Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There should be fluidity to move grades in the child’s later years to self correct with age.

That redshirted 6 year old is going to be completely different at 16. What if he is simply eager to fly the nest and go to college “ on time” at 18 but can’t.

Not everyone goes to college "on time" at 18. Gap years, military service, missions, there are so many reason one may not go "on time".

None of reasons should be outside of the students own wishes and certainly not based on a parents decision made over a decade prior based on factors that have since changed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this because the poster asking for data conveniently ignored it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

THE YOUNGEST KIDS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

So what will the schools do to make sure NOBODY is ever the youngest?

Reduce the age cohort age range from 12 months to 6 months in the younger school years. Someone will still be the youngest but all the evidence based disadvantages from relative age affect disappear with such a narrow age gap.

Could you provide some data backing the bolded up? That seems like a very strong claim to make, and I’m curious why you are able to make such a strong statement. I am assuming there is a lot of data supporting the assertion?

I’m personally a bit skeptical — that just seems like far too broad a claim to make — but I like to read actual studies on this topic so please link!

I refer you to Malcolm Gladwells work. My suggestion came from him.

https://youtu.be/t5sJRGmyZ3Y

Uh, no. I’m sorry, but Malcolm Gladwell is not a legitimate data source. He’s been debunked and widely criticized on so many different topics at this point that I don’t think academics of any repute will even mention his name.

Do you have cites, studies, essays, or recommendations from actual academics, not ten-year-old videos from debunked pop culture snake oil salesmen? I would genuinely like to read them.

Emily Oster covered this in depth as well in her new book, the family firm. Google it. Among other factors, the research showed that those who were the youngest in their grade were more likely to be diagnosed with adhd by age seven or so, and this was even more pronounced among boys who were the youngest in their classes. Overall the data showed disadvantage towards being the youngest. In my case, I’m not looking for an advantage for my kids, but I am lookingm to minimize disadvantage to them where I can.

Please for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Emily Oster and Malcolm Gladwell are your source material? I don’t even know how to respond to scientific illiteracy this profound.

Just scrolling because I’m bored.

I’m going to quote a friend who has counseled 100’s if not thousands of kids and families. He’s been doing this for about 40 years. He’s never met a parent who regretted keeping their summer child back, but he knows plenty who regretted not doing it.

I regretted it and child ended up skipping a grade to make up for it. People like your friend gave us very very bad advice. Now, kid is in all advanced classes despite being young for their age. Child is clear they wouldn't have wanted to be held back.

Right. You post this on DCUM all the time. So there is you, and nobody else with regrets. Noted.

The above PP is a liar. There's no way a young kid could be doing well. Doesn't he know he has been disadvantaged by the mere presence of kids a few months older? And as an aside it was a pretty easy fix to advance the kid a year. Making them repeat a grade is far more disastrous. You got very good advice and even if it did not work out, you were able to quickly fix it. We should all be so lucky.

I graduated HS at 17 in honors and as an extreme case had a friend who had a BA at 19. There are plenty of people this works out for and it’s a massive gift of an additional year of life.

Did this somehow extend your life expectancy? That's a dubious claim if I've ever read one.

I graduated college at 21 which meant that I completed grad school earlier and entered the workforce earlier. If I make it to average life expectancy then the ROI of that additional year of income is huge.

"I wish I had another year to work" said no one ever on their death bed.

You think kids are saying, yea, my parents didn't think I'd do well in school so they held me back so I get to be a 19 year old senior vs. an 18 year old college student.

No bc kids redshirted due to their summer birthday are 18 all year long in school. Did you go to college with those stellar math skills?

Anonymous wrote:There should be fluidity to move grades in the child’s later years to self correct with age.

That redshirted 6 year old is going to be completely different at 16. What if he is simply eager to fly the nest and go to college “ on time” at 18 but can’t.

Not everyone goes to college "on time" at 18. Gap years, military service, missions, there are so many reason one may not go "on time".

There should be fluidity to move grades in the child’s later years to self correct with age.

That redshirted 6 year old is going to be completely different at 16. What if he is simply eager to fly the nest and go to college “ on time” at 18 but can’t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this because the poster asking for data conveniently ignored it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

THE YOUNGEST KIDS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

So what will the schools do to make sure NOBODY is ever the youngest?

Reduce the age cohort age range from 12 months to 6 months in the younger school years. Someone will still be the youngest but all the evidence based disadvantages from relative age affect disappear with such a narrow age gap.

Could you provide some data backing the bolded up? That seems like a very strong claim to make, and I’m curious why you are able to make such a strong statement. I am assuming there is a lot of data supporting the assertion?

I’m personally a bit skeptical — that just seems like far too broad a claim to make — but I like to read actual studies on this topic so please link!

I refer you to Malcolm Gladwells work. My suggestion came from him.

https://youtu.be/t5sJRGmyZ3Y

Uh, no. I’m sorry, but Malcolm Gladwell is not a legitimate data source. He’s been debunked and widely criticized on so many different topics at this point that I don’t think academics of any repute will even mention his name.

Do you have cites, studies, essays, or recommendations from actual academics, not ten-year-old videos from debunked pop culture snake oil salesmen? I would genuinely like to read them.

Emily Oster covered this in depth as well in her new book, the family firm. Google it. Among other factors, the research showed that those who were the youngest in their grade were more likely to be diagnosed with adhd by age seven or so, and this was even more pronounced among boys who were the youngest in their classes. Overall the data showed disadvantage towards being the youngest. In my case, I’m not looking for an advantage for my kids, but I am lookingm to minimize disadvantage to them where I can.

Please for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Emily Oster and Malcolm Gladwell are your source material? I don’t even know how to respond to scientific illiteracy this profound.

Just scrolling because I’m bored.

I’m going to quote a friend who has counseled 100’s if not thousands of kids and families. He’s been doing this for about 40 years. He’s never met a parent who regretted keeping their summer child back, but he knows plenty who regretted not doing it.

I regretted it and child ended up skipping a grade to make up for it. People like your friend gave us very very bad advice. Now, kid is in all advanced classes despite being young for their age. Child is clear they wouldn't have wanted to be held back.

Right. You post this on DCUM all the time. So there is you, and nobody else with regrets. Noted.

The above PP is a liar. There's no way a young kid could be doing well. Doesn't he know he has been disadvantaged by the mere presence of kids a few months older? And as an aside it was a pretty easy fix to advance the kid a year. Making them repeat a grade is far more disastrous. You got very good advice and even if it did not work out, you were able to quickly fix it. We should all be so lucky.

I graduated HS at 17 in honors and as an extreme case had a friend who had a BA at 19. There are plenty of people this works out for and it’s a massive gift of an additional year of life.

Did this somehow extend your life expectancy? That's a dubious claim if I've ever read one.

I graduated college at 21 which meant that I completed grad school earlier and entered the workforce earlier. If I make it to average life expectancy then the ROI of that additional year of income is huge.

"I wish I had another year to work" said no one ever on their death bed.

You think kids are saying, yea, my parents didn't think I'd do well in school so they held me back so I get to be a 19 year old senior vs. an 18 year old college student.

Sorry your math skills are so weak.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this because the poster asking for data conveniently ignored it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

THE YOUNGEST KIDS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

So what will the schools do to make sure NOBODY is ever the youngest?

Reduce the age cohort age range from 12 months to 6 months in the younger school years. Someone will still be the youngest but all the evidence based disadvantages from relative age affect disappear with such a narrow age gap.

Could you provide some data backing the bolded up? That seems like a very strong claim to make, and I’m curious why you are able to make such a strong statement. I am assuming there is a lot of data supporting the assertion?

I’m personally a bit skeptical — that just seems like far too broad a claim to make — but I like to read actual studies on this topic so please link!

I refer you to Malcolm Gladwells work. My suggestion came from him.

https://youtu.be/t5sJRGmyZ3Y

Uh, no. I’m sorry, but Malcolm Gladwell is not a legitimate data source. He’s been debunked and widely criticized on so many different topics at this point that I don’t think academics of any repute will even mention his name.

Do you have cites, studies, essays, or recommendations from actual academics, not ten-year-old videos from debunked pop culture snake oil salesmen? I would genuinely like to read them.

Emily Oster covered this in depth as well in her new book, the family firm. Google it. Among other factors, the research showed that those who were the youngest in their grade were more likely to be diagnosed with adhd by age seven or so, and this was even more pronounced among boys who were the youngest in their classes. Overall the data showed disadvantage towards being the youngest. In my case, I’m not looking for an advantage for my kids, but I am lookingm to minimize disadvantage to them where I can.

Please for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Emily Oster and Malcolm Gladwell are your source material? I don’t even know how to respond to scientific illiteracy this profound.

Just scrolling because I’m bored.

I’m going to quote a friend who has counseled 100’s if not thousands of kids and families. He’s been doing this for about 40 years. He’s never met a parent who regretted keeping their summer child back, but he knows plenty who regretted not doing it.

I regretted it and child ended up skipping a grade to make up for it. People like your friend gave us very very bad advice. Now, kid is in all advanced classes despite being young for their age. Child is clear they wouldn't have wanted to be held back.

Right. You post this on DCUM all the time. So there is you, and nobody else with regrets. Noted.

The above PP is a liar. There's no way a young kid could be doing well. Doesn't he know he has been disadvantaged by the mere presence of kids a few months older? And as an aside it was a pretty easy fix to advance the kid a year. Making them repeat a grade is far more disastrous. You got very good advice and even if it did not work out, you were able to quickly fix it. We should all be so lucky.

I graduated HS at 17 in honors and as an extreme case had a friend who had a BA at 19. There are plenty of people this works out for and it’s a massive gift of an additional year of life.

Did this somehow extend your life expectancy? That's a dubious claim if I've ever read one.

I graduated college at 21 which meant that I completed grad school earlier and entered the workforce earlier. If I make it to average life expectancy then the ROI of that additional year of income is huge.

"I wish I had another year to work" said no one ever on their death bed.

You think kids are saying, yea, my parents didn't think I'd do well in school so they held me back so I get to be a 19 year old senior vs. an 18 year old college student.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this because the poster asking for data conveniently ignored it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

THE YOUNGEST KIDS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

So what will the schools do to make sure NOBODY is ever the youngest?

Reduce the age cohort age range from 12 months to 6 months in the younger school years. Someone will still be the youngest but all the evidence based disadvantages from relative age affect disappear with such a narrow age gap.

Could you provide some data backing the bolded up? That seems like a very strong claim to make, and I’m curious why you are able to make such a strong statement. I am assuming there is a lot of data supporting the assertion?

I’m personally a bit skeptical — that just seems like far too broad a claim to make — but I like to read actual studies on this topic so please link!

I refer you to Malcolm Gladwells work. My suggestion came from him.

https://youtu.be/t5sJRGmyZ3Y

Uh, no. I’m sorry, but Malcolm Gladwell is not a legitimate data source. He’s been debunked and widely criticized on so many different topics at this point that I don’t think academics of any repute will even mention his name.

Do you have cites, studies, essays, or recommendations from actual academics, not ten-year-old videos from debunked pop culture snake oil salesmen? I would genuinely like to read them.

Emily Oster covered this in depth as well in her new book, the family firm. Google it. Among other factors, the research showed that those who were the youngest in their grade were more likely to be diagnosed with adhd by age seven or so, and this was even more pronounced among boys who were the youngest in their classes. Overall the data showed disadvantage towards being the youngest. In my case, I’m not looking for an advantage for my kids, but I am lookingm to minimize disadvantage to them where I can.

Please for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Emily Oster and Malcolm Gladwell are your source material? I don’t even know how to respond to scientific illiteracy this profound.

Just scrolling because I’m bored.

I’m going to quote a friend who has counseled 100’s if not thousands of kids and families. He’s been doing this for about 40 years. He’s never met a parent who regretted keeping their summer child back, but he knows plenty who regretted not doing it.

I regretted it and child ended up skipping a grade to make up for it. People like your friend gave us very very bad advice. Now, kid is in all advanced classes despite being young for their age. Child is clear they wouldn't have wanted to be held back.

Right. You post this on DCUM all the time. So there is you, and nobody else with regrets. Noted.

The above PP is a liar. There's no way a young kid could be doing well. Doesn't he know he has been disadvantaged by the mere presence of kids a few months older? And as an aside it was a pretty easy fix to advance the kid a year. Making them repeat a grade is far more disastrous. You got very good advice and even if it did not work out, you were able to quickly fix it. We should all be so lucky.

I did not get good advice and the fix was the appropriate one. You saying a younger for grade child cannot do well is absurd. Some of his friends are over a year older in his grade. Yes, he understands the situation.

Maybe the the issues are the parents and preschools not preparing the kids vs. the kids or the parents or school having unrealistic expectations of kids.

Holding a child back doesn't change how smart they are or their IQ. If anything it gives them less opportunities not more, especially academically.

Anonymous wrote:Do it.

- parent of a late August birthday kid who didn't redshirt

+1 - teacher at a “top” private

Anonymous wrote:OP

Would it be better to redshirt before he enters PreK or the PreK year?

I can have him do the 3s year at his current daycare and then move to private school or start attending private school in the 3s and then repeat the 3s or PreK4 if necessary.

Wait he is only 3?? Of course he can’t sit still for long periods of time. Omg.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this because the poster asking for data conveniently ignored it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

THE YOUNGEST KIDS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

So what will the schools do to make sure NOBODY is ever the youngest?

Reduce the age cohort age range from 12 months to 6 months in the younger school years. Someone will still be the youngest but all the evidence based disadvantages from relative age affect disappear with such a narrow age gap.

Could you provide some data backing the bolded up? That seems like a very strong claim to make, and I’m curious why you are able to make such a strong statement. I am assuming there is a lot of data supporting the assertion?

I’m personally a bit skeptical — that just seems like far too broad a claim to make — but I like to read actual studies on this topic so please link!

I refer you to Malcolm Gladwells work. My suggestion came from him.

https://youtu.be/t5sJRGmyZ3Y

Uh, no. I’m sorry, but Malcolm Gladwell is not a legitimate data source. He’s been debunked and widely criticized on so many different topics at this point that I don’t think academics of any repute will even mention his name.

Do you have cites, studies, essays, or recommendations from actual academics, not ten-year-old videos from debunked pop culture snake oil salesmen? I would genuinely like to read them.

Emily Oster covered this in depth as well in her new book, the family firm. Google it. Among other factors, the research showed that those who were the youngest in their grade were more likely to be diagnosed with adhd by age seven or so, and this was even more pronounced among boys who were the youngest in their classes. Overall the data showed disadvantage towards being the youngest. In my case, I’m not looking for an advantage for my kids, but I am lookingm to minimize disadvantage to them where I can.

Please for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Emily Oster and Malcolm Gladwell are your source material? I don’t even know how to respond to scientific illiteracy this profound.

Just scrolling because I’m bored.

I’m going to quote a friend who has counseled 100’s if not thousands of kids and families. He’s been doing this for about 40 years. He’s never met a parent who regretted keeping their summer child back, but he knows plenty who regretted not doing it.

I regretted it and child ended up skipping a grade to make up for it. People like your friend gave us very very bad advice. Now, kid is in all advanced classes despite being young for their age. Child is clear they wouldn't have wanted to be held back.

Right. You post this on DCUM all the time. So there is you, and nobody else with regrets. Noted.

The above PP is a liar. There's no way a young kid could be doing well. Doesn't he know he has been disadvantaged by the mere presence of kids a few months older? And as an aside it was a pretty easy fix to advance the kid a year. Making them repeat a grade is far more disastrous. You got very good advice and even if it did not work out, you were able to quickly fix it. We should all be so lucky.

I graduated HS at 17 in honors and as an extreme case had a friend who had a BA at 19. There are plenty of people this works out for and it’s a massive gift of an additional year of life.

Did this somehow extend your life expectancy? That's a dubious claim if I've ever read one.

I graduated college at 21 which meant that I completed grad school earlier and entered the workforce earlier. If I make it to average life expectancy then the ROI of that additional year of income is huge.

"I wish I had another year to work" said no one ever on their death bed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this because the poster asking for data conveniently ignored it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

THE YOUNGEST KIDS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

So what will the schools do to make sure NOBODY is ever the youngest?

Reduce the age cohort age range from 12 months to 6 months in the younger school years. Someone will still be the youngest but all the evidence based disadvantages from relative age affect disappear with such a narrow age gap.

Could you provide some data backing the bolded up? That seems like a very strong claim to make, and I’m curious why you are able to make such a strong statement. I am assuming there is a lot of data supporting the assertion?

I’m personally a bit skeptical — that just seems like far too broad a claim to make — but I like to read actual studies on this topic so please link!

I refer you to Malcolm Gladwells work. My suggestion came from him.

https://youtu.be/t5sJRGmyZ3Y

Uh, no. I’m sorry, but Malcolm Gladwell is not a legitimate data source. He’s been debunked and widely criticized on so many different topics at this point that I don’t think academics of any repute will even mention his name.

Do you have cites, studies, essays, or recommendations from actual academics, not ten-year-old videos from debunked pop culture snake oil salesmen? I would genuinely like to read them.

Emily Oster covered this in depth as well in her new book, the family firm. Google it. Among other factors, the research showed that those who were the youngest in their grade were more likely to be diagnosed with adhd by age seven or so, and this was even more pronounced among boys who were the youngest in their classes. Overall the data showed disadvantage towards being the youngest. In my case, I’m not looking for an advantage for my kids, but I am lookingm to minimize disadvantage to them where I can.

Please for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Emily Oster and Malcolm Gladwell are your source material? I don’t even know how to respond to scientific illiteracy this profound.

Just scrolling because I’m bored.

I’m going to quote a friend who has counseled 100’s if not thousands of kids and families. He’s been doing this for about 40 years. He’s never met a parent who regretted keeping their summer child back, but he knows plenty who regretted not doing it.

I regretted it and child ended up skipping a grade to make up for it. People like your friend gave us very very bad advice. Now, kid is in all advanced classes despite being young for their age. Child is clear they wouldn't have wanted to be held back.

Right. You post this on DCUM all the time. So there is you, and nobody else with regrets. Noted.

The above PP is a liar. There's no way a young kid could be doing well. Doesn't he know he has been disadvantaged by the mere presence of kids a few months older? And as an aside it was a pretty easy fix to advance the kid a year. Making them repeat a grade is far more disastrous. You got very good advice and even if it did not work out, you were able to quickly fix it. We should all be so lucky.

I graduated HS at 17 in honors and as an extreme case had a friend who had a BA at 19. There are plenty of people this works out for and it’s a massive gift of an additional year of life.

Did this somehow extend your life expectancy? That's a dubious claim if I've ever read one.

I graduated college at 21 which meant that I completed grad school earlier and entered the workforce earlier. If I make it to average life expectancy then the ROI of that additional year of income is huge.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t send my kids to private schools. The thread isn’t “redshirting in private schools”.

silently points to forum name

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this because the poster asking for data conveniently ignored it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

THE YOUNGEST KIDS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

So what will the schools do to make sure NOBODY is ever the youngest?

Reduce the age cohort age range from 12 months to 6 months in the younger school years. Someone will still be the youngest but all the evidence based disadvantages from relative age affect disappear with such a narrow age gap.

Could you provide some data backing the bolded up? That seems like a very strong claim to make, and I’m curious why you are able to make such a strong statement. I am assuming there is a lot of data supporting the assertion?

I’m personally a bit skeptical — that just seems like far too broad a claim to make — but I like to read actual studies on this topic so please link!

I refer you to Malcolm Gladwells work. My suggestion came from him.

https://youtu.be/t5sJRGmyZ3Y

Uh, no. I’m sorry, but Malcolm Gladwell is not a legitimate data source. He’s been debunked and widely criticized on so many different topics at this point that I don’t think academics of any repute will even mention his name.

Do you have cites, studies, essays, or recommendations from actual academics, not ten-year-old videos from debunked pop culture snake oil salesmen? I would genuinely like to read them.

Emily Oster covered this in depth as well in her new book, the family firm. Google it. Among other factors, the research showed that those who were the youngest in their grade were more likely to be diagnosed with adhd by age seven or so, and this was even more pronounced among boys who were the youngest in their classes. Overall the data showed disadvantage towards being the youngest. In my case, I’m not looking for an advantage for my kids, but I am lookingm to minimize disadvantage to them where I can.

Please for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Emily Oster and Malcolm Gladwell are your source material? I don’t even know how to respond to scientific illiteracy this profound.

Just scrolling because I’m bored.

I’m going to quote a friend who has counseled 100’s if not thousands of kids and families. He’s been doing this for about 40 years. He’s never met a parent who regretted keeping their summer child back, but he knows plenty who regretted not doing it.

I regretted it and child ended up skipping a grade to make up for it. People like your friend gave us very very bad advice. Now, kid is in all advanced classes despite being young for their age. Child is clear they wouldn't have wanted to be held back.

Right. You post this on DCUM all the time. So there is you, and nobody else with regrets. Noted.

The above PP is a liar. There's no way a young kid could be doing well. Doesn't he know he has been disadvantaged by the mere presence of kids a few months older? And as an aside it was a pretty easy fix to advance the kid a year. Making them repeat a grade is far more disastrous. You got very good advice and even if it did not work out, you were able to quickly fix it. We should all be so lucky.

I graduated HS at 17 in honors and as an extreme case had a friend who had a BA at 19. There are plenty of people this works out for and it’s a massive gift of an additional year of life.

Did this somehow extend your life expectancy? That's a dubious claim if I've ever read one.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t send my kids to private schools. The thread isn’t “redshirting in private schools”.

This just isn't an issue in public schools. So why do you care what private schools that you don't go to are doing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this because the poster asking for data conveniently ignored it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

THE YOUNGEST KIDS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

So what will the schools do to make sure NOBODY is ever the youngest?

Reduce the age cohort age range from 12 months to 6 months in the younger school years. Someone will still be the youngest but all the evidence based disadvantages from relative age affect disappear with such a narrow age gap.

Could you provide some data backing the bolded up? That seems like a very strong claim to make, and I’m curious why you are able to make such a strong statement. I am assuming there is a lot of data supporting the assertion?

I’m personally a bit skeptical — that just seems like far too broad a claim to make — but I like to read actual studies on this topic so please link!

I refer you to Malcolm Gladwells work. My suggestion came from him.

https://youtu.be/t5sJRGmyZ3Y

Uh, no. I’m sorry, but Malcolm Gladwell is not a legitimate data source. He’s been debunked and widely criticized on so many different topics at this point that I don’t think academics of any repute will even mention his name.

Do you have cites, studies, essays, or recommendations from actual academics, not ten-year-old videos from debunked pop culture snake oil salesmen? I would genuinely like to read them.

Emily Oster covered this in depth as well in her new book, the family firm. Google it. Among other factors, the research showed that those who were the youngest in their grade were more likely to be diagnosed with adhd by age seven or so, and this was even more pronounced among boys who were the youngest in their classes. Overall the data showed disadvantage towards being the youngest. In my case, I’m not looking for an advantage for my kids, but I am lookingm to minimize disadvantage to them where I can.

Please for the love of God stop embarrassing yourself. Emily Oster and Malcolm Gladwell are your source material? I don’t even know how to respond to scientific illiteracy this profound.

Just scrolling because I’m bored.

I’m going to quote a friend who has counseled 100’s if not thousands of kids and families. He’s been doing this for about 40 years. He’s never met a parent who regretted keeping their summer child back, but he knows plenty who regretted not doing it.

I regretted it and child ended up skipping a grade to make up for it. People like your friend gave us very very bad advice. Now, kid is in all advanced classes despite being young for their age. Child is clear they wouldn't have wanted to be held back.

Right. You post this on DCUM all the time. So there is you, and nobody else with regrets. Noted.

The above PP is a liar. There's no way a young kid could be doing well. Doesn't he know he has been disadvantaged by the mere presence of kids a few months older? And as an aside it was a pretty easy fix to advance the kid a year. Making them repeat a grade is far more disastrous. You got very good advice and even if it did not work out, you were able to quickly fix it. We should all be so lucky.

I graduated HS at 17 in honors and as an extreme case had a friend who had a BA at 19. There are plenty of people this works out for and it’s a massive gift of an additional year of life.