Because your comments are not accurate. The article you yourself linked explained why (and you quoted/paraphrased portions of why) you cannot draw good conclusions about holding back normal kids within 1-2 months of the cutoff vs overall redshirting studies. Some of the problems, to reiterate, are that the studies are old, the data is old, K has changed drastically over the years, the reasons for redshirting have changed drastically, the samples are small, there is no control group, they don't adjust properly for outside factors (sometimes not even adjusting for SES! lol), and/or other lolbadstudies problems. In a nutshell, they are not studying what we are talking about itt.
However, even if all of the above problems magically disappeared, those studies still wouldn't support your conclusions or be relevant to what we are talking about itt. Use just a moment of common sense to think about why. Those studies include a hugely significant percentage of kids who are actually developmentally behind, have actual disorders, are less intelligent and less mentally, physically, socially, and emotionally capable. You are literally sorting for a sample that includes kids who have problems or are behind. Of course they are going to test/be behind regular kids, even if a little older. These studies do not measure the effects of older vs younger, but the effects of underdeveloped/disorders vs regularly developed/healthy. You might as well have cited data that compared kids who flunked grade levels to regular kids, since the flunking kids are a year older (oh wait, you did, since those redshirting studies include data from "retained" kids).
Perhaps the simple common sense opinion that older kids who are more mentally, physically, socially, and emotionally developed are better off than younger, less developed kids is actually accurate. Oh wait - it is! From the very article that you cited and then ignored, it cuts through a lot of the lolstudy BS and cites a study that actually studies what we are talking about, older vs younger, instead of lolstudies that measure ******ation and underdevelopment.
"Elizabeth Dhuey, an economist at the University of Toronto at Scarborough, has published a number of studies suggesting that the older kids are in a class, the
better they fare academically, the more leadership roles they have in high school, and the more likely they are to attend elite universities — pretty much exactly the opposite of what the redshirting studies show."
Also, think about more than just academics or sports. It's been discussed a lot itt. Social, emotional, and esteem issues are arguably more important than academic or athletic ones. TC's point about physically over-developed girls is probably the best anti-argument itt (and which I also caveated for originally, before he brought it up). That is something I don't know as much about, but can see a strong argument for, and would like to know more about and see more good studies on.
So, bottom line, you are wrong, and the advantages are not gone by middle school. Holding back an average, regular child within 1-2 months of the cutoff is most likely to produce 12 months' worth of developmental benefits that make the kid more mentally, physically, socially, and emotionally advanced than they otherwise would be, which is more likely than not to result in improved academic and athletic performance, better self-esteem, confidence, maturity, and social skills, more leadership skills and opportunities, and higher acceptance rates into better colleges.
That good enough for you?
ETA: Some of your position is also a strawman, as this is not accurate:
"I really don't get the whole "be overqualified for your grade" position." The goal is not to be overqualified. I am not an authority, but as I said days ago, the position is probably something more along the lines of:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nod88
The goal is probably to have a kid at the top of the class mentally, physically, socially, and emotionally if possible, without being bored and under-nourished in those areas.
And no, you are not going to guarantee it, but you can most definitely assist in it and provide advantages towards doing so vs disadvantages by doing otherwise.
Also, I have caveated the above numerous times, and it is not a blanket statement, since individual needs should always trump the general argument (although the general argument is most likely to be true for the majority of regular kids). I myself have not redshirted any of my kids, nor would I consider doing so except for those close to the cutoff who would most likely benefit from doing so. In fact, I sent one of my kids to school early (Oct birthday, so started K at 4, before turning 5 soon after), because he is extremely gifted, academically advanced, and does better with older kids. The others have gone to school at the appropriate times, but they do not have birthdays near the cutoff.
As a result of this thread, a good suggestion for those thinking about kids may be to include this among your considerations, possibly shooting for a Sep-Oct b-day for boys and Jan-Feb for girls. Assuming random gender of baby, average it to Nov-Dec b-day target, and if it comes close, the kid will be on the slightly older, more advantaged side without being too young/disadvantaged, and you don't have to worry about the redshirting BS. V-Day conception ftw!
Last edited by Nod88; 03-01-2014 at 11:27 AM.
