From St. Pauli's article:
Lubotsky says parents still need to weigh children�s needs and consider holding them back if they are immature, can�t sit still in class or have other issues that could affect learning. But he says the study�s bottom line is that kids are generally best served by starting school as early as possible.
�Kids get so much more out of just learning,� he said. �Whether they go to school earlier or later, that�s really not going to matter much at the end of the day.�
So doesn't that suggest that early entry should not only be considered but encouraged for gifted 4yos?
My ds6 has a May birthday and went to school "on time", so he's one of the younger first graders. I'm soo glad he wasn't a fall birthday because we'd have had a time deciding whether to go for early entrance or to wait until he "should have" started. He did have some immaturity issues, but I don't know that those were due as much to age as to inappropriate curriculum.
OHGrandma, I totally agree with you here:
They're [gifted kids are] going to float to the top 5% on a nationally normed test.
I think that's very true and I think using achievement testing probably catches almost all of the young gifted students -- as well as a few high-achieving older students. If the assessment process for your school, FNJMom, used teacher inventories, then I think there'd be a bigger concern. Since it's straight-out achievement testing, there's less bias against younger, wigglier kids. (In my humble and most unprofessional opinion, LOL! I have no way of knowing if that's true, it just seems logical to me.)
