Posts
I find this fascinating (I don't seem to be able to cut and paste, so take a look at this page):
[C]hildren who enroll in first grade at a young age learn more in school and eventually earn more in the labor market than children who enroll in school at an older age. Early enrollment in first grade increases eventual wages partly because children who enroll earlier stay in school longer, and partly because children who enroll earlier learn more even when they have the same amount of schooling as children who enrolled when they were older. Compulsory school laws provide a source of variation in enrollment age that is not associated with characteristics of parents or characteristics of children other than their birth date. This allows one to compare children who are identical in all ways other than the age at which they started school.
This is fascinating, because I've always thought the oldest kids in a class have the advantage - and I still think they do in terms of "social dominance," for want of a better term.
Of course maybe I'll discover I'm wrong about that, too.
Christopher is one of the younger kids in his class, in part because he was a preemie. His due date was the end of September; he and Andrew were born in mid August. (Those missing weeks count; don't let people tell you otherwise.)
I've always felt slightly guilty about putting him in school when we did. We based the decision entirely on the fact that Andrew was autistic and needed to get into the school system the minute he became eligible by age. Christopher was along for the ride.
Of course, we might have put him in school at age 5 anyway; I imagine Ed would have pushed for it. But I'm pretty sure I would have been tempted to hold him back and give him the "natural advantage" of being one of the oldest kids in the class instead of one of the youngest.
Now I'm thinking I was completely wrong.
I'm thinking I was completely wrong because in fact C's entire class is bizarrely young - he has an amazing number of friends with birthdays in October and November. These kids - all boys - were age 4 for months after entering Kindergarten.
And the funny thing is, this particular class may be pretty smart, judging purely by the fact that they earned the highest scores in all of Westchester County on the ELA last year. (They also had two hours of ELA instruction, so none of this may mean anything.)
In any case, I think it's fair to say they're certainly not less intelligent as a group than any of the other classes.
You can find the original paper online; Fordham Foundation writes about it here.
update
oh no!
confusion and dismay!
I was thinking there was some rational reason why I thought redshirting boys was a good idea.
Apparently there is. (hit refresh a couple of times if the page doesn't open)
[pause]
sheesh
This is exactly what I see in my school, where placement in accelerated and Honors courses is predicated on "maturity":
Paula Barnsley, while attending a Lethbridge Broncos junior hockey game in the early 1980s, apparently lost interest in the spectacle in front of her and began to read the game program. Paula noticed that most of the players were born in months that fell at the beginning of the calendar year. This began a twenty-year (so far) collaboration on relative age between Paula's husband, Roger (now President of the University College of the Cariboo), and myself. ....
[snip]
The relative age effect, is strikingly evident in activities that are competitive and where performance is highly correlated with age and maturity. As noted above, the relative age effect in sport was first noted among elite level ice hockey players. These findings demonstrated that for major junior leagues and the National Hockey League, player birth dates decreased in frequency from January through December. It was theorized that this relative age effect arose from the consequences of grouping young boys for entry into organized minor hockey, thereby producing a one-year age range for the participants. As size, speed, and coordination are highly correlated with age, older players within the age-group will, on average, show superior performance. Thus, it can be said that maturity had been mistaken for ability by coaches, peers and the individuals themselves. The resulting expectations that are created for individual children creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that provides age-advantaged children with greater self-confidence and regard by others. .... Predictably, the relative age effect has also been found in other competitive sports such as baseball,4 world class soccer,5 and American football.6 Some of our work has shown that the effects extend to emotional development7 and suicide.8world class soccer,5 and American football.6 Some of our work has shown that the effects extend to emotional development7 and suicide.8
Also to placement in accelerated and Honors courses in my school district!
I've never told this story, and I'm going to tell it only sketchily now, but earlier in the year I was taken to task when I protested that the middle school was restricting enrollment in the Earth Science course to "the smartest kids."*
"The smartest kids" was a very wrong thing to say.
Irvington does not track by ability.
Irvington tracks by maturity.
When I came home and told Ed he said, "It's the same thing."
It's not the same thing, of course.
What he meant was: they're tracking by biology no matter what they call it.
hmmm....
Here's more:
[S]chool children with a relative age advantage are more likely to show higher achievement, to be placed in programs for gifted children,9 and to be placed in more challenging educational streams or classes.10,11 Children with a relative age disadvantage, are more likely to be retained ("failed") for an additional year in the same school grade,12 to be referred for psychological assessment,13 and to be placed in a specialized group or provided with a diagnostic label for remedial instruction.14,15 As a consequence of these findings, many have suggested that parents should postpone school entry for those younger children whose birthday places them near the "cutoff" for their age group. The result of such action would place the children in question among the eldest of their eventual classmates, rather than the youngest. This contradicts an earlier tendency of parents to try and arrange early admission for children who were actually too young to make a particular cutoff.16
Have I completely misunderstood the first paper?
Didn't it say that the kids who entered school young learned more per year even when they had the same amount of schooling as the kids who entered school at an older age?
Yes, I think it did.
Funny thing is, the Fordham post mentions the early schooling is good paper and Freakonomics in the same breath.
relative age studies
* Only kids scoring in the top 10% of the country on the CTBS general science scale can be confident they'll do well; kids scoring in the top 80% of the country will find the course difficult but can handle it; kids scoring in the top 70th percentile of the country probably shouldn't try it and probably won't get tapped to take it anyway, saving them the trouble of taking it and failing.
This is Earth Science we're talking about. Which, as a friend of ours pointed out, isn't even a field.
relative age effect
high school leadership, wages, and relative age
redshirting kids
redshirting & tournament settings
25 comments:
Definetely interesting!
Couple of points from personal experience:
a) I was the youngest in my class - kids in USSR were entering school at age 7 (with no preparatory class), and I entered school at 6 because I was so eager to start school that my parents couldn't resist. I was the top student for all years. (However - I was taught to read at age 4 by my Grandmother, and was pretty prepared for 1st grade.
My son, Eugene, is the youngest in his K class - his was born in September.
Maturity level - somehow, because of common lack of behavioral restriction from homes and society, most kids, behave immature - meaning do not (cannot?) understand and consistently follow rules and common behavioral norms. With age, the ability to be consistent with lines of proper behavior seems to increase. Kids who do behave and less distractive or distracted tend to focus more on learning, thus - do better in school. At least, in some of the, maturity causes the ability to care about... if not learning then education.
Oups... I mean "If not learning, then grades..."
Unfortunately, the middle & high school aren't talking about behavior.
They're talking about executive function.
The middle and high school seem to take essentially no responsibility for student learning at all.
"Students are to take responsibility for their own learning."
That's a motto.
Alternatively: "students are to take ownership of their own learning."
The Earth Science course is far more difficult than it needs to be.
But instead of figuring out how to teach it so more kids could understand what's going on they make the course super-selective, and tell us the selection criterion is maturity.
I imagine that if you really looked at who did well this year you'd find a huge IQ correlation; the smartest kids are the ones who are going to make it.
You'd also find, probably, kids who like science very much, are naturally inclined towards science, etc.
And then you'd find the category the school admits to selecting for: kids so mature that they'll teach themselves the course when the teacher doesn't.
Those are the kids the upper schools are looking for.
Basically they want to run themselves like mini-colleges.
And that's the REgents course taught in 8th grade?
i teach Living Environment Regents to 8th grade honors - 3 classes, 10 % of kids in each class should not be taking it - and I don"t think it's the age or maturity. Some kids have more background knowledge, paid more attention in class in earlier grades or are interested insciences, so the can survive skipping the grade. For some - stady, slow pace would be more benefitial. Most kids barely earning 65 in my class would be in 85-90 in a General Science classes.
Hmm, I should wonder about correlation of their age and achievement. I can get this data...
Thus, it can be said that maturity had been mistaken for ability by coaches, peers and the individuals themselves.
I think this is absolutely true. My son was born right on the day where you could go either way. He seemed immature to me, so we repeated preschool. He's now the oldest in his class and I am very glad we made sure of it.
Academically, being younger might have made school more challenging, but since our district has a gifted program that included acceleration for him, he was challenged in the areas that he needed to be.
It's tough figuring out what to do when the time comes since most parents of first graders don't really know how the school is going to treat their kid (unless there are older siblings).
Clues might include all of those platitudes about "taking responsibility" for their education, along with tons of art projects as homework. Also, a real disdain by teachers for what is often typical boy behavior should play into your decision. Of course, you have to be a fly on the wall to figure out any of this.
I just realized where the focus on "students...tak[ing] responsibility for their own learning" comes from, and I'm about to die laughing (it is really messed up, actually, but nevertheless funny).
See, I've been researching exactly what educrats mean by "lifelong learning," and one of the key tenets was "motivation to learn – attention to self-directed and individualised learning." Combined with the "centrality of the learner," I got a strong unschooling vibe - except, of course, for the fact they mean to promote their lifelong learning through mass government schooling.
I was so focused on why it is inherently impossible for government schools to meaningful implement unschooling principles that I completely neglected to wonder what bastardization WOULD be implemented. Honestly I thought they would just pay lip service to the idea and then continue on with business as usually.
But no - I underestimated them! Why just pay lip service when you can zealously follow the letter of the law while COMPLETELY violating the spirit - is that not the bureaucratic way?
Irvington has done it! THIS is where they got their obsession with making students take ownership of their learning - only they took it to mean students being forced to "own" someone else's standard, or else. Students have ALL the responsibility of self-directed learning with NONE of the rights. Oh yeah, this is going to promote "lifelong learning."
The divorcing of rights and responsibilities really bugs me.
I'd be willing to bet that most Irvington teachers and administrators (like most people) are not big fans of unschooling. But if they don't believe that their students are mature enough to decide what topics to learn about when, or which/how many assignments they need to cement their knowledge, then what magically makes those same students mature enough to "take responsibility for their own learning"?
Catherine, on an entirely separate note, how long and how strong an impact does being a preemie have on a child, in your experience? Our ten month old daughter was 5 weeks early, and most people seem to imply the difference evens out at around a year, but I'm not sure what is magical about a year, though it seems it should matter less and less as time goes by. Friends of ours at church have a baby that was born the day before ours; however, he was full term. I constantly have to remind myself when I see him that our baby is really 5 weeks younger, and is naturally behind where he is. It's hard when everyone else in the church seems to forget that, though.
And that's the REgents course taught in 8th grade?
i teach Living Environment Regents to 8th grade honors - 3 classes, 10 % of kids in each class should not be taking it - and I don"t think it's the age or maturity. Some kids have more background knowledge, paid more attention in class in earlier grades or are interested insciences, so the can survive skipping the grade.
Living Environments is different from Earth Science, right?
I'll go check.
Yes. Living Environments
My premise is: our administrators are on a mission from God to teach easier content.
If it's possible to teach Earth Science to 80 to 100% of our students, and Pelham shows clearly that it is, we should be doing it.
If the kids need stronger preparation that in and of itself ought to raise concerns.
My view is that our middle school science curriculum is actually quite strong (I could be wrong, of course).
The Earth Science course is being taught as a constructivist course.
A constructivist course is always harder.
How do you make hard content easier to learn?
You break it down into its component parts, you provide distributed practice, and you continually check for understanding and mastery.
Clues might include all of those platitudes about "taking responsibility" for their education, along with tons of art projects as homework. Also, a real disdain by teachers for what is often typical boy behavior should play into your decision.
yes
The one possibly bad thing I've seen about redshirting one's son is that it's a little strange having a person who is basically a full-grown man attending middle school in 8th grade.
My neighbor's son is now over 6 feet tall, has a very deep voice, is heavily involved in girls --- and is still having to deal with the cr** the middle school puts out.
As far as I can tell, kids who are still developmentally boys, not men, have a little more .... willingness to be treated as children.
I could be wrong about that, but the 8th graders who look like sophomores in high school -- and who in an earlier era would be sophomores in high school -- feel really wrong to me.
When I say "wrong," I mean "wrong for them."
It seems like a horrible fit.
See, I've been researching exactly what educrats mean by "lifelong learning," and one of the key tenets was "motivation to learn – attention to self-directed and individualised learning." Combined with the "centrality of the learner," I got a strong unschooling vibe - except, of course, for the fact they mean to promote their lifelong learning through mass government schooling.
I always love that.
The 8th graders read THE CHOCOLATE WARS which is apparently about a middle school kid defying his middle school administrators.
... only they took it to mean students being forced to "own" someone else's standard, or else. Students have ALL the responsibility of self-directed learning with NONE of the rights. Oh yeah, this is going to promote "lifelong learning."
brilliant!
yes, that's it exactly
the students are to "take ownership of their own learning," but they are to have no say -- none -- in what they learn or how they learn it.
It's appalling.
If the adults have 100% of the power, they need to have at least 80 or 90% of the responsibility.
There's been a hoo-haw about the kids littering some grassy area they're apparently allowed to play on once in a long while.
So this prompted endless character-ed admonishments from the assistant principal, who told us parents that, "I've told the children to take ownership of the field. This is their school; they have ownership. So they need to keep it clean."
Christopher, when he told us about this, said, "If we own it, can't we put garbage wherever we want to?"
The answer is yes.
How I loathe character education!
Like many (most) kids his age, Christopher is a slob. This is a constant battle. (I'm not naturally neat myself; neatness & organization are a constant battle for me, too.)
Neatness and organization have to be taught, modeled, and enforced constantly.
Instead the school is engaged in shaming via therapeutic language.
These kids need to throw their trash in the garbage not because they "own" the school; they don't own the school.
They need to put their trash in the garbage because that's the rule and there's a good reason for the rule and because they need to be doing this in their childhoods in order to internalize the rule by the time they are adults.
The only reason I manage to be as semi-ordered as I am is that my mom made us pick stuff up FOR YEARS.
The divorcing of rights and responsibilities really bugs me.
ditto
But if they don't believe that their students are mature enough to decide what topics to learn about when, or which/how many assignments they need to cement their knowledge, then what magically makes those same students mature enough to "take responsibility for their own learning"?
you got me
Constructivist doctrine and practice amount to a profound shirking of responsibility by adults who are being paid to perform a critically important job -- and who are trusted by parents to perform it.
Our ten month old daughter was 5 weeks early, and most people seem to imply the difference evens out at around a year, but I'm not sure what is magical about a year, though it seems it should matter less and less as time goes by.
I don't think it ever goes away!
It seems as if that ought to be wrong; shouldn't there be something about the extra "stimulation" a baby receives outside the womb that makes a preemie more advanced than a full-term baby born the same day?
But in practice I haven't seen any "making up of ground." Christopher and Andrew's due date was within 3 days of their cousin's due date.
They were born 6 weeks early; she was born at term.
Christopher is now in 7th grade; she is in 6th.
I've never seen the slightest evidence that Christopher is ahead of his cousin. (In fact, she's ahead of him now. She's reached puberty, seems more teen-like, etc. What I really need as a comparison child is a full-term boy with C's due date.)
In any event, I haven't seen any catching up.
My assumption is that over the years the 5-week gap between your baby and your friends' full-term baby starts to be invisible to the naked eye.
When babies are 10 months old a 5-week age gap is large.
When they're 10 years old a 5-week age gap is small.
hmm...
Now I'm thinking I should try to remember exactly when C. walked -- was it earlier than it would have been if he hadn't been a preemie.
I'll ask Ed.
I don't think it was.
For several years we actually celebrated the birthday and the due-date day! ("Celebrated" meaning talked about it, thought about it, etc.)
As a matter of fact, we still do.
We still see the late September date as the "real" one.
ok, the one thing I can remember is that definitely for at least the first year of C's & A's life, we always subtracted 6 weeks from their age when checking developmental milestones.
I'm pretty sure the pediatrician did likewise; I have a dim memory that he'd look at the chart and remind himself they were preemies.
Obviously, Andrew's developmental course ended up being very off, but Christopher's was fine. My point is: our physician wasn't reminding himself that they were preemies because he was worried, but because he had to know what he should be expecting to see.
I can't believe how vague my memory of all this is now, though.
"Living Environments is different from Earth Science, right?"
Yes, Catherine. Living Environment is Biology, and Earth Science is geology, petrology, seismology, geography, ocaenology mixed together. (I teach to my 7th grade now, not up to HS extent though. I had no idea such subject exist until I started my ed classes in college:-). In school, we had Geography, which also dealt with natural resources and ocean scieances a little. But no earth science)
These kids need to throw their trash in the garbage not because they "own" the school; they don't own the school.
They need to put their trash in the garbage because that's the rule and there's a good reason for the rule and because they need to be doing this in their childhoods in order to internalize the rule by the time they are adults.
Bravo! If we are not pushed, forced, kicked to do anything, we won't do it. Only when it's a habit, the pusher can step aside.
I had no idea such subject exist until I started my ed classes in college:-)
I'm sure a lot of parents have no idea "earth science" does not actually exist!
I have to admit, I hadn't quite put two and two together.
We were talking to a friend about the earth-science-in-8th-grade situation, and he said, "Earth science isn't a subject."
duh
My kindergartener was born at the end of July. His teacher said he was "in the lowest group" in the class. He is the youngest in his class. The comments on the report card state that he forgets what he is told and he can't follow directions. I have been told my third grader has a hard time following directions as well.
Now, I have a hard time with such young, childless teachers telling me that my 5 and 9 year old boys can't follow directions. I see most of their behavior has typical for boys their ages. However, I feel as a parent, that the teachers want me to believe this is atypical.
What exactly does maturity in a five or nine year old male look like? Ha, ha.
--PaulaV
Paula,
I've seen Kindergarten teachers give multi-step instructions to their charges that even I couldn't follow without asking them to repeat. Then, they act like the kids all have ADD.
Boys particularly seem to have problems with being bored out of their minds. I see this over and over in classes. Teachers never stop and ask themselves, "Am I boring the hell out of these poor kids with my endless babbling about something no one really gives a crap about?"
At least with a veteran teacher (who might have a kid like that at home) they might just question their own method of delivery.
I was in a classroom the other day. There were no books that boys might like. All of the projects were about flowers and umbrellas and pretty spring things. The boys were wiggling and distracted.
Finally, the teacher read a book that had sharks in it and you could have heard a pin drop. The boys had carefully maneuvered themselves to be directly in front of the teacher (this was Kindergarten). She finally had their undivided attention by way of shark teeth.
My own experiences: I was born in October and started first grade in a location where the cutoff date was November 1st, so I squeaked in at age five and turned six in the second month of school. Throughout my school years, I was one of the youngest and smallest in my class. I remember in elementary school when we'd line up by height for assemblies, I was second in line behind the girl with the corrective shoes, back brace, and eye patch (I don't know whether she had scoliosis or polio or what; this was early 1970s). I was invariably picked last for kickball teams. Physically, I was probably a year behind everyone else until high school.
We moved to a different state the summer after my first grade. At the new school, the cutoff was October 1st, so I was suddenly too young for the grade I was supposed to enter. The new school made me repeat the first grade -- but only for two days, until I exhausted their math and reading placement tests (reading tests went up to sixth grade) and they decided I was worthy enough to attend their second grade classes.
In high school, my rival for the valedictorian / salutatorian positions was a year and three days older than me.
My niece was also born in October, in the state where the cutoff is October 1st. Her parents decided to delay a year rather than fight over her being a few days past the cutoff. She's about to graduate as valedictorian of her high school, with musical and athletic talent to boot.
The main differences I can see are that she's always been athletic, whereas I didn't blossom athletically until high school, and she is a lot more confident than I ever was or will be.
Post a Comment