Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of these news are reports of published studies, with author names and sources. There is actual research behind these two articles pp linked.

News reports are notoriously and and often wildly inaccurate when reporting study results. I don't trust them without reading the studies myself. Simply putting up a link to a news article does not do much to support your position. Nor does exaggerating study results (for instance, PP above who claimed that the ADHD research showed that redshirting skewed ADHD diagnosis rates).

You can find the studies from the news link. Why do you need other people to do your leg work?

So you do reach conclusions based on cursory media coverage. You anti-redshirt people need to step up your game.

I don't. I read all of these studies before. When I googled it, I simply just linked whatever that contains the study information for you to find them if you like. And this article is linked because some people claims that the redshirting does not impact other kids. Presumably, red shirting would make the on time younger kids look even younger and more likely to be flagged for behavioral issues. That is just common sense, don't you think?

Or is your summer kid would be 5 when starting school, perhaps you should redshirt so they wouldn't risk a faulty ADHD diagnoses? common sense, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of these news are reports of published studies, with author names and sources. There is actual research behind these two articles pp linked.

News reports are notoriously and and often wildly inaccurate when reporting study results. I don't trust them without reading the studies myself. Simply putting up a link to a news article does not do much to support your position. Nor does exaggerating study results (for instance, PP above who claimed that the ADHD research showed that redshirting skewed ADHD diagnosis rates).

You can find the studies from the news link. Why do you need other people to do your leg work?

So you do reach conclusions based on cursory media coverage. You anti-redshirt people need to step up your game.

I don't. I read all of these studies before. When I googled it, I simply just linked whatever that contains the study information for you to find them if you like. And this article is linked because some people claims that the redshirting does not impact other kids. Presumably, red shirting would make the on time younger kids look even younger and more likely to be flagged for behavioral issues. That is just common sense, don't you think?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of these news are reports of published studies, with author names and sources. There is actual research behind these two articles pp linked.

News reports are notoriously and and often wildly inaccurate when reporting study results. I don't trust them without reading the studies myself. Simply putting up a link to a news article does not do much to support your position. Nor does exaggerating study results (for instance, PP above who claimed that the ADHD research showed that redshirting skewed ADHD diagnosis rates).

You can find the studies from the news link. Why do you need other people to do your leg work?

So you do reach conclusions based on cursory media coverage. You anti-redshirt people need to step up your game.

Anonymous wrote:People who redshirt their children is another way of them gaming the system.

Oh no! You figured us out!

We're still GOING TO WIN AT LIFE because my kid has a late August birthday and we redshirted! Hahaha! Suck it, you parents of September/October birthdays - you thought you were going to win, but no, we beat you!! Hahahaha!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of these news are reports of published studies, with author names and sources. There is actual research behind these two articles pp linked.

News reports are notoriously and and often wildly inaccurate when reporting study results. I don't trust them without reading the studies myself. Simply putting up a link to a news article does not do much to support your position. Nor does exaggerating study results (for instance, PP above who claimed that the ADHD research showed that redshirting skewed ADHD diagnosis rates).

You can find the studies from the news link. Why do you need other people to do your leg work?

Anonymous wrote:People who redshirt their children is another way of them gaming the system.

oh you again. sigh.

Anonymous wrote:All of these news are reports of published studies, with author names and sources. There is actual research behind these two articles pp linked.

News reports are notoriously and and often wildly inaccurate when reporting study results. I don't trust them without reading the studies myself. Simply putting up a link to a news article does not do much to support your position. Nor does exaggerating study results (for instance, PP above who claimed that the ADHD research showed that redshirting skewed ADHD diagnosis rates).

Anonymous wrote:This study found the same as the study noted above, that the youngest children are significantly more likely to be diagnosed ADD and medicated, because of their age. While holding back is not mentioned in the article describing the study, it is a logical extrapolation.

http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2010/nearly-1-million-children-potentially-misdiagnosed-with-adhd/

Elder said the “smoking gun” of the study is that ADHD diagnoses depend on a child’s age relative to classmates and the teacher’s perceptions of whether the child has symptoms.

“If a child is behaving poorly, if he’s inattentive, if he can’t sit still, it may simply be because he’s 5 and the other kids are 6,” said Elder, assistant professor of economics. “There’s a big difference between a 5-year-old and a 6-year-old, and teachers and medical practitioners need to take that into account when evaluating whether children have ADHD.”

This can be taken in favor of redshirting as well -- if your kid is the youngest, he will be at risk for an ADHD diagnoses, might as well hold back a year if he is on the age cusp.

My child is an August birthday and is the youngest in his class. No one has suggested he has ADHD and he gets good behavior reports from his teachers. I've notice that at times he can be a bit socially immature vs. some of his other friends, but otherwise he is fine.


That's the problem with this board. Everyone generalizes. It is good that your child is doing well, but some other late birthday boys do not. His parents should have the option of redshirting.

Please identify where I generalized his experience to anyone else. If my information about my own child's experience is not of interest to you, feel free to move on to the next post in the thread.

All of these news are reports of published studies, with author names and sources. There is actual research behind these two articles pp linked.

Anonymous wrote:This study found the same as the study noted above, that the youngest children are significantly more likely to be diagnosed ADD and medicated, because of their age. While holding back is not mentioned in the article describing the study, it is a logical extrapolation.

http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2010/nearly-1-million-children-potentially-misdiagnosed-with-adhd/

Elder said the “smoking gun” of the study is that ADHD diagnoses depend on a child’s age relative to classmates and the teacher’s perceptions of whether the child has symptoms.

“If a child is behaving poorly, if he’s inattentive, if he can’t sit still, it may simply be because he’s 5 and the other kids are 6,” said Elder, assistant professor of economics. “There’s a big difference between a 5-year-old and a 6-year-old, and teachers and medical practitioners need to take that into account when evaluating whether children have ADHD.”

Arrgh, no. It is NOT a logical extrapolation, at least not one that is likely to be statistically relevant, which is the only sort of extrapolation that you should be comfortable making.

Also, for those of you who are attempting to show things by linking news articles, could you please link published research that supports your position? It is frustrating to see all this vagueness. I feel like I'm arguing with people who have no interest in actual science.

People who redshirt their children is another way of them gaming the system.

“If a child is behaving poorly, if he’s inattentive, if he can’t sit still, it may simply be because he’s 5 and the other kids are 6,” said Elder, assistant professor of economics. “There’s a big difference between a 5-year-old and a 6-year-old, and teachers and medical practitioners need to take that into account when evaluating whether children have ADHD.”

It's all right for a teacher to suggest evaluation for ADD, but if a doctor is making the diagnosis just on that, then the doctor is the one who is wrong.

This study found the same as the study noted above, that the youngest children are significantly more likely to be diagnosed ADD and medicated, because of their age. While holding back is not mentioned in the article describing the study, it is a logical extrapolation.

http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2010/nearly-1-million-children-potentially-misdiagnosed-with-adhd/

Elder said the “smoking gun” of the study is that ADHD diagnoses depend on a child’s age relative to classmates and the teacher’s perceptions of whether the child has symptoms.

“If a child is behaving poorly, if he’s inattentive, if he can’t sit still, it may simply be because he’s 5 and the other kids are 6,” said Elder, assistant professor of economics. “There’s a big difference between a 5-year-old and a 6-year-old, and teachers and medical practitioners need to take that into account when evaluating whether children have ADHD.”

Anonymous wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/05/health/adhd-diagnosis-youngest-kids/

Not the PP, but here is one example on the youngest in class are more likely to be labeled ADHD.

I believe this article is referring to a 2012 study out of the University of British Columbia. The actual study is here.

What this study is not, as far as I know, is what the PP claimed: that there is research that links redshirting to an increased incidence of diagnosis of ADHD in younger kids. In fact the study cited here specifically does not do that. If anything, one could posit that the 2012 BC study shows that redshirting is statistically irrelevant to the incidence of ADHD diagnosis in a class, because redshirting is less common in Canada. However, the published study does not reach that conclusion; in fact redshirting isn't discussed at all, likely because it's simply not relevant. If there is published research supporting PP's statement, I have not seen it and would like to see a legitimate citation. I am skeptical such research exists but I could be wrong.

If anything, the research concerning ADHD diagnosis rates argues in favor of redshirting for individual cases, not against. If you have a child with ADHD traits who is born on the cusp, I'd familiarize myself with this research when making your decision. A key quote from the actual study I linked above:

Even children born during the three days before the end of the calendar year had a higher risk than children born during the first three days of the following year, despite being born in the same season (i.e., they were all born within a six-day period).

Personally I find this research horrifying. The last thing it should be used for is to shame parents who redshirt.