Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, I have recently encountered many conflicting opinions, as well as data, on young for grade vs. old for grade benefits/detriments. There doesn't appear to be any consensus amongst the studies I've found. Some say older students always have the benefits, while others indicate that being young and having older peers is a more statistically significant factor than being the oldest in the grade. I'm interested in any research that any of you have come across, as well as personal opinions on whether you felt being young for your grade (or your child's grade) or old for your grade (or your child's grade) was a benefit or a detriment.
Obviously, there have been numerous threads on redshirting on this forum. That isn't really what I'm asking about. I'm more interested in motivation and whether anyone has any good data around whether having to work harder (younger kids with older peers) versus being the oldest (and thus, having positive self-esteem impacts, but possible boredom) impact motivation in the long term.
Obviously, someone always needs to be the youngest in the class. I'm also interested in any data/personal experiences that show evidence regarding where the youngest kids and oldest kids are developmentally furthest apart (i.e. between pre-k and kinder, between K and 1st, between 1st and 2nd?) Educators please feel free to weigh in!! While the redshirtinng topic has been extensively covered on this forum, I don't have a good sense where the largest gaps in development typically occur (i.e. between 3 and 4, 4 and 5, 5 and 6, etc.). Thanks in advance for all your help!
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 9 days ago)
35,635 posts, read 17,975,706 times
Reputation: 50665
The data on this is extremely skewed by the sample. It's not a random sampling of kids who enter kindergarten early or late.
The ones who go in young are deemed by their parents - and their preschool teachers - to be ready for kinder. So while they have an August birthday (or whatever the cut off is for that school district), they'll go in to kindergarten with the full belief that they'll do fine.
Kids who are held back and start the next year often do that because the parents are told "well, he's just not quite ready for kinder, and would benefit from a little maturity". In fact, those kids (often boys) have a personality that doesn't align with behaviors that make for a really successful public school student, and they won't have developed that personality by next year either.
So that makes it nearly impossible to statistically assess whether being older is beneficial. Because you don't start with your sample randomly being assigned into either group - old for their class, or young for their class. They're placed in those two categories in most part by their abilities and personality.
I think you could actually chart this: students who enter school as the youngest students are likely to be smaller, but more cooperative/ready to learn students, and those who enter a year after they could have are likely to be the more difficult students who struggle academically. Because that's the breakdown of what these kids abilities were at 4 years old.
And that's probably more pronounced in affluent school districts, where parents can easily choose to put kids in daycare another year or stay home with them another year without worrying the cost.
I don't have a good sense where the largest gaps in development typically occur (i.e. between 3 and 4, 4 and 5, 5 and 6, etc.). Thanks in advance for all your help!
Most of the data has tested gender as well, or has had very small samples.
I would imagine the biggest gap would be within the toddler years. Within the ages of 2 and 4, there are several main categories of developmental milestones, gross motor skills, fine motor skills, language, etc, that would seem to be more significant than those that occur later, say at five or six years of age.
The data on this is extremely skewed by the sample. It's not a random sampling of kids who enter kindergarten early or late.
The ones who go in young are deemed by their parents - and their preschool teachers - to be ready for kinder. So while they have an August birthday (or whatever the cut off is for that school district), they'll go in to kindergarten with the full belief that they'll do fine.
Although most schools require readiness tests for incoming kindergartners.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 9 days ago)
35,635 posts, read 17,975,706 times
Reputation: 50665
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now
Although most schools require readiness tests for incoming kindergartners.
Do they? They don't here. You show up with the birth certificate, immunization record and proof you reside in the school boundary zone and you're in. From what I understand, the KRT is used when the parents want to enroll their child before they are old enough.
They started doing it in the late 1980s/early1990s here. Not to say that these tests can measure emotional readiness, but they do measure certain skills.
Although most schools require readiness tests for incoming kindergartners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC
Do they? They don't here. You show up with the birth certificate, immunization record and proof you reside in the school boundary zone and you're in. From what I understand, the KRT is used when the parents want to enroll their child before they are old enough.
In my area they also do readiness tests, but it is mostly to screen for potential special needs kids who "slipped though the cracks" as preschoolers. But every child, who is the correct age, etc. is allowed to start kindergarten.
My twins will always be the youngest in their classes & grades, due to the district cut-off date. In order to start Kindergarten, your child had to have had their 5th birthday by or on September 15th.
Their birthday, is September 14.
Now, they have (a lot) of older siblings for whom I would have waited. No question about it but with them, despite them not having had any preschool; something was different.
So I basically ended up deciding against the advice of the research available at the time & they started Kindergarten in August of 2006, at age 4. And it’s been full-speed ahead ever since.
My “indicators” that they were ready, were:
Socially precocious. I swear they had “swagger”. And this means across all generations, not just “with kids”. They didn’t clam up in front of adults, enjoyed interacting with the elderly & were right at home with teenagers.
Language/communication skills were fairly advanced. They used simple sentences before the age of 15 months & I do mean used. And used ... They literally would chatter from the moment their eyes popped open in the morning until they fell asleep at night. They also used “Twin-speak”, that can sometimes occur where twins have their own language.
They were in love with learning. Completely enamored with just gaining knowledge. They hadn’t been to preschool & did not have any formal skills at all but that’s not what was important. They weren’t intimidated by “learning how to learn”, in fact, they were insatiable.
I wanted to capitalize on that. I didn’t want them to lose that drive.
Their physical growth/motor skills didn’t factor into this at all. They were both active & one is actually athletic. They were noticeably tiny. One of them wore a pair of shorts to school that first week that was a size 24 months!
By the time they were in the 2nd grade they weren’t the smallest in their class anymore & puberty, if behind the majority at all, was only behind their peers by 5-6 months.
Academically; one was identified GT by the 2nd grade & both were invited to attend a GT Magnet middle school program by the 5th grade. Both National Junior Honor Society. Now juniors in high school, one is in 3 AP classes, the other has 2. They have been awarded many scholarships in extra-curricular STEM programs & both are in leadership positions on a nationally recognized, award winning Robotics team.
So, I’m happy I went against the evidence-based advice & went with gut instinct instead. I will say it was nerve-wracking when they started middle school at age 10 & high school at age 13. Especially that first day of high school, when I realized that all those guys with beards ... were going to be their classmates!
Studies of ALL types are useless if the study does not pare down the variables (specific things being compared) to a bare minimum. Statistics of all types are useless when applied otherwise. And, they often are. Today, as an example, medical research uses business statistics which are invalid for natural systems. The null hypothesis is not the same (and, that's just for starters).
I ignore these studies. I've looked into the design, the data, and the statistical analysis of far too many studies to even bother with it.
Did this study of "students" even address the home environment? Prob'ly (based on my experience over 60 years) more important than age, or teacher, or even the school.
"You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink."
So, I have recently encountered many conflicting opinions, as well as data, on young for grade vs. old for grade benefits/detriments. There doesn't appear to be any consensus amongst the studies I've found. Some say older students always have the benefits, while others indicate that being young and having older peers is a more statistically significant factor than being the oldest in the grade. I'm interested in any research that any of you have come across, as well as personal opinions on whether you felt being young for your grade (or your child's grade) or old for your grade (or your child's grade) was a benefit or a detriment.
Obviously, there have been numerous threads on redshirting on this forum. That isn't really what I'm asking about. I'm more interested in motivation and whether anyone has any good data around whether having to work harder (younger kids with older peers) versus being the oldest (and thus, having positive self-esteem impacts, but possible boredom) impact motivation in the long term.
Obviously, someone always needs to be the youngest in the class. I'm also interested in any data/personal experiences that show evidence regarding where the youngest kids and oldest kids are developmentally furthest apart (i.e. between pre-k and kinder, between K and 1st, between 1st and 2nd?) Educators please feel free to weigh in!! While the redshirtinng topic has been extensively covered on this forum, I don't have a good sense where the largest gaps in development typically occur (i.e. between 3 and 4, 4 and 5, 5 and 6, etc.). Thanks in advance for all your help!
I started kindergarten at 4 years old (born in December) so I always found it a bit harder. Not so much academically because I did pretty well in that area but socially it would have been better for me to be with true peers. I was painfully shy as well in school, so that didn't help. I'm actually thinking it is better for children to go into school a little bit later than 5 but our society isn't built to accommodate that. We have kids learning to read when they're infants but technically kids can start to learn to read at 6 or 7 and it's not going to hold them back in the long run. I think it's going to depend greatly on the individual child whether or not they should be on the older or younger side in a grade. It's not a competition, they're going to get educated whether they wait a year or not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
