The impression I got was that there was no "downside" in holding them back, which knowing what I know now about bright/gifted kids is absolutely ridiculous.
Yes. Whatever wisdom there may be to redshirting kindergartners doesn't apply in the same way to gifted kids, and applies even less to highly gifted kids. Acceleration is often the best choice overall despite the emotional/physical age mismatch. For kids past a certain threshold, the argument about being seen as one of the smarter ones just doesn't apply-- that's not any extra benefit.
I agree with what Austin wrote in a different thread, that high intellectual activity in younger grades can be seen as emotional immaturity. That's often more of a problem than making sure that HG+ kids get attention; they're often already getting it, but sometimes the wrong kind.
Nor do I think that redshirting would be good for the HG+ kid who likes to fly under the radar; that sort will just be a physically more mature average-seeming kid, and may even run the risk of appearing below average to a teacher! It's the rare HG+ kid who will tend to appear
moderately highly achieving.
It boils down to this: I'd rather have an intellectually engaged kid who's learning, and sort out the rest as necessary, than a dulled kid who's assertive because he's one of the biggest in his grade. The reason that "A Nation Deceived" etc. exist is because normal thinking doesn't apply to HG+ children.
I agree with MonetFan. There are definitely appropriate reasons to hold a child back, but I doubt that most who redshirt their kindergartners have what I'd consider to be valid reasons. To hold a child back to put others at a disadvantage
is inequitable, and if everyone were able to do it would merely result in retarding academic progress for all, with no benefit to any. It's just not based on good social sense, whether it works to some children's advantage or not.
