Casual observation suggests that many parents are holding their children back a grade to improve their academic performance later on. The theory is that for some kids, not being behind in the pack can help them stay with the pack and assist learning. The problem is that studies of whether this actually helps or not are plagued by the likely fact that parents who choose to hold kids back might be doing so for reasons beyond simple learning; e.g., for other socialisation or maturity factors that confound later measurement of performance.
A new study looks at a Norwegian 'experiment' that takes parental choice out of the equation. In Norway, children start school based on the year they turn 7. So if you are born on December 31 you are a year ahead of a child born the next day. Effectively the same age but the New Year's Baby has been randomly red-shirted. The authors then look at the measured IQ of children entering the military at age 18 (apparently most people) and relate it to these date issues.
It turns out the age you start school matters little for the IQ test score at age 18. But those who start school late have reduced earnings up until about age 30.
The upshot of this is that there are no reasons to hold kids back or time births for some age advantage in class. It is not clear whether it goes the other way -- that is, we don't know if accelerating kids might help. My guess is that more caution in terms of moving around school entry away from standard practice should be the rule for parents rather than erring on the side of having your child be the oldest in the class.
A new study looks at a Norwegian 'experiment' that takes parental choice out of the equation. In Norway, children start school based on the year they turn 7. So if you are born on December 31 you are a year ahead of a child born the next day. Effectively the same age but the New Year's Baby has been randomly red-shirted. The authors then look at the measured IQ of children entering the military at age 18 (apparently most people) and relate it to these date issues.
It turns out the age you start school matters little for the IQ test score at age 18. But those who start school late have reduced earnings up until about age 30.
The upshot of this is that there are no reasons to hold kids back or time births for some age advantage in class. It is not clear whether it goes the other way -- that is, we don't know if accelerating kids might help. My guess is that more caution in terms of moving around school entry away from standard practice should be the rule for parents rather than erring on the side of having your child be the oldest in the class.
Posts
6 comments:
Our son is ahead academically. We are waiting to send so will be able to simply sit still for the better part of six hours.
Any thoughts?
Take away his chair.
Ok, a couple of comments on this:
1. From the online excerpt it does not show if earnings have been controlled for entering vs. not entering the military. I was in the last cohort for which serving in the military was mandatory - but Norway, like Germany, has a civil service alternative and I think that is mostly mandatory, but with more loopholes. This is still only compulsory for males, which is seen clearly on the female earning scale. The extra year makes the Norwegian system for the cohorts entering school at 7 a +2 years on entering the work force vs. the US/UK. The current system entering at 6 and service not being as stringently compulsory makes it less than +1 year on average vs. US/UK etc.
2. It does not mention which cohorts are used. If I recall correctly the first cohorts who started school during the year they turned 6 should have turned 20+ by now at least. I haven't lived in Norway since finishing my compulsory army duty, so it's hard to recall exactly which cohorts it changed for.
3. Maturity plays a much larger role I suspect in these decisions than anything else. But that kind of thing usually plays out much later - i.e. University start, the extra two years I had on most my same-years in Uni was very noticeable (starting school at 7 + military duty).
I wonder what the result would be if they measured happiness or life satisfaction later in life in addition to IQ and earnings?
Here in the US, it is the accepted practice to hold boys back. Most of the school systems have a cut-off date of 9/1. My youngest (who I did not hold back) has a June birthday and was the youngest in his class. It's hard to tell about the maturity thing. I felt he was appropriately mature for his age, but for his grade, when compared to kids almost a year older, he was seen as immature by his teacher.
the hillesheims: If you keep him at home, he'll just end up even further ahead of the rest of his (future) cohort, and more bored for more years, and graduate later. Send him off and get used to the idea of the teacher complaining about him fidgeting in class for a while (since he's a boy, they probably would anyway). Take away his chair is probably good advice, but sadly like parents at dinner time, teachers don't often go for that.
More seriously: it probably doesn't matter all that much, either way, and averages are a good guide for general policies, but not a great guide for your particular child.
Joshua, you're probably already aware that Susan Dynarski has a newish paper out on red shirting, but if not this is a heads up.
Post a Comment