My son is 7-- and in 3rd grade! He is doing fine. Didn't skip a grade. DCPS neighborhood school. (He started back when Dec 31 was the cutoff and is grandfathered-in to that scheme.)

Kids are not redshirted so that they will be the class leader, or so that they will have a sports advantage.
Kids sometimes delay the start of school because they need an extra year of childhood

The conclusions drawn here certainly ring true in my case (at least 2 years younger than mates throughout pre-K to professional school). It is also playing out for both our children (redtrousered). Redshirting a ready child for some illusory perceived advantage was not in our play book.

I was impressed with the MD public thread because it was civil. Put the same topic on the private board and it turned toxic with a unique crazy added. ]I was impressed with the MD public thread because it was civil. Put the same topic on the private board and it turned toxic with a unique crazy added.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/opinion/sunday/dont-delay-your-kindergartners-start.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general

"The benefits of being younger are even greater for those who skip a grade, an option available to many high-achieving children. Compared with nonskippers of similar talent and motivation, these youngsters pursue advanced degrees and enter professional school more often. Acceleration is a powerful intervention, with effects on achievement that are twice as large as programs for the gifted. Grade-skippers even report more positive social and emotional feelings.

These differences may come from the increased challenges of a demanding environment. Learning is maximized not by getting all the answers right, but by making errors and correcting them quickly. In this respect, children benefit from being close to the limits of their ability. Too low an error rate becomes boring, while too high an error rate is unrewarding. A delay in school entry may therefore still be justified if children are very far behind their peers, leaving a gap too broad for school to allow effective learning. "

In general I think you'd be hard-pressed to find evidence for the claim that there's a "big difference" between a 15 month age difference and a 17 month age difference (and, again, sports, scouts, Montessori, Sunday school all function with even broader ranges at this age).

But remember that we're not talking about a randomly-selected group of kids within the range (whatever it is empirically). So neither the most immature a kid can be at the youngest age nor the most precocious a kid can be at the oldest age will be represented in any given class. The former kid will be held back for the next cohort and the latter will already be in the cohort ahead.

The older kids in a K classroom are typically kids who are behind and the younger kids are kids who are ahead of the curve in some respect(s). Broader age ranges can mean narrower developmental ranges.

Local privates (or at least the ones that are hard to get into) want cohorts that work (for the kids and for the teachers) and they put alot of thought and effort both into admissions and into classroom assignments. This isn't a phenomenon that is imposed on them (they can always refuse to admit older kids to K); it's one that they find choice-worthy.

There is also a big difference between a 15 month age difference for kids from June to Sept 1 and what is being discussed here, which is a 16+ month difference where there are Jan-May redshirts.

Anonymous wrote:I was impressed with the MD public thread because it was civil. Put the same topic on the private board and it turned toxic with a unique crazy added.

Not the same conversation -- it was about one's own kid starting early vs. other people's starting late. And the induction/abortion leitmotif was kinda creepy. Not that this thread isn't a sewer, but I think that it's different neuroses in play -- here people seem worried their kid will be behind; there they seemed worried their kid will be ahead (and/or that they'll still be laying out serious $$ for childcare at a point where their kid is clearly ready and able to take on K).

Anonymous wrote:when you put a normal old kid in with my young kid it changes the classroom dynamic

Actually, in K it establishes a classroom dynamic and one that isn't based on a 12 month cohort (much less a 12 month cohort that runs from Sept to Sept). Different classrooms (as well as other kid-oriented contexts like scouting and sports) have different age ranges, depending on pedagogy, staffing, demands/abilities, etc.

12 months is no less arbitrary than 16 months. If you don't trust a school to make the call on this kind of issue (where they know a lot better what they're dealing with than you do), then you should look for another school.

Anonymous wrote:I was impressed with the MD public thread because it was civil. Put the same topic on the private board and it turned toxic with a unique crazy added.

Rise above, privates, rise above.

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the OP in that this is a very disturbing trend.

About 50% of the parents I talk to are considering "holding their children back" so that they are the oldest in the class and get to feel more successful, more like leaders, etc.

I think it should be stopped.

Agreed. If my kid is a follower, fine. If my kid is a leader fine. You should feel the same way about your kid. But when you put a normal old kid in with my young kid it changes the classroom dynamic

Anonymous wrote:should be stopped based on what?
Some parents do not see the need to rush ?

based on the fact that you put your perfectly normal old kid in with younger kids so he can 'lead' my kid.

should be stopped based on what?
Some parents do not see the need to rush ?

I agree with the OP in that this is a very disturbing trend.

About 50% of the parents I talk to are considering "holding their children back" so that they are the oldest in the class and get to feel more successful, more like leaders, etc.

I think it should be stopped.

I was impressed with the MD public thread because it was civil. Put the same topic on the private board and it turned toxic with a unique crazy added.

Here is something I'm finding interesting. Many people here are uphappy about holdbacks and are arguing for a strick 12-month window. But if you look at a similar thread on the MoCo schools forum (http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/30/181939.page#1741735) you see many public school parents agreeing that the strict 12-month age window is stupid, and discussing ways to work around that limit.

Seems like a grass-is-always-greener situation.