the death required of us.
No children, no first borns, no human must ever be offered as a sacrifice, even though we all deserve death, because God loved us so much that — rather than ask US to die — He provides His only Son — the ram or lamb — to die instead, and His sacrifice suffices for every person who leans on Him.
In other words, your use of Abraham is simply wrong. The sacrifice of Isaac was a lesson, not a commandment applying to anyone else. God has never required human sacrifice. God does not approve of it (it was one of the reasons used to validate the destruction of the Canaanite cultures in the Promised Land, since their practice of human sacrifice — specifically their children — was abhorrent to God.)
Report comment to moderator
Pentamom
The victory lap may be banned as a cost saving measure but the way around that would be to delibrately miss a few credits so you would have to come back for a fifth year. My teaching partner did that with his oldest son and I may do that with my daughter especially if she wants to leave home for university. I’m trying to instill the idea of living home for the first year while she attends the local university — this saves money and keeps her on the semi-straight and narrow during the first year (which is the great sort out)
Report comment to moderator
JOHNV,
Sorry. I just don’t think it matters, but maybe you should understand my background. I’m an archery mom. My middle daughter (14) is now competing in national events. Last month she competed right after the World Archery Cup (Indoor) where international teams competed (those are some of the people you’ll watch during the next Olympics.) The next couple of days was the Vegas Shoot, open to everyone. My daughter is in the 14-16 year old female division for recurve bows. She placed 6th out of 12. The two top girls train at the Olympic Training Center during the year. One of them lives with the coach-her dad. It just doesn’t matter that they have all those advantages. No exceptions are made because we don’t have those advantages. The people competing at the World Archery cup were also eligible to compete in the Vegas Shoot individually-some of them did. No exceptions were made for everyone else because those people spent more time competing (many at government expense I assume.)
Most people may not realize how many people without an arm compete in archery. No exceptions are made for them just because they have to pull back and release their compound bows with their TEETH. I’m sure it’s a huge disadvantage and yet they have one armed coaches coaching teams with no disabled teammates. Those one armed guys are competing (and holding their own)against the able bodied. There’s also a legally blind guy who competes too, who will be speaking to her team sometime this summer. I can’t wait.
The public high school my kids would have attended are the AZ State champions. Most of the guys on that football team have privately paid personal trainers after school because that school feeds a lot of college football scholarship team members. The other schools don’t get to have some sort of exception made when facing that team with such an advantage.
Report comment to moderator
“The victory lap may be banned as a cost saving measure but the way around that would be to delibrately miss a few credits so you would have to come back for a fifth year.”
Universities probably wouldn’t look terribly kindly on a transcript that reflected that. School counselors generally don’t let you get through with a schedule that’s going to work out that way. It might be fine if you’re aiming for a moderate-quality place (there is nothing wrong with that) but it’s not going to look good if you’re aiming for a competitive school.
I think if it were feasible, you’d see it happening once in a while in the U.S. Never in my lifetime have I known a single person — classmate of my own, child of my acquaintance, classmates of my own children — to do it. This tells me it’s either nearly logistically impossible or strongly discouraged by incentives.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, I’m strongly in favor of the idea of a year off after high school, especially for students who feel the need for such a break. It gives one a chance to work and earn money (and get some experience in the work force, which may help land a college job and may also help with career planning), and it also gives a year of “breather” from school. For financial reasons, I took off much more than that; I graduated high school at 16 and was 22 when I went to college. I wouldn’t recommend that much, especially for a girl (it made my odds of finding a husband slim indeed, since I was older than most other students even as a freshman), but a year isn’t too much. It may even give a slight maturity advantage, which might help when it comes to landing internships or jobs.
But I’d think at least some of these advantages would be overturned if that year off were spent in school rather than in work. Why not just take a year off to work, especially if it’s possible to get a job in the field one may want to pursue?
Report comment to moderator
I am surprised in this conversation that “Better Late Than Early” by Raymond and Dorothy Moore has not been introduced. This book has been around for decades, so it is not a new concept. It is not about one-upmanship, it is about doing what is best for your child. This was a standard when I was homeschooling in the 90’s. I would quote from it, but have since given the book to my daughter who is homeschooling her children. It made a lot of sense to me at the time.
Report comment to moderator
Everybody knows that if you want to “redshirt” your kid for sports then do it in the 8th grade. Call it the 504 plan. They get an extra year of coaching without the clock starting on thier eligability.
Report comment to moderator
Good point, Cheryl. A year off to do something other than school, even low-paid work, does seem to be of more advantage than another year in the world of high school, learning only what you could have learned sooner if you’d planned your schedule differently. That just kills time. I realize killing time is part of the goal, if the concern is foremost the chronological age of the person, but why restrict it to that?
Working while continuing to be dependent allows some savings to be built up, plus places you in a more real-world environment than that of school, with different influences. That would seem to do a lot more for maturity than just another year in adolescent-oriented high school. Even travel or volunteering would do things that just another year of high school couldn’t.
Report comment to moderator
I have five children. The first two had fall birthdays and I did not redshirt them. I ended up having one repeat third grade and the other repeat kindergarten. Both my daughter and son found themselves in situations that they were too immature to handle. Both of them are very smart and were getting good grades but were not able to handle the different kinds of pressure for their grade levels. After that experience I didn’t think twice about redshirting my other three children. Selfishness had nothing to do with this decision. My only thought was to put my children in an environment where they would be the most successful. Being successful does not necessarily have to mean that you are purposely trying to make someone else unsuccessful. As it turned out, my third and fourth child both had reading difficulties and my fifth child was very small for his age.
I have an average American family. If redshirting was so beneficial for all five of my children, who are all very different, maybe we are just starting school too early in America.
Report comment to moderator
As someone mentioned earlier, the problem is a system that tries to teach all children of the same chronological age together for all subjects. Schools mitigate the problem somewhat by offering learn-at-your-own pace for certain topics (our elementary schools do it in a computer lab for math and reading) and offering special programs for the “talented and gifted” and special help for those having trouble learning.
One of the advantages of homeschooling (not that I do it personally) is being able to tailor the learning to the student (as well as all the individual attention from the “teacher”). If it weren’t assumed that every should be in a class with others of their age for every subject, it wouldn’t be such an issue having a child behind others his age in reading but ahead in math, or ahead in math but behind socially.
I was wishing to be skipped a grade from about first grade on (when I heard how my uncle had been skipped ahead in a small school where he did his first grade work on one side of the room then turned around and did the second grade work on the opposite blackboard – the teacher finally decided to just move him to the second grade side). But it wasn’t until two months into 6th grade that the school decided to give me the opportunity.
If I had to do it again, I’m not sure I would have. (I was given the choice; I jumped at it.) Within a month I had caught up with the students in my 7th grade class and I was bored again, but it took until 8th grade to make friends and not feel like an outsider. In non-academic areas I was still behind when I got my Masters degree (at age 22). I don’t think not skipping a year would have helped in that regard, but it might have saved me some of the misery I felt in 7th grade, though I don’t know if it would have helped me learn to make friends any more easily.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know if the issue is starting school too early, or starting too quickly. Those of us over 40 or so remember when Kindergarten was about learning your letters, making sure you knew your colors (most kids did but K was largely about getting everyone caught up and ready for the next year), 1 + 1, how to cooperate in groups with other people, and so forth, for 2-3 hours a day. First grade was spent making sure the non-readers had caught up with the readers by the end of the year.
Now K is full time almost everywhere, and the kids are pretty much expected to be able to read by the end or they’re held back from first grade. Starting school at early 5 (or even 4 1/2 like I was) isn’t a big problem if the expectations are lower. Starting school that age is asking pretty much of a young 5 year old if you’re supposed to be fully literate, able to write, and almost ready to learn your multiplication tables by the time you’ve put in a year.
Report comment to moderator
Pentamom, I’ve seen the lists of what a child is supposed to know before kindergarten these days, and it’s what used to be taught in kindergarten and maybe into first grade. Full days of kindergarten, and probably a little bit of homework at the end of the day, seems brutally unnecessary to me. I imagine it is largely because of working mothers, but the idea that one must know all of one’s letters, numbers, colors, and how to write one’s name before even starting kindergarten makes me think we’re pushing children way too hard. I determined years ago that even though I really didn’t plan to homeschool, for sure I would for kindergarten and probably first grade, mostly to avoid that full-day kindergarten that is so unnecessary.
And as long ago as 1980, I was an aide in a kindergarten class and the teacher asked me to go along on a field trip to the zoo. While we were there, we saw a cage of two leopards. I had read the information on the cage and knew they were both the same sex, but apparently the teacher hadn’t read it. When one of them lay down on top of the other, the teacher went out of her way to tell the class, “Look, they’re mating!” (When the 13-year-old aide can tell they aren’t, one does wonder how badly the teacher had wanted this field trip to incorporate the birds and the bees . . . and how much worse it would be today.)
Report comment to moderator
Pauline, I too went through school wishing I could skip a grade, in my case like all of my big brothers had. I really think it would have benefitted me, though. Not only was I dreadfully bored, but I had no friends in my grade and was more inclined to be “friends” with adults. I had lots of older siblings and was used to communicating with those older than me. (I had younger siblings too, but they seemed very immature to me.) In other words, it couldn’t have hurt me socially, and might have helped, and academically it would have been good.
I was young for my grade too (I had a summer birthday but nearly all of my classmates had birthdays within the school year, so I was probably in the bottom 10% in age), but the teacher would explain something, show how to do it, and then spend the next two weeks trying to help everyone else understand what I understood the first day. And then we’d be tested on it, which I loved–it would take five or ten minutes to take the test and then I could read the rest of the hour while the class finished the test. And then the next school year we’d take a full month or two to review everything I’d learned thoroughly the previous year–that “review” time at the beginning of the year would have been more than enough to catch me up with everything my classmates had learned the year before, if I’d skipped a grade.
But my sister probably had it a little rougher. She had an October birthday, and was thus probably past the cut-off point for her grade. But we are only 15 1/2 months apart, and Mom probably pulled some strings in insisting we had to be one year apart in school, so she was THE youngest in her grade. And though she was a good student, she was compared unfavorably to me, and she didn’t realize early on that she was a good student in her own right. She was actually better at math than I was, but she didn’t know it, and didn’t realize she was top in her class. Her teacher tried to get her to enter some sort of math contest, but she didn’t know until she “looked back” years later that she had been singled out to enter the contest because she was so good in math; not everyone was asked to enter. She turned down the chance, since no one had ever actually told her she was an excellent math student. (One of my nephews is on a full math scholarship in a prestigious school, and my sister’s own oldest is a math whiz, so that capability is in my family. I missed it; I’m good at math but not great, and never even had higher-level math.)
Report comment to moderator
FIrst, I did not watch the video. Barnabas, I have appreciated your recent articles. But in this case, you sound very “institutional”. Frankly, your argument (outside of Christians obviously not indulging our children in worldliness) does not even make sense to me.
Report comment to moderator
“As the parent of a kindergartener…”
Miles to go before you sleep.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!