‘The Graying of Kindergarten’
A new study draws attention to the social consequences of a decades-old trend in parenting: having kids start school a year later. For years, research showing the benefits of being an older first-grader, as well as the experience of countries like Finland where schooling doesn’t start until age seven, has encouraged parents and teachers to “redshirt” kids. In 1968, 96% of six-year-olds were enrolled in first grade or above. By 2005, that number had fallen to 84%. The percentage of six-year-olds enrolled in school, meanwhile, stayed about the same. What does that mean for late-starting schoolchildren years down the road — and for the rest of us?
Harvard’s David Deming and Susan Dynarski, in an NBER working paper published this month, write that “increasing age at school entry intensifies inequality in human capital and social welfare.” Kids who start school a year late have one year less schooling before they reach the age at which they’re allowed to drop out, decreasing their average educational attainment and widening the gap in learning between rich and poor. (Low-income teenagers are more likely to drop out.) And those who do stay in school enter the labor force a year later — decreasing their average lifetime earnings as well as their contribution to Social Security.
Deming and Dynarski note that, in the last 40 years, almost every state has raised the age at which children can start school. “This change is remarkable,” they write, “given the strong evidence that, in the United States, starting school later decreases educational attainment.” With the U.S. having fallen to the back of the pack in terms of the education of its schoolchildren, this issue is something to pay attention to. –Anton Troianovski
I have two children, age 6 & 4 that both have birthdays in the late fall (Nov 3 and Oct 1)
The decision to delay their start has a lot more to do with their experience, not whether or not they will receive $10 a month more from Social Security when they reach 79 years old! Do these Harvard geniuses really believe SSI is there for my kids 60 years from now?
The problem with American schools is NOT this issue. The problem is the lens from which the study is looking- how can American schools create better robots for American businesses?
I started school a year younger than most kids and it had no negative impact at all on me. As a matter of fact, it probably helped me mature and understand things a bit faster.
I think here in the US we worry too much about the kids’ “experience” as Matt states above. That’s balloney. Kids start socializing and learning from day 1. So what’s wrong with sending them to school earlier? NOTHING. Keeping them at home longer only retards their learning quality.
Pure math a play here. No comment on how much better or worse our kids are if they delay one year. I would think that a more confident child would actually learn more and not be a problem in the classroom thus attaining more education for himself and those in the class. Lower income children have other issues to deal with that I would think have a much bigger impact on educational attainment than starting a year later.
Sorry, but this article is further reinforcement that we cannot trust information just because it has a Harvard or elite title. It is govt. documented that the Hispanic population is the reason our national drop out rate has increased ( and my family is Hispanic ). The older start date has actually kept the drop out rate minimized.
So a larger percentage of six year olds are now in K rather than 1. Why? How much is due to the school districts changing the required date to start school? How much is due to parents choosing to “red shirt” their children? How much is due to the increase in special education usage or ESL requirements? If we agree that getting kids in school earlier helps them do better in life (which would be in line with every evaluation of Head Start I’ve seen), then understanding the cause(s) will help us improve education.
What are they talking about? For those that I know who decide to hold their child back, dropping out of high school is not even thinkable. Nor is failing to finish college.
You don’t base a policy on a factor that is utterly irrelevant to most Americans.
There is more to life than “lifetime earnings.”
I started school a year younger than most kids also, and I also agree it did me no harm. I think the most important thing is to provide children the support to learn when they are ready for it, and for some children that’s later and for others that’s earlier than the magic 6 year milestone. I was ready earlier, and I can already see DD is perhaps going to be ready earlier than average. What I object to in the US system is assuming that all children can be taught at the same rate, in the same way, at the same time, which is just silly. Comparisons to Scandinavia are pointless. In Sweden, all 2 year-olds go to daycare because otherwise they have no one to play with.
I would note that it seems like the trend in the private school arena to start kids later in kindergarten so that when they apply to kindergarten their child is more mature and has more “school experience” under its belt. No wonder my daughter did not do as well as those kids as she was an “average” kid and the private schools preferred those “repeating kindergarten” to my daughter!?!
Is there really that big of a difference between a drop out with one less year of education and another drop out with an additional year?
That’s what I would want my kid to do if he started school a year late - work an additional year (even if he didn’t have to) so he could pay into SS.
“[D]ecreases educational attainment”. So a kid starting a year later than another, but both end up with the same degree has somehow decreased educational attainment. It seems this argument is solely related to drop outs. See para. 1.
getting a college degree in Sociaology can have an adverse effect on one’s lifetime earnings.
I’ve noticed that boys are the ones starting later. It could be that parents recognize that boys mature a little later than girls both physically and emotionally. It is also parents who feel their sons will excel in sports more if they are the older ones on the team possibly increasing their chances for college scholarships.
I should have guessed the research would focus on what is of 5th-order importance to the vast majority of people making these decisions. Yeah, I’m going to ignore research showing the better performance of kids who start school later, and instead worry about the possibility that my kids would have one less year of schooling when they drop out at age 18! Why don’t they show the marginal value of 1 additional year of schooling *conditional on dropping out* (hint: who cares! it is zilch). Moreover, one less year working at a higher wage rate is vastly better than working a few extra years at a low wage rate. I can’t believe public money supports research that yields these ridiculous conclusions
I believe parents are choosing to “redshirt” because the demands of kindergarten have increased over the years. For example, most districts have gone from half-day to full-day kindergarten; children are expected to read and perform simple math, which used to be reserved for first grade, etc. Kindergarten now takes a higher level of maturity then it did before. Besides … what’s the rush? If childhood is to be the best time in one’s life, then why do we want to rush our children through it?
Just repeat kindergarden people. Nothing wrong with 2 years of kindergarden.
I started kindergarten at 4 and turned 5 at the beginning of the year. I lacked in size and mental maturity. I was held back in second grade and it was the best thing my parents could have done. I was one of the more mature children in the grade and my confidence (and grades) rose accordingly.
For most drop outs, educational attainment in terms of years in schoold does not matter. The time and money would be wasted anyway.
The extra year of maturity before entering school might make them more likely to succeed and stay in school.
The focus of this study is indicative of the point of view of the liberal education establishment; that education is for the benefit of society, not the individual. This point of view is what leads to the denial of school choice for low income children. Allow competition for educational dollars and the supposed reduction in social security contributions will be more than offset due to higher earning levels.
I agree that the article is retarded. However, I also think that parents who are holding their children back are creating problems with the system.
Today’s parents are more apt to send their children to pre-school, so they obviously feel that their children are ready to start learning. The only reason parents are holding kids back in kindergarten is that they don’t want their kids to be the youngest in the class.
As a result, my two boys, who have August birthdays, are in classes with kids who are up to 18 months older than they, creating disparity in the class. Someone has to be the youngest, so suck it up parents of young kids - just send them to school at when you’re supposed to.
I also started school at a younger age and it did me know harm at all. In fact there are times when I am falling over backwards and foaming at the mouth (or is it foaming ath emouth and falling over backwards) wear I kant remember a single thing from when I was six. Now theirs the solution!
From what I have seen in my kids very diverse school district - I agree with Steve. The lower income/not highly educated parents kids seem to go to school earlier as their parents need to work and kindergarten is free daycare for a few hours and after school care is more affordable than many other day care options. Conversely, those of us with high education levels ourselves seem to be the ones who are holding our kids back if they are on the age limit border. Also - do the study authors realize what is required of kids in kindergarten today - no finger painting and nap time, they are learning to read and having to sit quietly doing their work for extented periods of time.
I did the opposite, started kindergarden at 4 1/2, who knew better back then. I always felt behind and was smaller and less mature than my classmates half way through college. Its no fun to be a 4′11″ 85 pound freshmen boy in high school? By the time I entered the workforce that was all reversed, but when my wife told me that she too was a late bloomer we knew what we would do with our own kids and frankly wish we had let them be closer to 7 not just 6. Parents should judge not the nanny state or some Harvard academic.
I was lucky enough to be placed in school very early 4 1/2 and always did well. By starting early I was able to graduate from law school early and was easily the youngest person in my class. But then kids today are not nearly as smart, so i would fully expect that parents should keep them out of school until at least 10.
I was a december baby, and started kindergarten at age 5.
I couldn’t keep up, and was held back to re-do kindergarten. I’ve never been able to live down the mistake my parents made. So when it came time to decide my childs start date, it was a no brainer. These types of studies are an incredible waste of time. Thank goodness the vast majority of parents choose the correct start time for their children, based upon how they percieve what is correct for their child.
It’s not about what the right age to start is, it’s about being the youngest and a little behind or the oldest and a little ahead. While what you know at age 8 is not that important, establishing the pattern of success is. I have a much younger sister, and at age 8 she knew she doesn’t like math. That’s never going to reverse itself in the next 13 years of school. Maybe if she was a little ahead instead of a little behind (she was an October baby), she wouldn’t have found it so hard initially and everything would have been different. It’s a tough question to answer.
My nephew who just turned 4 is already reading second grade level books, but still has a ways to go before kindergarten. His parents are even thinking about having skip kindergarten and go straight to first grade. As for me, most of the guys I played basketball in high school with were a year older, but in the same grade. Where are we now? I work for a Fortune 100 company, and at least 3 of them are in the State Prison for running an oxicotin ring. Sounds to me like you should send your kids to school earlier rather than later.
People have to remember, as written in the piece, that starting a year later also means you receive one year less of pay. And that one year lost is the last year of pay you should have received if you started school a year earlier (i.e. someone who starts work making $50,000 a year but ends up making $100,000 at the latter years of their employment actually forgoes a $100,000 paycheck). Basic opportunity cost.
I agree that the extra year is especially helpful for boys. My son has the skills but not the social maturity to sit through all day kindergarten. I also feel that there should be some boundaries. My daughter had an eight year old in her first grade class. Bullying and sports are both a problem in that case.
Your writing/spelling is a perfect reason to keep children back a year.
When all parents want to hold their kids back a year, so they will be the biggest, and most amture kids in the class, then we will be back to where we started from.
Wow Bay Area Mom, you sure came off sounding like a total elitist with your comments. I’m sure if the children in Bay Area kindergarten classes make a peep in class they’re probably from less successful parents and should therefore be given Ritalin.
It depends on the intellectual needs of the kid.
I started kindergarten at 4 1/2 yrs old and went on to start college at 16 yrs old, obtaining my college degree by 20 yrs old and my law degree by 23 yrs old (law schools don’t have accelerated programs, unfortunately).
Although I was always a bit socially immature for my classes until the end of high school, I was always at the top of the class. My parents (I believe mistakenly) even held me back from skipping a grade early on because of fear of maturity issues. I can’t imagine being even more intellectually powerful vis a vis my classmates by being closer to their age. I would have gotten into even more trouble from boredom, etc.
Just have your kids in the fall and all will be well
School start dates are not based on what is based for the child but rather what is best for the teachers unions. California has tried to move the cutoff date back to a reasonable date for years but every time has been thwarted by the powerful teachers union which fears a loss of kindergarten teachers and therefore union dues.
Back by popular demand, a new video from Dr. Lee Warren on the future of the US economy :
I had an August birthday and my parents chose a private Christian school for Kindergarten. I was a year younger than all of my classmates and was never physically smaller. Being picked on in school was never an issue. The positive effects have far outweighed the negative. I was as mature and socially adjusted as any of my classmates. For high school I matriculated to a college prep boarding school. My age was never an issue and I relished being young. It was a point of pride. Unfortunately, that pride faded when it time to college. I desperately wished to be 21 and drink socially with my friends. I’m 22 now with my MBA and couldn’t be happier to be entering the workforce so young.
What is the likelyhood that a parent involved enough to hold their kid back from Kindergarten, is going to be uninvolved enough that the child will drop out of high school? I am so glad i didn’t waste my money on an Ivy League education if that is the best they can produce. Neither will my kids be wasting their money on it.
Not sure who should be shown the door first: the research authors or the WSJ writer who is reporting that this non-sense is something to pay attention to. Both our children were born in late fall, her experience lead us to hold our second child back. I would hypothesize that in ‘68 parents followed the ‘life cycle script’ that school started at six and one was married by 24; I don’t believe that script is rigorously held now. And finally, that focusing on when children start school is absurd when the issue apparently is the dropout rate.
This is just dumb…you can not even take this seriously if you don’t look at the success of the kids who start later and don’t drop out. This guy went to Harvard? Would have been better for all of us if he dropped out…
I think it’s better to start kindergarten at age 5 because if one is too immature or performs poorly academically one should be held back and be more mature going forward. Why hold a child back before they even start school?
In the article it says that Deming and Dynarski say that children who start a year later get to the legal drop-out point a year sooner. The article points to a connection between low-income people and drop-outs. But do low-income people practice this later school starting a lot? It seems to me that they would be more likely to start their children on-time than later (or earlier).
I have a January birthday and was a good reader when I entered Kindergarten. My first grade teacher had me tested and based on my social maturity and age, I was moved to second grade after two months or so.
My mother years later said that some neighbors shunned our family because I got special treatment and their kids did not. Mind you, this was in 1959 when parents were less competitive about their offspring.
Later in HS, I felt socially immature compared to my peers and the fact that my puberty was delayed did not help either. That senior year was tough. But in college, it did not matter.
The intangibles of being one year off probably cannot be reliably assessed for 10 years.
Typical of the ultra-elite Harvard academics to focus on the lower class while ignoring the overwhelming majority of those who remain in school.
You can’t trust anything coming out of Harvard, especially politicians and biased research.
In my neighborhood there are two reasons parents hold back their children: 1) To give their child an academic advantage over their younger classmates so they have the honor of being in the gifted track; and 2) To give their child an athletic advantage in sheer size and speed over younger classmates.
To me it was very strange seeing several of my child’s classmates with adult teeth when they entered kindergarten.
I always thought parents who choose to send their kids to kindergarten sooner are just trying to get them out of the house sooner after they graduate from high school.
Many of you probably won’t believe this but I only attended first grade, no higher grades. Those twelve years were the happiest of my life.
Educators arguing for more education earlier, now that is shocking! I would argue that it would be better if parents made more of an effort to educate their children by removing the Game Console, TV and Music and letting their Children read and developing curiosity unencumbered by the opinions of the entrenched bottom 10% of every graduating class who become teachers.
Finland is a great model for a non-diverse culture with intact families but when you are saddled with educating feral children from dysfunctional families with the bottom 10%. Good luck.
Just to add to the anecdotes: I was a late September birthday and started “early”. Looking back on it it was probably a mistake. I didn’t have the mental maturity.
I caught up by about 6th grade, but my early teachers hated me (immature space cadet) and I struggled badly at reading. I was fine by the end of high school (1500 SATs) but nearly failed reading in grades 1-4/5.
Many of you would never believe this, but I never went beyond first grade. Those twelve years were the happiest of my life! And I was always FIRST IN MY CLASS!
I have three sons, the third of which started a year late. The third is in his second year of high school and has been this highest achiever of the three. Had we entered him into school a year earlier, his relative immaturity and diminutive size would have likely caused socialization and confidence problems that would have resulted in a much different outcome.
I suspect that these conclusions have ignored the fact that holding kids back seems much more prevalent in middle and upper income families that are able to do so because one parent is not working or they can afford day care for a kid that is not in school. In the case of lower income families, there is likely much more willingness to put a 5 year old in school to alleviate the financial and logisitical challenges that confront working parents. I suspect that the folks who conducted this research don’t have kids and this rather obvious relationship escaped them. Has anyone ever noticed that many low income kids also tend to have stellar attendance records? Same logic applies.
Causation vs. correlation: if parents are more likely to hold kids back who show less intelligence, then the red shirts might be more likely to drop out independent of their decision to delay school a year, and may be avoiding higher dropout rates that would have occurred had the children not been red shirted. I hope this analytical error is the result of lousy reporting rather than poor study construction. This is a Harvard study, afterall. The point about taxing the social security system, however, is a valid (if axiomatic) point.
I have two kids with late summer birthdays who are among the youngest in their classes. One thing to keep in mind is that school is easy for bright kids — if you hold them back a year you could be making a big mistake because they will be bored.
When my district was considering changing to a later cut off for kindergarten, the superintendent noted that the younger high school seniors as measured by grade point averages did better.
I dropped out at the earliest age possible and now i can ride my bike with no handle bars, no handle bars….
I’m guessing the negatives “proven” by the Harvard researchers do not apply to the typical socio/economic position of most WSJ readers. I started both of my children later; my wife and I had concerns, but in a million years we would not thought to be concerned that they would now reach the legal age to drop out of school a grade sooner. There goes my sleep tonight.
Two points:
1. Our school district used to let parents test in if their child was close to the cut off date. No more. Now it is very difficult to get an expection & the cost for testing is on the parents. My son is born in October & he will start K. this fall - on time but age 6.
2. I am curious if part of the desire to keep kids out longer is more kids in early education options like Montessori & pre-school. I work full time & my son has been in full day Montessori for the past 2 years. If he were home with me I might have felt more push to get him into school to socialize & learn. Lots of districts don’t have full day options - so an extra year of of preschool is an easier option.
I love this: “increasing age at school entry intensifies inequality in human capital and social welfare.” Isn’t that the whole point of holding your kid back? It’s to give him a leg up and widen the gap between him/her and other students because good jobs are a scarce resource. Maybe on average kids who start later do worse, but not in the WASPY demographic of the WSJ. Face it people, we are trying to widen the gap between our own children and everyone else’s so they aren’t in a position to lose their job to a 3rd world worker. Ideal? No. Reality? Yep - welcome to America.
Seems a little silly and incomplete: May we please know the relationship between school-starting age and drop-out rate? starting age and income after graduation? starting age and PARENT’s income? starting age and life-expectency–amplifying or attenuating the earning life time?
And finally, the relationship between starting age and tendency to do incomplete statistical analyses under the Harvard banner?
And I though it was all about fulfillment, not earning power?
Economics101 wrote that the ‘lost year of pay’ is supposedly the last year of pay. In actuality saying that someone ‘loses a year of pay’ because they start kindergarten 1 year later is the same as saying you lose one year of education because you’ll drop out when you turn 18. One would actually ‘lose’ 1 year of retirement, and have an extra year being supported by parents. It’s likely this is a net positive to the child’s lifetime economics.
From another viewpoint, if it’s a positive for children to start school at 5, why not just start them in kindergarten at 3? Then they’d all graduate high school (at 16 and not old enough to drop out) and be rich from suddenly working 3 extra years.
This article appears that the outcome was decided before the research and statistics were gathered to prove it. I’m sure a bright guy from Harvard could prove anything he wanted to with statistics.
All kids are different, one year they are tall for their class, the next year they are average or short. One year they are the brightest, the next year they aren’t.
Why is Findland so far ahead of us?
IT IS BECAUSE THEIR PARENTS ARE INVOLVED WITH THEIR KIDS, THAT IS WHAT MAKES A CHILD SUCCESSFUL AT SCHOOL.
I, too, started early. I was 5 in the first grade (they called it “double promotion” back then - I jumped over Kindergarten. The reason for this was simply I was the youngest in a family of 4 children, and I had already been socialized and had a good grasp of basic colors, numbers, etc. (in playing “school” I was always the student). It did not harm me one iota. I was not “traumatized” when it came time for dating or wearing clothes that children in my class were able to wear. I understood I was not physically old enough for some of those activities, and I had to wait! What a concept? Let a child face some disappointment and see how they adapt and react!
Parents and Non-Parents - there are many factors to consider when contemplating starting a child early or late in school such as, various aspects of maturity, coping skills, critical thinking, intelligence, confidence… Moreover, the fundamental role of a parent is to prepare and equip a child to A) survive and B) to contribute to the betterment of society. It seems too often parents and mentors get caught up on items such as acquisition, conquest, MEASUREMENT, dominance. I have three kids, each of which will be evaluated based on what’s best for them to learn, grow, and contribute to society. Moreover, one will start school late just because they’re emotional maturity merits more time.
Not a good idea to hold a child back unless the child is very immature, which can be checked by testing. my son & his best friend (bf) were both born on the same day 13 years ago. My son entered kindergarten at 5 while bf was held back for “maturity” reasons and to help him academically. Both went to (different) private schools. After 4th grade, the private school wanted to have bf repeat 4th grade. NOTHING was “gained” by holding him back. Both are average students - struggle in some things, great in others and OK on the rest. Bf has been the biggest kid in his grade. my son has been the 2nd smallest boy to 2nd largest. my son is in 8th & bf is in 7th. nothing was gained by being held back
Have none of you really considered why many parents are starting their kids later…for sports. I know lots of kids who were held back by a year so by the time they reached high school they were a year older and more mature and developed than the competition, thus increasing the chances of being recruited for college. It’s sad but true that so many parents actuall do this.
As a November born, I ‘tested in’ to an early start to kindegarten to be with my friends, but then a series of moves to new, bigger towns with my small-town parents left me being the youngest and having the shortest leash…..being the youngest of 535 high school classmates in these circumstances wasn’t ideal.
I am seventeen years old, and I am going to be a junior in high school this coming year. My birthday is in late June, and my parents decided to have me wait a year before I started school. My best friend, whose birthday is also in June of the same year, started school a year before me. I have found that I have carried so many more advantages than him in school, such as being ready to take on certain things mentally that he was not ready to handle. Also, I have found that I am able to go to school to learn rather than simply to just get through school as fast as I can, which I am sure would have been my mindset if I had gone to school a year earlier. I agree with my parents’ decision.
I would say that it is rather silly and immature of a parent to hold his/her kid back for sports. I know personally that the best athletes in my grade are not necessarily the oldest, in fact many of the younger kids are great athletes.
Parents who redshirt their children believe that outcomes in life are determined by relative achievement. For example, they feel that their children will be better served by becoming Little League All-Stars while competing against younger teammates. This is clearly sub-optimal for society, but it does strike me as rational. The Harvard researchers seem to have missed the fact that many parents would prefer their daughter to graduate from Harvard at age 23 than from State U at age 22.
Did anyone actually read the paper by Deming and Dynarski before posting a comment? Just curious.
more elitist nonsense. everyone is different.
This is another one of those affirmative action studies that concern themselves with the disadvantages to black students ( who have the highest dropout rates). Of course it came from Harvard!
What is missing (at least in the WSJ article) here is who holds their kids back. The dropout problems the authors describe is for lower-income teens, but are lower-income families more likely to hold back entering their kids in K? My daughter is entering K this year and will turn 6 in Oct. We decided to wait because of the large age range of kids that are starting school and we felt it would be better for her to be one of the older kids. Also, we were very happy with her pre-school which allows her to develop social interaction skills…does the study look at how many of the “redshirt” kids attended pre-school? It seems that the authors have confused correlation with causality.
What garbage. I have 4 children, all remarkable individuals, very unlike one another. It would be stupid to assume what worked for first 3 would be best for the 4th. this dopey study is the best evidence i’ve seen of the falacy of using statestics to make individual decisions.
The decision on whether to send a child early to hold them back should be based on the needs of that individual child. I started kingergarden at 4 1/2 and even though I did well with the scholastic work throughout by education I was way behind physically. Starting High School at 4′11″ and 110 lbs was not an easy experience. I have two boys, one who repeated kindergarten because he was slower to mature and the second will be starting kindergarten this fall because of a later birthdate. We believe it was the right decision to hold ours back, just as my parents considered it the right decision to start me early. Each decision has it positives and negatives, so make a decision & go.
The article is addressing macro effects - something not casually observable to the “man on the street.” In that sense, this study has a very interesting finding. The anecdotal stories are just that anecdotes. For the record, mine is being held back because of a late birthday making me older than most of my classmates. It was a real problem for me. I would have much preferred being younger. Think: I’m 35 working with a bunch of 20 year olds. How good does that feel? Not very.
I have a 5 yr old who is entering K this year. Is an Aug born and is likely to be youngest. I have no worries. When you hold back a child you are really doing a disservice to your child. You are essentially training him to be a bully. Just go by whatever cut off your school has and be a good parent that’s all you need to worry about. If you don’t spend time with your child it doesn’t matter whether you send him/her to school early or late.
My kids were born in Sept, in TX where the cutoff is Sept 1st. My friend’s kid was born in Aug. They decided to hold back their kid so that he would have an advantage when playing high school football. The funny thing was that my friend is 5′6″ and his wife is 4′11″–I doubt his kid will make the team without serious steroids. I graduated from a NY school at 17 at the top of my class. I don’t think holding kids back gives them an advantage in any way (or increases standardised test scores). Pushing them ahead too quickly is just as bad. Fortunately for us, we were back in NY before our kids started school, so they didn’t have to get held back.
I find it interesting that only 2 comments thus far include the word “sports.” As someone who grew up with this phenomenon all around me (I am now 26) I can pretty much guarantee you that the vast majority of “redshirts” are held back by their parents for sports reasons. These kids are primarily boys whose parents wanted an extra year of maturity so they would excel in sports. This usually works until about age 15 when everyone catches up and the “redshirts” were no better than the regulars, like me. Wake up, if you don’t mention the sports connection, you aren’t truly understanding this phenomenon in our educational system.
A colt can stand up on it’s first day of birth.
The thing that sets us apart from the other creatures is our slow development. I know many highly intelligent individuals that had a very difficult time in the early grades.
It is time to recognize that children develop differently and that our cookie cutter educational system does not work.
We started our daughter in Kindergarten when she was 4 1/2, she turned 5 in Nov. We planned on repeating kindergarten all along. We couldn’t financially afford to keep her in privte preschool another year, so we figured we’ll just repeat kindergarten. Well, guess what? Once they enter the system, it’s not up to the parents anymore. The school promoted her to first grade and no matter how much we beg and plead and show evidence of anxiety, they say she passed the academic requirements and she’s ready for first grade. She goes to the best school in the San Diego Unified School district(Jerabek) and it seems like they have no regard for parent’s opinions.
yes chicago dad! I completely agree
Having entered Kindergarten barely knowing any english, and of course one of the youngest in the class, you’d think that school would have been hard for me to adjust to let alone do well in. By first grade, I was reading 3rd grade level material. The teacher had to escort me to other classrooms to find a book that didn’t bore me. By third grade, it was 6th grade material. Stop blaming your child’s (or your own) lack of intellectual growth on the fact that they entered school early. If anything, socializing with those more socially and intellectually mature would be beneficial for your child.
Who do you think does better in life: The average child who starts kindergarten at age five, or that lucky kid - irrespective of the age at which he or she begins school - whose parents read The Wall Street Journal? Most of us know the answer. Trying to apply the conclusions of the Harvard study to our own lives (unless, of course, we are involved in the noble cause of educating disadvantaged students) is like mixing apples and turnips.
To John Sterling:
I can’t speak for others, but for my family it’s not about relative achievement. It’s about what is best for the child. We held our 2nd oldest back (summer birthday — today in fact!) because we thought he lacked the maturity. Academics wasn’t a concern — he was reading at 4. We don’t regret it a bit. I wish we had done the same with his older brother, who also has a summer birthday, is the youngest in his class and it shows.
So please don’t assume that every parent that does this has a deluded sense of competition. It’s actually possible that the parents are carefully considering what the right path is for their child.
economics 102! Awesome observation
I sincerely hope no one uses this study to make decisions about their children. They are all differrent. My youngest was held back from starting due to a Oct b-day—and he was the brightest of the bunch.
I am disappointed. If I was thier boss I would be embarrased by what they have stated. As some other have commented it doesn’t pass the common sense test. My youngest son started at a earlier age than most kids and even though he is a smart kid looking back I would of held him back for emotional and physical maturity. What a waste of money !!!!
Instead of doing a study on how to keep kids from dropping out, they waste their time on focusing on whether the future dropouts should start a year later or not. Real good use of research time.
The problem here is how the data is being interpreted by the Harvard folks. When the dropouts are lumped in, on aggregate the picture looks bleak. The more interesting point, and the one that everyone seems to be alluding to in their comments, is what happens to the educational attainment of those children who do stay in school for the full 12 years; is it better or worse than a control group?
To David -
Your words speak your motive. You said your oldest “is the youngest in the class and it shows.” I understand others whose motives were more specific to the child not being ready to pay attention in the full day of kindergarten. Ultimately, someone has to be the youngest in the class. So, over time, with your logic, the age of kindergarten will get older and older.
Again, we need to draw the line somewhere. I understand August or September birthdays being held back. But in my oldest’s class, 2 boys with Spring birthdays were held back only because the parents wanted to give them an advantage over the other kids in the class. That mentality is what I am criticizing.
This is a Straw Man about when to start school.
Clearly students need to be in school more days out of the year.
In Japan, graduating from 12′th grade was equivalent having completed sophomore year in college by days in school.
Parents, Legislatures, Educators, Policy Wonks WAKE UP!
The authors are stating some simple facts here. While parents continue to focus on the deleterious psychological effects of competition on their children, other countries are gearing up their educational institutions and to prepare their children to compete globally. The number of U.S. children pales in comparison to our global intellectual property competitors: India and China. If we do not prepare our children to be globally competitive, Mr and Mrs Krishna will be hiring Amy and Jordan Smith to clean their home and Cameron & Taylor Jones to plant their sod. Wake up voluntarily or it will be forced upon you. Your job as a parent is to prepare your child for the future. Do your job!
Start them girls early.
Boys ..yeah start’em late. Yeah, later the better. Dem boys’ll be real big.
I find this study really odd given the personal experiences of my Mom who taught kindergarten for over 20 years. I disagree with this article and I question the researchers in reaching their conclusions. Even though anecdotal, my mother related to me as I was growing up the overwhelming cases of suffering of children who were not ready forced to enter kindergarten. Age is not what drives success in school so a child can be 5, 6 or 7. It is a combination of both developmental and environmental factors that contribute to the probability of a child’s success in school. Perhaps one should question whether school is being used as cheap childcare?
Let’s just start them working down at the ol’ sweatshop when they turn 12, and then they will have six extra years of income! Give me a break! The maturity of the child is what matters, and the resulting confidence of doing well compared to their peers if they NEED to be held back. Later success in life will no doubt improve with higher levels of confidence and social skills. What a screwed up study!
When kids start is NOT the biggest problem schools face by far.
Poverty and parental educational attainment are much more reliable predictors of how kids will fare in school. My mother-in-law taught kindergarten, and she used to say that she and other teachers could pick the kids who were going to struggle and drop out. They were the kids who came to school having never had a conversation with an adult, not knowing their alphabet, their colors, their numbers; having never been read to; not yet toilet-trained; wearing the same clothes, obviously slept in, for an entire week, etc.
Pushy parents can be a real problem, but neglect and inattention have more serious consequences.
I was among the youngest in my class (born on 9-30, the deadline for school admission in many states back then). I didn’t suffer academically, but I sure could have stood an extra year of maturity in high school and college. A better solution than waiting a year to start school, however, would have been a mandated year or two of public service. We could do a lot of kids a favor by requiring this.
When to start your child in Kindergarten could have absolutely nothing to do with the parents, as stated above, the rules have changed in many states that limit when someone can start. My child is an October baby and will be 5 going on 6 when she is allowed by the state of Texas to enter public kindergarten. However, she will have the benefit of a year of private kindergarten before making that step. One way around the rule is to have your child go through private kidergarten and then put them directly into first grade in the public school system. Since she will have a Kidergarten certificate from a recognized school, they would let her automatically enroll in first grade if we choose.
Comment by Are they serious,
I totally agree with you. One particular case comes to mind my Mother related to me. She had a boy who had an IQ over 120 but maturity and social skills of 0. Instead of participating with the rest of the class, he played with some toy cars under the desk. As my mother predicted, he had trouble throughout his school years since kindergarten and never quite fit in. He developed behavioral problems and had problems utilizing his high intelligence.
Here is a link to the paper, for those interested: