Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That first study compares kids who started learning at age 5 vs. age 7. I'm talking about children reading before they hit kindergarten. I don't think there is anything exceptional about a child learning to read at 5. Now if they were 5 and reading at 4th or 5th grade level that would be something different.
The second article is just someone's opinion.
If there's no advantage at learning age 5 compared to age 7 its highly doubtful to have an advantage learning earlier than that.
The second article I posted found that skipping had negative outcomes. This included kids who were not socially or emotionally mature....Again, ""Early school entry was associated with less educational attainment, worse midlife adjustment, and most importantly, increased mortality risk."
The authors of the study were very careful not to extend their conclusions that far (from the discussion section of the paper): "Overall, these findings do not necessarily mean that age at school entry is a primary causal factor in later outcomes." It's a correlation, not a causation.
It's also worth noting that those findings explicitly do not apply to people who were skipped later on. They compared people who ended up "out-of-synch" (more than a year older/younger than classmates) with others and only found modest correlations with increased lifetime education and increased alcohol use.
Their methods also don't differentiate between people who entered early and were (by whatever method you'd like to use) socially mature and people who weren't. What their results indicate is that early entry to school--regardless of other circumstances like maturity!--is slightly associated with negative long-term outcomes on a population level. (Early reading, regardless of whether subjects who read early entered school ahead of schedule, was also associated with some long-term negative outcomes in that cohort.)
I am not someone who believes that early reading should be a primary determinant of whether people skip/start early or not, so on that point we violently agree.
But I was identified as "different" early on and went to a program for advanced kids at a prominent University as a preschool/elementary school kid. (Not taking college classes obviously LOL)
I guess everything worked out alright. I would definitely allow my child to skip grades. But I would tell them not to be in a rush to grow up. From the child's perspective I guess being an adult seems really cool... You don't know what you've got til it's gone.
The authors of the study were very careful not to extend their conclusions that far (from the discussion section of the paper): "Overall, these findings do not necessarily mean that age at school entry is a primary causal factor in later outcomes." It's a correlation, not a causation.
I thought that was implied by the lack of the word CAUSED and the use of the word ASSOCIATED.
Besides its a strawman, it is not possible to find causality for these types of studies.
Quote:
It's also worth noting that those findings explicitly do not apply to people who were skipped later on. They compared people who ended up "out-of-synch" (more than a year older/younger than classmates) with others and only found modest correlations with increased lifetime education and increased alcohol use.
I thought the OP was in regards to a 6 year old starting 3rd grade?
Quote:
Their methods also don't differentiate between people who entered early and were (by whatever method you'd like to use) socially mature and people who weren't. What their results indicate is that early entry to school--regardless of other circumstances like maturity!--is slightly associated with negative long-term outcomes on a population level. (Early reading, regardless of whether subjects who read early entered school ahead of schedule, was also associated with some long-term negative outcomes in that cohort.)
Which is why I said YOUR sources indicated the need for social and emotional maturity.
I thought that was implied by the lack of the word CAUSED and the use of the word ASSOCIATED.
Oh, I thought when you said that "skipping had negative outcomes" that you were interpreting the abstract that way. My bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
Besides its a strawman, it is not possible to find causality for these types of studies.
Of course, but epidemiological studies often lead to further experimental research that can identify causality. Again, I was writing under the assumption above; I apologize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
I thought the OP was in regards to a 6 year old starting 3rd grade?
I thought when you said "skipping had negative outcomes" that you were talking about the study we were discussing, not the OP. Sorry. The study you posted did not show significant negative outcomes for skipping; just for early reading and early entrance to school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
Which is why I said YOUR sources indicated the need for social and emotional maturity.
You said that the negative results of the study you posted "included kids who were not socially or emotionally mature." There was no reason to believe that social or emotional maturity had any impact on the results of that study; indeed, that study showed that early entry to school correlated with some negative outcomes even when you controlled for personality factors associated with maturity (like conscientiousness) and things like early puberty that could make a younger kid seem older.
I think we're in total agreement that social and emotional factors should play a role in decisions to skip, right? I just happen to think that there are situations where skipping can be the right decision for a kid who's not particularly socially or emotionally mature because the alternative of staying with agemates is worse on balance, and it sounds like you disagree with that. That's fine.
These articles are a small sample of the research that has been done at Hopkins, and the results have answered the question "Is acceleration harmful?" with a resounding "no." Studies of groups of students who were accelerated in subject matter and/or grade placement strongly support acceleration as an effective and important vehicle for advancing the academic knowledge and motivation of talented students. Academic achievement among accelerants is high without concomitant social and emotional problems.
In my belief it depends on the child as I said. It's silly to think because a child is a certain age they must be with others who are the same age as them when intellectually they may be on a different level. We can look at stories in the relationship forum and see that age has nothing to do with maturity, lol.
My father skipped a grade and is a totally normal adult. MLK skipped several grades and is one of the greatest men in our country's history. If you want to hold your child back, then do so, but I just don't hold the same belief.
But as pointed out a couple times earlier, skipping grades means missing out on the other things learnt in that grade besides the area in which the child is ahead. A better (in my opinion) idea would be to allow children who are ahead to spend some of their lesson time doing their own research into areas that there isn't enough time in the school year to cover, to further their knowledge and widen their experiences, and like I suggested earlier, spend some of the time helping the other students, either in their own class or assisting in a younger class as teaching something helps you learn it in a different and deeper way. Just skipping ahead means a child misses out on learning, not that the child learns more.
This topic is a "mompetitors" wet dream, but despite my better judgement, I will add my experience.
I started school a year early, and then skipped 3rd grade. I coped fine academically, and had many friends and whatnot, but was never on par from an emotional development and self-confidence point of view. Going to college at 16 did have a lot of negatives too.
I don't think it had any lasting negative effects, but didn't have any positives either. Self-esteem and self-confidence are critical for healthy relationships and life choices, guaranteeing they are the youngest in the year is a bit of a crap-shoot IMO.
If the child is already on the older side and doing well academically, and is confident and mature for their age, skipping is probably to their advantage.
I think this is a very individual thing, and not worthy of generalizations and speculation.
He skipped sixth grade -- he has a mid September birthday so he is now 15, and will be turning 16 right before he starts his Junior year of high school.
It's an individual decision, but we've never regretted it and he's been just fine academically and socially. The only difference is, his friends are starting driver's ed and getting jobs a bit ahead of him. Otherwise his friends have not been noticeably different from him when it comes to maturity levels or academic ability at all and he has run with the same "crowd" for four years now.
I wouldn't think there would be a noticeable difference when he is only a couple of months younger then his peers. I had plenty of friends who turned 16 the summer before Junior year. There really isn't a whole lot of maturity differences in 15-16 year old kids.
I would think the maturity issues would be more of a problem in younger grades, and with skipping multiple grades like the OP suggests. A 6 year old and in 3rd grades means they would be with 8 and 9 year old students. There is a more noticeable difference between those age groups then there are in high school kids only a few months apart.
These articles are a small sample of the research that has been done at Hopkins, and the results have answered the question "Is acceleration harmful?" with a resounding "no." Studies of groups of students who were accelerated in subject matter and/or grade placement strongly support acceleration as an effective and important vehicle for advancing the academic knowledge and motivation of talented students. Academic achievement among accelerants is high without concomitant social and emotional problems.
Holy out of context batman!
Next paragraph.
"At the same time, the researchers point to individual students who should not have accelerated for various reasons or who accelerated too radically. So the question to ask is: "When is acceleration most appropriate and what type is best for a particular student?" These decisions should be made for individual students only after a careful assessment of their cognitive strengths, achievement, and social and emotional maturity.
First that is not a study, its is a laymans interpretation of a study. Meaning you cannot look at methods, actual data, or anything else necessary to critically evaluate any part of what they are saying. What was their sample size? Was it CTY kids (which my own child was btw so I am familiar with their program) or was it gen pop? What was their statistical significance?
Additionally, the first article discussed was not starting third grade at 6 but rather an accelerated course in math. Next article, was an enrichment summer program (I wonder why CTY would focus on that?) and the last. Last one also about COLLEGE placement.
We are talking about the placement of a 6 yo with kids 2-3 years older. Nothing in this link suggests that skipping grades is preferred to enrichment (as I suggested in my first post in this thread btw) or that skipping is going to lead to long term success.
Yet again, you have ignored results that found that kids who STARTED SCHOOL EARLY (is that not EXACTLY what you are proposing?) were LESS likely to have high educational achievement?
Quote:
In my belief it depends on the child as I said.
And this is why the actual findings of scientific studies matter. IF you are going to base this on your personal beliefs than don't pretend the science matters.
Quote:
It's silly to think because a child is a certain age they must be with others who are the same age as them when intellectually they may be on a different level. We can look at stories in the relationship forum and see that age has nothing to do with maturity, lol.
You have completely misrepresented my position. You have not stated whether the child in question has been evaluated by the school to be intellectually ahead (and once and for all reading early has nothing to do with being "ahead" intellectually), socially ahead AND emotionally ahead. Because without those three in place, it is not likely that your child will be best served by acceleration.
Quote:
My father skipped a grade and is a totally normal adult. MLK skipped several grades and is one of the greatest men in our country's history. If you want to hold your child back, then do so, but I just don't hold the same belief.
Ugh, belief. So the results of dozens of studies of thousands of kids who actually are gifted don't matter? Then fine, want to base your decision for your child on two people. Go nuts. But it isn't as if your BELIEF is supported by facts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. 
