Later in the paper, the authors note that (paraphrased) for high SES kids, a later entry is advantageous, while for low SES kids, a later entry could be disadvantageous, due to the relative quality of the home environments.

Is there a social advantage in forcing all students to perform at the same level, at the same age? Or, do we want students to perform as well as they can, given their individual circumstances? Why the emphasis on restricting the choices middle-class parents can make, rather than trying to improve the educational environment for those children most at risk?

Also, the argument about losing a year of earning potential is very weak. Do you think that we´ll have a set age for retirement in 20 years? I don´t. As a matter of fact, I think that economic forces will force the age to rise into the 70s and beyond. Even now, white collar workers are much less likely to be forced into retirement. Those children who enter the professions are more likely to work longer.

I should have been more clear in my post. I think that shortening a person’s childhood is (generally) a bad thing… But then, my kids aren’t geniuses who are bored because they already know everything (I’d actually consider skipping a child ahead in that case, or private school, or home school, but that’s another topic.) My 4 children are rather average, scholastically, so please keep that in mind as you consider my point of view.

Nope, no “magic 18th birthday”, except in the eyes of the law.

And I held my 4 year old back, not my 5 year old… and he is not bored, he actually struggles with writing quite a bit, but does fairly well in other areas. He’s now looking forward to 5th grade, even though he’s one of the oldest in his class.

Hope that clarifies some things. It’s ok if you don’t agree with me. You made some good points. I value your opinion, hope you can tolerate mine.

Lori

Indeed, that is the vital question. Certainly my child was *not* ready for kindergarten, but red-shirting wasn’t a offered option. Today he’s doing nicely.

I suspect if we’d red-shirted him, we’d now be crediting that rather than simply his natural maturation in later grades.

One should note a few things about the study.

(1) It does *not* say that no-one benefits from red-shirting. Only that the on-average there is no benefit.

(2) Between a narrative that makes sense, and data that contradicts that narrative, the narrative will almost always win in the minds of anyone but a few statisticians. Red-shirting will continue.

(3) Statistically, it doesn’t do any harm, and it allows parents another measure of control in a system that allows for very little. That may be a good in and of itself.

(4) For most parents, grades are only one measure of success. Red-shirting may have other rewards for students that are not measured.

Huh? Lots of kids go to college at 17, some at 16 or 15 or younger. What’s the issue? That they aren’t legally adults? Therefore, what, precisely? what magic change occurred on their 18th birthday that made college suddenly within their abilities but not the day before?

The point is that they are done with school. Boring them to tears when they are 15 and stuck in junior high might be something to consider when you decide to hold your 5 yr old back to pre K.

when you say it “Worked” for your kids, are you claiming your kids got an ADVANTAGE out of it that they would have otherwise not had? Or merely “my kid did well enough by my standards”. Because your own anecdote says “everyone else is doing it too”–doesn’t sound like an advantage to be had there. Sounds like a fallacy of composition on your part.

What data do you have to claim if you had let your kids go ahead a year earlier, they would have done worse?

Here’s the NY Times piece referenced in that Slate article. I would think it’s fairly obvious even before reading the article how redshirting disadvantages low income kids, but this article’s emphasis on income should make it clearer.

I am confused. Are you arguing that “better prepared” students are problematic? How are low income children disadvantaged? I do agree that red shirted students may not be better prepared, but no one has given an example. Why couldn’t we get one negative anecdote on this issue? I am not sure that babbie’s post was a negative anecdote.