Youngest kid, smartest kid...
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
You don't really understand how research works do you? The studies (primarily a Norwegian and Swedish study) that the article is basing it's assumptions weren't conducted in the last two years. Here is a similar article and a similar study conducted during a similar timeframe in the UK that draws an opposite conclusion: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/10/20/should-children-start-school-at-6-instead-of-5/ Sweden starts school at age 7, so the claim the author makes, "a typical Swede, starting school later translated to reduced over-all earnings," means the child started at 8. This probably means that the child had LDs. Why else for the later start date? Norway starts school at age 6 (which is a year early for most of Scandinavia): http://principalfoundations.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-norwegian-school-system-might-be.html The author saying that in Norway, "children who started school a year later had I.Q. scores that were significantly lower than their younger counterparts..." Again there are countless studies that will show early intervention improves cognitive/IQ scores. A child who started at 7 not 6 wasn't able to catch up and probably held back to LDs. So can people please stop quoting this article as the end all be all of "proof." |