Starting school as the youngest kid or oldest kid - redshirting

[InglewoodFan]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'd wait. Nothing sadder than the first year university students who were to young to go out to the bars with everyone else.


Priorities.

Thank goodness ID laws were a lot more lax in the '80s.

[You Need a Thneed]

I was born in late February and wasn't held back. Doing well at school was never a problem for me. I could read quite well before starting kindergarten. I suspect that had I been held back, I probably would have skipped a grade to get me back to where I actually was.

I graduated having turned 17 a couple of months before.

[WhiteTiger]

Hunh, this is something I'd never have even considered. Put me in the "started early" pile, though. I was always the youngest in class, and was also not able to be served until 1/2 way through my first year of University.

Don't have an opinion one way or the other, though it's something I'd never have even thought about, so it's interesting seeing the sides (and how folks are mostly on one side). Makes me wonder about the pro-start 'em early reasoning.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by Qwerty

January baby here - I wasn't held back.

It does a number on your social life (more in teenage years). I played hockey growing up and every second year I had to be on a team with everyone from the grade below (big deal when it's different schools, middle vs high) and not any of my friends because of the age cutoff. Something to consider if also putting them in sports.

Education wise I was fine, but the social/sport aspect shouldn't be forgotten.

Edit - Also your kid will be drinking even earlier in life as your friends will turn 18 a full year before, same with driving, etc. You spend a lot of time feeling behind in life and a fake ID is a necessity.

Exact same scenario here, being an early January baby and not being held back. I agree with your overall assessment except at the end where you go a little crazy into alcohol culture. Are you planning for your kid to be going through AA in their early 20s?

[taco.vidal]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

Teachers I've talked to (including my wife) seem to pretty much universally recommend waiting a year. I don't think they can start that young in any other province. My son was born in February and we held him back, I think it was the right decision. Often the youngest kids are far less mature and socially developed which can cause problems, a year makes a huge difference at that age.

I thought CP loves scientific evidence or at least academic research rather than anecdotal stories.

The teachers opinion isnt suprising.

The research shows that there is little or no advantage to academic redshirting for the kids. If you can find something new research that shows otherwise Id appreciate seeing it.

The research does show the older kids have an athletic advantage. Thats not surprising as you can even see kids that get growth spurts first will do better at sports.

Some research also shows that the redshirted kid will earn less over their lifetime because of losing a year of their working years.

If youre in a school where more parents are doing this, then it can make youre choice harder as not doing could make your could one of very few young kids in that grade. From what I recall, the research said that wealthy families were more likely to hold their kids back the kids were special snow flakes and the parents could afford the extra year of child care before K.

[troutman]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/redshirt...or-the-better/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/redshirt...en-04-03-2012/

Gladwell reported that a majority of Canadian junior all-stars had one thing in common.

Gladwell: The overwhelming number of kids are born in the first half of the year.

Gladwell cites the work of economist Elizabeth Dhuey at the University of Toronto who analyzed the data of hundreds of thousands of students in 19 countries. Even as late as the eighth grade the older kids had higher test scores than their classmates. She believes that's because the older kids got more attention from the start.

[nfotiu]

If everyone is holding their Jan/Feb kids back, then it makes your kid even younger and you really don't have much of a choice.

[troutman]

Beyond the Pros and Cons of Redshirting
When it comes to delaying kindergarten entrance, there’s lots more at stake than a single child’s competitive edge.
http://www.theatlantic.com/education...irting/401159/

A new study published in the journal Contemporary Economic Policy offers perhaps the latest piece of evidence that redshirting is little more than a silly fad—or, as one pair of economists put it in 2009, a “suburban legend.” The new study, by Cornell’s Kevin Kniffin and Ohio State’s Andrew Hanks, looks at whether redshirting influences the likelihood that a child will eventually obtain a Ph.D. The fact that this degree is held by less than 2 percent of the U.S. population makes it a meaningful metric, the researchers say, because it reflects an exceptional combination of academic achievement and ambition; its exclusivity also makes it somewhat comparable to Gladwell’s hockey-selection data. The study found that redshirting has virtually no impact on Ph.D. attainment.

What’s more, it could even undermine a future Ph.D.’s potential lifetime earnings. Based on their analysis of approximately 14,500 freshly minted Ph.D. recipients, the researchers conclude that a student who isn’t redshirted could end up earning $138,000 more over the course of his or her lifetime than someone who is.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by Qwerty

January baby here - I wasn't held back.

It does a number on your social life (more in teenage years). I played hockey growing up and every second year I had to be on a team with everyone from the grade below (big deal when it's different schools, middle vs high) and not any of my friends because of the age cutoff. Something to consider if also putting them in sports.

Education wise I was fine, but the social/sport aspect shouldn't be forgotten.

Edit - Also your kid will be drinking even earlier in life as your friends will turn 18 a full year before, same with driving, etc. You spend a lot of time feeling behind in life and a fake ID is a necessity.

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I was born in late February and wasn't held back. Doing well at school was never a problem for me. I could read quite well before starting kindergarten. I suspect that had I been held back, I probably would have skipped a grade to get me back to where I actually was.

I graduated having turned 17 a couple of months before.

Yah being born in January and Febuary would make you the oldest kids in your class, it is typically the November/ December born kids that are held back. I'm a December baby and was not held back, was always the youngest in the class, graduated at 17. I also laughed at the two other December kids who were a year older but still in my grade (it was a very small rural school) as they were held back.

EDIT: this only applies if the cut off is Dec 30 which I thought was the rul but apparently it may be different.

[Matty81]

Interesting... not an option in BC. The calendar year defines your start year with no choice allowed (which I think is better than trying to engineer it).

That said I am a February kid and I got the opposite of red shirting... I got started a year early with the kids from the previous birth year rather than being one of the older kids in my own grade. School was easy still, all the impact was physical differences. When I went, they used to fail kids still, so there were a bunch of kids I was in class with and some I was friends with who were a full two years older than me for my whole school life. That was a noticeable gap.

Which was awesome when you needed a ride or someone to boot for you in high school, but not so much for sports for a year or two in junior high when you're waiting for your growth spurt to kick in and playing basketball against kids with beards haha. My own experience - didn't have a huge impact but I was way better in outside sports than school sports where I was consistently smaller than my schoolmates but really good against kids my own age, I would start my own kids with others in their birth year and not try to engineer it even if it was an option.

[snootchiebootchies]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

I thought CP loves scientific evidence or at least academic research rather than anecdotal stories.

The teachers opinion isnt suprising.

The research shows that there is little or no advantage to academic redshirting for the kids. If you can find something new research that shows otherwise Id appreciate seeing it.

The research does show the older kids have an athletic advantage. Thats not surprising as you can even see kids that get growth spurts first will do better at sports.

Some research also shows that the redshirted kid will earn less over their lifetime because of losing a year of their working years.

If youre in a school where more parents are doing this, then it can make youre choice harder as not doing could make your could one of very few young kids in that grade. From what I recall, the research said that wealthy families were more likely to hold their kids back the kids were special snow flakes and the parents could afford the extra year of child care before K.

In terms of finances, the extra year of childcare is a real factor in deciding whether or not to redshirt your child. But I've never understood the argument about redshirted kids earning less over a lifetime. Such an argument assumes each child will attend school for the same number of years and start similar careers at the same time and retire at the same time. I'm almost certain that there are a myriad of other factors (level of education reached, type of profession chosen, amount of student debt, personal spending/saving habits, etc.) that are more important in determining a person's earnings over a lifetime than whether or not he/she was redshirted at age 4.

[GGG]

The decision to move the date to the end of February from The end of January in Alberta was due to a lack of kids one year or a surplus in the following year. So no thought from when a kid is ready for school was taken.

I also think the 1% world of CP naturally selects itself to higher achievers who wouldn't have had issues under either option. It's why the Phd study linked above is flawed as it only looks at the elite who would have succeeded anyways. A better study would be high school graduation rate and university graduation rate.

[Slacker]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

Ha! I had no idea "redshirting" was even a thing that existed outside of NCAA athletics

I thought this thread was about parents turning kids to Star Trek red shirts

[V]

No question holding the kid back is the better decision.

[CrazyCaper]

My son was born in late January and we decided to enroll him early. He is now about to turn 12, in Grade 7, and has the 2nd highest average in his class. Each kid is different but starting him early certainly hasn't hindered his development.

[taco.vidal]

Something else Id consider is whether your child was born premature.

Id suggest to look in to it further if thats the case, but Ive read news referring to studies that suggest preemies struggle in school and the case for holding them back is stronger as the extra development time helps them catch up to full term kids. I havent seen the studies themselves.

[Kjesse]

I've typed out a long post but deleted it because I'm not sure, but to say there's "no question" you should delay is I think wrong.

You have to evaluate you child based on their development. I won't have the option the OP has because the new law will be in effect by the time my daughter hits 5, but, based on her current development I would not hold her back a year. She will be more than ready.

That said, I can also understand how waiting a year might give her a leg up relative to the others.

I've concluded I don't know. I came from a family where it was sink or swim from an early age and I'd rather present a challenge for my little girl than delay her a year to give her a possible leg up. Of course, I'll be there for her all the way through and give her what I can to help her succeed.

[ma-skis.com]

Again, most studies and statistics would say that waiting the year would be more beneficial. We waited, but based on what I've seen with my son, I can confidently say he would have been fine one year ahead as well. Mostly by the way he interacts with the older kids in sports, and his ability to follow instructions etc in school. We had some other factors mixing in, mostly moving back to Canada and attending a bilingual school at the time that encouraged us to wait when we were deciding at the time.

If your kid is ready, they're ready. Use your judgement as a parent and understanding of your kid in social situations with others, without your presence, other peoples authority, reading ability etc. Studies say all sorts of things, but if your kid doesn't fall into that specific percentage, then that stats don't really matter at all.

[MacFlame]

I'm a February baby and started school at four. I never felt as though I was an equal amongst my peers (including all friends) throughout school. Some of that was certainly my personality, but I do credit a lot to my age. Puberty was obviously later than my peers, couldn't go to the bars with my friends until my second year of college, etc.

I never realized that the insecurity I had growing up was related to my age, but looking back on it now, its clear as day to me that it was a problem for me.

I took me until my late twenty's to realize that it was all in my head.....

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

I thought CP loves scientific evidence or at least academic research rather than anecdotal stories.

The teachers opinion isnt suprising.

The research shows that there is little or no advantage to academic redshirting for the kids. If you can find something new research that shows otherwise Id appreciate seeing it.

The research does show the older kids have an athletic advantage. Thats not surprising as you can even see kids that get growth spurts first will do better at sports.

Some research also shows that the redshirted kid will earn less over their lifetime because of losing a year of their working years.

If youre in a school where more parents are doing this, then it can make youre choice harder as not doing could make your could one of very few young kids in that grade. From what I recall, the research said that wealthy families were more likely to hold their kids back the kids were special snow flakes and the parents could afford the extra year of child care before K.

Ya i've looked all over the internet and i think i came across that too. Academically eventually it doesn't make much difference. Then again i saw a study that countered that study. However every other site and paper i looked at is negative towards being the youngest in the class.

There's studies that show it can take kids till their late 20's to get over being emotionally behind for so many years. Compare your childs scissor use and drawing to a kid that's a year older. You'll see there's a difference.

If it helps, i've talked to about ten teachers and all of them say holding back is better. Unless you're a teacher?

In Finland their kids start at the age of 7 and apparently children are academically ahead compared to other countries in the same age group.