Has anyone read this? What study are they citing?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...-at-six-says-academic.html#disqus_thread

I read the bits about an 80-year old longitudinal study, and my spidey-sense said, "Ternan." That appears to be valid, as this would appear to be the Mr. Friedman of the University of California (Riverside) mentioned in the article: http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~friedman/longabstract.html


That final phrase "within social contexts" seems important. If you think things have changed a bit since the 1930s, this data set is not for you.

Maybe, just maybe, the issue is that they start school reading, then spend the next several years being held back while others catch up... setting up negative patterns for the rest of their lives? Making them feel badly about themselves or, in some situations, superior? Neither of which would lead to good longer-term outcomes.

Or, perhaps there's something to the point of not trying to turn all four and five year olds into mini-academics, sitting in neat rows for hours each day. I can see that, and it doesn't seem the way we're heading.

Maybe I'm just cynical.

Prof Howard Friedman, a psychologist at the University of California, analysed their progress over 80 years and found that “early school entry was associated with less educational attainment, worse midlife adjustment and, most importantly, increased mortality risk”.

Friedman is interested in health analysis and has written a book called The Longeviety Project. The above is a quote from the linked newspaper article so it may or may not be what Friedman said. If it is, the findings are at odds with other studies showing that increased educational attainment in associated with decreased mortality risk. These include the Framingham Offspring study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8475012

http://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2012/12/why-does-education-matter-so-much-to-health-.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080311081149.htm


The research on accelerated students suggests that they have increased educational attainment so hopefully longer life but this is all correlational.
The best way to sell a book is to tout the opposite of current thinking. Not to be cynical.

And then I find this interview with Friedman that makes a little more sense.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/12/longer-life.aspx

"We were amazed to uncover lots of evidence overall that it is not random who will become ill. Rather, there are large differences in susceptibility to injury and disease. Some of these are a function of personality. Others are tied to social relations, including marriage, family, friendship and religious observance. Most eye-opening is our finding that the risk factors and protective shields do not occur in isolation, but bunch together in patterns. For example, the unconscientious boys — even though very bright — were more likely to grow up to have poor marriages, to smoke and drink more, achieve less education, and be relatively unsuccessful at work. And they died at younger ages. Such health risks and relationship challenges, such as divorce, are usually studied independently, which I think is a big mistake. Conversely, certain personality constellations predicted more achievement, better social relationships, and other elements of thriving that led to longer, healthier lives."

Here he is distinguishing between unconscientious bright kids, boys in this example, and the rest of the sample. Underachievers anyone? Disengaged? That fits with the data from acceleration that says students who aren't given appropriate educationL opportunities are more likely to drop out of have lower educationL attainment.

I have not read the research behind the published statements. I tend to discount people who make extreme assertions, such as saying that early school entry can cause premature death. I think there is a positive correlation between parental income and child life expectancy (I know that correlation between a person's income and his own life expectancy is positive), and there is a positive correlation between educational attainment and longevity. It would be surprising if gifted children from affluent families have lower life expectancy.

Doesn't letting a child "develop naturally" mean not slowing them down?

Yep I agree. I was going to ignore this report for similar reasons. Unfortunately, someone will probably have it spouted at them so best to know where the comments are coming from and how to debunk them.

Good grief. They've got to stop pretending this study has any relevance to life today. This was SO LONG AGO when it comes to research on child outcomes. It's like--study shows that working in a textile mill/being a bootblack is bad for children!

This seems plausible. DD stayed at a play based pre-school until she was almost 6. She spent her days playing dress up and drawing and was as happy as could be. If she wanted to learn about dinosaurs or animals or whatever she could do that. On the whole, I would say school has made her rather miserable. If you have a naturally curious mind it is plausible that the earlier you are put in the educational system the more miserable you become.

My son started school early. He may not enjoy school but school isn't his life so he is learning to offset that negativity with the positivity in his life. If school made all kids that miserable to the point the couldn't ever bounce back then I wouldn't be ready to celebrate my ten year wedding anniversary with the most wonderful man I've ever met or advocating for my two happy healthy parent in a job I find stimulating and rewarding...so...I guess what I'm saying is that you are only as miserable as you allow yourself to be.

We started school at 4 (and young 4 too). We use a gifted private school. My kid is so much happier now. He goes to bed at a reasonable time (because he is tired and stimulated). He has friends he can relate to. I am so glad we did this.

Any study looking at long-term outcomes of children entering school early will be looking at decisions made decades ago.

And what Friednman is doing is a data trawl. That is different to setting a research question and collecting data to specifically answer that question. There are so many problems with longitudinal cohort studies but if they are set up with an end in mind and those potential problems identified and mitigated useful data can be developed. I am not convinced that was the case here.

Is entering school good or bad? Depends on the child, their family and the school.

1922, people. The study began in 1922. When the kids were already 12 years old.

Bostonian, I work in this area, and the professors I work with would laugh me out of the room if I suggested that it would be reasonable to make educational policy decisions based on findings from children who started school in 19 freaking 15.

I think expecting our children to make a conscious choice to not be miserable when they are bored and bullied for a substantial part of their waking hours is a little unfair. This especially applies to kids with tendencies towards anxiety or depression or are 2e.

Since for some time in NZ early enrolment has been forbidden the only person I know who started before their fifth birthday is my stepmother. In her case it was a mistake because she was a perfectly average student who just happened to learn to read early because she had a slightly older brother and a mother who always wanted to be a teacher. For a gifted kid I would say staying out of school as long as possible may not e such a bad thing. I think I would prefer normal entry and skipping here because preschools don't do cademics. Other places early entry would be better.

I never have any problem with any study good or bad. Peer review and follow up studies will tend to discount the absurd over time. The problem I have is that a study will spin off a frenzy of popular sciences articles that site a single possibly good possibly bad study as gospel.

The question being asked is a good one that deserves a good answer.

I agree with a few others here that have alluded to alternative hypothesis's. If the correlation is true it still does not prove causality. Is it the early reading, the desk time and lack of play time, the letdown later when they are no longer allowed to move ahead with their education?

My preferred hypothesis is that maybe it is the formal education that is harmful. Extended time in desks with less time playing seems to be a bad idea at any age, but particularly when very young. Academics should be fun and playful.

What ultra said.

OT, but I have to agree with this. Expecting children to buck up and be happy every day for 6+ h/day in poor circumstances seems unrealistic. A certain amount of grin and bear it is necessary for all of us, but there does come a point. I have a child who is happy and easygoing by nature, and he has been very patient with school, but after a point, it's too much.

Thanks, Dude! I couldn't find the reference to the study, a friend of mine sent it to me with good intentions for sure, but instead of replying with my personal thoughts, I want to address the study. Such an irritating article.