Jennifer Lilintahl thought she was making the right choice. Her daughter, then 5, didn’t seem ready to start reading alongside classmates in a DC kindergarten classroom. Instead, she kept the child in a play-based preschool program for another year, USA Today reports.
Kindergarten ceremony (camknows/Flickr Creative Commons)By the time her daughter turned almost 6, Lilintahl was sure the extra time had helped. She emailed the principal, expecting an easy path to kindergarten this fall. Instead, she was told her daughter would have to enter first grade.
“I was dismayed,” Lilintahl said. “I know other parents who held their children back. I didn’t think this would be an issue.”
Her story reflects a growing national debate over “redshirting,” the practice of delaying kindergarten entry for children who meet the age cutoff. Once a choice most common among affluent families, especially for summer-born boys, redshirting has become more widespread in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
A University of Delaware study found redshirting dropped sharply in 2020 but surged 44 percent above pre-pandemic levels by 2021. Rates had not returned to normal even by 2022. Researchers say the pandemic disrupted enrollment and raised new doubts among parents about whether their children were ready for school.
Surveys back that up. In a 2022 EdChoice poll, about 1 in 10 parents reported delaying kindergarten for their children. Many cited emotional or academic readiness. Some said the pandemic directly influenced their decision, from health worries to frustration with remote learning.
The readiness question has grown more urgent as evidence mounts that early childhood development suffered during the pandemic. A Cincinnati Children’s Hospital study found kindergarten readiness fell from about 40 percent in 2018 to just 30 percent in 2021, with the steepest drops among disadvantaged children.
For parents like Lilintahl, the solution seems simple: another year before kindergarten. But the long-term benefits of redshirting are less clear. Studies show that older kindergartners often perform better at first, but those gains tend to fade by later grades. Some redshirted students even end up with more special education referrals, suggesting delays sometimes mask deeper needs.
Equity concerns add another layer. Families with resources can afford an extra year of preschool or child care. For lower-income parents, keeping a child out of kindergarten may be financially or logistically impossible. Critics warn that widespread redshirting could widen gaps in achievement between children of different backgrounds.
The motives aren’t always academic. In some areas, parents sometimes delay boys’ school entry to gain an athletic edge, hoping their child will be 19 as a high school senior and more competitive for scholarships.
School districts are also responding in different ways. Washington, DC, has tightened enforcement of its rule requiring children who turn 5 by September 30 to begin kindergarten, leaving little room for parental discretion. Other states leave decisions more flexible, allowing families to choose.
For schools, the stakes go beyond individual families. Larger age gaps in classrooms can complicate instruction, and sudden swings in kindergarten enrollment affect staffing, funding, and long-term planning.
In the end, the question of when to start school reflects the tension between parental choice and public standards. For some, redshirting is about giving children the best chance to succeed. For others, it raises concerns about fairness and the purpose of kindergarten itself.
Summary
Recent studies confirm that COVID-19 disrupted kindergarten readiness, prompting a notable, though uneven, rise in redshirting, especially in 2021 and among groups not previously prone to it. While some gains may be seen short term, long-run benefits remain unclear, and equity concerns loom large, as redshirting often depends on economic and social capital.
The decision to redshirt often mixes pragmatic readiness concerns, strategic benefits (athletics, academics, etc.), and emotional judgment. Meanwhile, policy responses vary. Some schools have flexibility while others tighten the rules, underscoring the tension between individual family choice and systemic standards.
