0 members (),
381
guests, and
33
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640 Likes: 1
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640 Likes: 1 |
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/09/youngest-kid-smartest-kid.htmlYoungest Kid, Smartest Kid? by MARIA KONNIKOVA SEPTEMBER 19, 2013 The New Yorker While earlier studies have argued that redshirted children do better both socially and academically—citing data on school evaluations, leadership positions, and test scores—more recent analyses suggest that the opposite may well be the case: the youngest kids, who barely make the age cutoff but are enrolled anyway, ultimately end up on top—not their older classmates. When a group of economists followed Norwegian children born between 1962 and 1988, until the youngest turned eighteen, in 2006, they found that, at age eighteen, children who started school a year later had I.Q. scores that were significantly lower than their younger counterparts. Their earnings also suffered: through age thirty, men who started school later earned less. A separate study, of the entire Swedish population born between 1935 and 1984, came to a similar conclusion: in the course of the life of a typical Swede, starting school later translated to reduced over-all earnings. In a 2008 study at Harvard University, researchers found that, within the U.S., increased rates of redshirting were leading to equally worrisome patterns. The delayed age of entry, the authors argued, resulted in academic stagnation: it decreased completion rates for both high-school and college students, increased the gender gap in graduation rates (men fell behind women), and intensified socioeconomic differences. The article has links to the studies it cites.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 848
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 848 |
Given that our son is the youngest second grader in his whole school (we started him just after his five birthday), I am interested in this topic and frustrated by redshirting for children who seem quite capable of handling kindergarten for no other reason than "giving him an extra year" (it always seems to be a him). I'm not talking about cases where the child is notably delayed developmentally. DS has picked up on the age thing and it has been bothering him. He did cheer up when I told him about friends' children in other states who were even younger than him and in second grade, too.
That said, I wonder about some factors in this study... were the children who were sent to school despite just making the cutoff more likely to be smart or mature already? Or, were those who were held back those who suffered even a year later from not being well suited for the sit and drill classroom?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
It seems obvious that the 18yo who was held back a year would perform lower than other 18yos on an age-normed test.
Also, I'd say being a literal BMOC is a poor preparation for the working world.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,777
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,777 |
I think it's like asking the question whether kids need more education or more busywork. I guess some people think redshirting builds confidence, but I think education builds skills and that self confidence comes from ability.
Youth lives by personality, age lives by calculation. -- Aristotle on a calendar
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 658
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 658 |
That said, I wonder about some factors in this study... were the children who were sent to school despite just making the cutoff more likely to be smart or mature already? Or, were those who were held back those who suffered even a year later from not being well suited for the sit and drill classroom? Our state does testing of school readiness skills for literacy early in kindergarten. I'd love to see a study looking at the readiness by age to test for this exact effect. My DD was 3rd youngest of 120 kids in her grade at her elementary school. Assuming no redshirting, there should have been 15-20 younger than her. Any time there was even the slightest problem, it was pinned on her age.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
I think it's like asking the question whether kids need more education or more busywork. I guess some people think redshirting builds confidence, but I think education builds skills and that self confidence comes from ability. Excellent point. Ties in nicely with the "Excessive Homework" issue, really. I mean-- seriously?? Why do 2nd graders need "homework?" Shouldn't they get a broad weekly sort of "parents-and-me" something-or-other and otherwise have time for things like playing and sleeping?? At least-- it used to be that self-esteem and confidence came from mastering challenges. Before we got to a place where everyone needs to be 'supported' to earn straight A's, etc. Now "challenging" means something entirely different. It's a matter of fortitude and stamina. Not competence at more difficult tasks. Heavens no. Well, I suppose it is a different sort of challenge. What I can't quite figure out is how this really "levels" anything. Because the kids who can work FASTEST are now the ones at the head of the pack... well, them and the ones with involved (or over-involved) parents, or those with parents proactive enough to identify learning challenges and shield them from the worst of these abuses. It's only the kids whose parents aren't involved or who have overlooked learning challenges who really wind up behind. Hmm. Well, the more things change the more they stay the same. Whaddya know? ![whistle whistle](/bb/images/graemlins/default/whistle.gif)
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428 |
Or, were those who were held back those who suffered even a year later from not being well suited for the sit and drill classroom? This has been looked at in a large study. At age 4, kids who would later be redshirted (not known at the time) were assessed and deemed just as academically and socially ready for K as any other child. I will say that I scanned one of the studies linked in this NYer piece, based on what a commenter said, and the article is misleading. Yes, Swedish adults who entered late earned less eventually--but not due to being poorly educated or having worse jobs. It was just the result of having one less year in the workforce. Big deal.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,228
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,228 |
I will say that I scanned one of the studies linked in this NYer piece, based on what a commenter said, and the article is misleading. Yes, Swedish adults who entered late earned less eventually--but not due to being poorly educated or having worse jobs. It was just the result of having one less year in the workforce. Big deal. Well, losing a year's salary is a big deal.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428 |
I mean, I guess, but isn't it kind of obvious that if you start school later, you enter the workforce a year later? This isn't a hidden disadvantage of holding your child back. (OH my GOD, if my child starts school at 6, he will graduate from college at 23!! NO ONE TOLD ME!!!)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,498
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,498 |
Ultra, you're assuming that people have the long view. But IMO, a lot of people just don't...
DeeDee
|
|
|
|
|