
Study: Kids whose parents hold them back from school a year have advantages - dsr12
http://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/science-says-were-sending-our-kids-to-school-much-too-early-and-that-can-hurt-th.html
======
rhapsodic
For two of my children, my spouse and I decided to send them early because
they missed the cutoff by a few months. Our reasoning was, we could either
give them an extra year of preschool childhood, or post-school adulthood, and
we decided the latter was more valuable.

From an academic standpoint, both children were able to excel. There was no
question they were smart enough to start school.

But one child was shy, and not socially adept. And I think we made a mistake
with that one. That child is the smarter of the two, but is not doing so great
as an adult.

The other was both socially and intellectually gifted as a preschool child.
That child is still in high school, and is thriving both academically and
socially, and has very specific, ambitious goals for college and career.

Gender indicators in this post have been left out deliberately. I realize they
could be germane to the discussion, but I left them out for the sake of
privacy.

~~~
barking
I think that the fact that one of your children was naturally shy is the real
issue. Shy people tend to have difficulties that non-shy people don't have. I
could be wrong of course, but that's what I believe, as a shy person who on
account of my birthday started school about a later than average. I also have
siblings who are utterly different to me and who are high achievers etc.

~~~
ErrantX
I think its more nuanced than that. I am very shy, but I think have done okay
largely through being ambitious, which cut through shyness at key times. A lot
of people I work with are the same story I think

~~~
barking
True, there are lots of factors at play. All things being equal though I
believe shyness is a hindrance to being successful both socially and
professionally in the conventional sense.

~~~
axlprose
As a shy introvert myself whose even been suicidal in years past, I'm
thoroughly aware of the obstacles it presents. However, since becoming a
personality researcher, my views have shifted to viewing it more as a net
positive for a lot of things, and it's certainly less of an uncommon opinion
these days:

[https://youtu.be/85s9wJlzkrk](https://youtu.be/85s9wJlzkrk)

That being said, there are a variety of other character traits that play a
role in _how_ different people reach success, thus part of the issue is simply
the interpretation of "success" itself, because quite often we look to very
specific examples of successful people (e.g. Steve Jobs) or paths, that don't
suit our personality taits nor strengths at all, and set us up with
unrealistic expectations for ourselves.

Success comes in all forms, shapes, and sizes, so there should be no reason to
let certain traits limit us on the hunt for success, when the game is largely
about filtering out the noise and focusing on paths and pursuits that actually
play to our strengths, instead of ones that make us perpetually anxious and
stressed out.

------
ThrustVectoring
The huge elephant in the room is the our education system isn't built or
designed to be in the best interest of children. School does a few things very
well - it frees parents from needing to be available for their children during
working hours, it conditions students to accept obedience-based hierarchies,
and it makes it much easier for bureaucracies to interact with the public as a
whole. None of these are central needs of children.

If holding your children back for one year is good, how about twelve?

~~~
UweSchmidt
Most people are in no position to teach their kids appropriately. If you have
a highly motivated, well educated stay-at-home parent it can work great of
course.

Otherwise, yes, there is incredible untapped human potential wasted in today's
schools, unfortunately.

~~~
sytelus
Home schooled kids largely miss out on lot of things. The quality of education
(surprisingly) is irrelevant here. The major thing that school enables is
socialization, ability to interact with other kids, form friendships,
face/become adversaries, collaborate, strategize interactions and so on. All
these social aspects would play much larger role in their lives than any
formal subject they learned. In ancient times, this would been naturally
enabled as parents go on doing their duties and kids in the village play/work
together all day. In modern times, school is usually the only available close
approximation.

~~~
js2
We home school our kids and I cannot disagree more strongly. I'm not sure
where this myth that home schooled kids miss out on socialization comes from.
We don't lock our children up at home.

My daughter (16) is outside the home for: piano, spanish, voice lessons, horse
riding, and acting. She currently helps TA kids at a local community theater.
This is not to mention the time she spends with her friends.

My son (14) is outside the home for: piano, spanish, soccer. And also to play
with his friends.

They also both regularly take extra curricular classes. Just one example:
[http://ccee.unc.edu/youth-new/classes/bolin-
creek/](http://ccee.unc.edu/youth-new/classes/bolin-creek/)

I went to public school. My kids are much more socialable than I was at their
age. The social environment at public school is nothing like the real world
and I'm glad to have my kids skip it.

~~~
yequalsx
I notice that the activities you describe your kids doing are, for the most
part, structured. How do you know they are socially adept or sociable? Will
they freak out once on their own? I have 15 nieces and nephews from 2 sisters.
Both home schooled through elementary school and one did it for all of k-12.
The k-12 homeschooled kids were done a great disservice by their mom. She has
b.s. degree in accounting and is in no way qualified to teach kids.

I guess my pint is that our anecdotes cancel each other out but I'm curious to
know why you think homeschooling is benefitting your kids. Why do you think
you are qualified to teach them the variety of subjects one learns in high
school. Why do do you think they are more successful being homeschooled?

~~~
js2
> the activities you describe your kids doing are, for the most part,
> structured

It wasn't an exhaustive list of their days.

> How do you know they are socially adept or sociable?

You'll have to take my word for it.

> Why do you think you are qualified to teach them the variety of subjects one
> learns in high school

We're both college educated. My wife has a masters degree. We use
outside/online resources to fill in subjects outside our expertise or that we
don't have time to learn ourselves first. My daughter is taking a college
level chemistry class. Next year (11th grade) she'll be taking classes at
community college. We have both kids take standardized tests each year to
measure their progress against their peers.

But honestly, I don't know what your HS teachers were like, but I think I had
maybe two competent teachers in my HS. It's not a high bar to beat, no that
we'd stoop so low.

~~~
yequalsx
I know you believe they are sociable. But how do you know that when seemingly
most 9f their activities are structured? Would they adapt well if the
structure wasn't there?

I'm assuming you've never taught high school. I haven't either. I do have a
lot of experience teaching in higher ed though. I was recently paired with a
high school teacher and visited his classroom. I doubt I could teach high
school. It's easy to denigrate them but apparently they didn't do too bad with
you.

Personally I think think it's absurd for soneone to think that they can teach
without any training. There are outliers and seemingly you are one of them.
Though you'll never know if you were a benefit or hindrance to your childrens'
education. They are clearly successful so it's bit important whether or not it
is because of your teaching or in spite of it. One thing is certain though.
Your experience is not normative. What you've done has been successful but is
it replicable for anything beyond a small percent of families? I'm skeptical.

~~~
js2
> I know you believe they are sociable. But how do you know

You keep asking this. It's an absurd question. I'm their parent. I see them
every day. I watch them interact with other kids. I see my son stand up for
the next door neighbor younger brother against his older brother. I see my
daughter keep the peace at a sleep over party with a dozen friends and wildly
different personalities. Besides that, you imply that public school confers
sociability to children, an assertion with which I disagree. I'll go further:
my kids have friends who are both "schoolers" and homeschoolers, and as a
rule, it's the home school kids who are more polite, more sociable, more well
adjusted.

> but apparently they didn't do too bad with you

I have done okay in spite of high school, not because of it. They were the
worst years of my life.

> Personally I think think it's absurd for soneone to think that they can
> teach without any training.

My cousin is a special ed teacher, and an excellent one at that. She teaches
in D.C. I couldn't do what she does, and I haven't claimed that anyone could.

Home schooling is a different situation. It requires dedication on the part of
the parent (like doing anything well of course), but it's not that hard. There
is a wide variety in how parents approach home schooling, from unschooling at
one end, to very disciplined like a traditional school taught at home at the
other end. We're somewhere in the middle. Our kids have a lesson plan each
year. They have a daily check list of items. We leave it up to them to manage
their day. Here's today's:

[http://imgur.com/bRYpGQr](http://imgur.com/bRYpGQr)

I'm writing from experience, not just about my own kids, but having family who
are teachers and having been involved in the home school community as well as
reflecting about my own experience in public school and that of my siblings. I
never claimed home school was for everybody, but I think you over estimate its
difficulty and give way too much credit to public schooling. I think you
underestimate how much time is wasted in public school, and completely
discount things like bullying and cliques. My K-12 school years were an awful
social environment filled with horrible kids and mostly disinterested
teachers, and were nothing like the real world.

> They are clearly successful so it's bit important whether or not it is
> because of your teaching or in spite of it.

This is condescending to the point that I feel like you're trolling. I have
nothing else to say.

------
rlkf
These kind of studies tend to be riddled with methological errors. For
instance, one of them found (as usual) that autumn-borns had lower grades than
spring-borns. However, once adjusting for the parent's education level, the
results were opposite.

~~~
M_Grey
This is for me, the big issue and the reason why these kinds of studies have
begun to just fly under my radar. When a couple of decades of "research" in
various fields adds up to, "Flip a coin, any coin..." something is off. Mind
you, any attempt to bring this up to people involved is met with more than
just hostility, and usually a mixture of exasperated condescension and and
accusations of unfair standards. If you press, it usually comes down to,
"Doing the best we can," which is nice for gymnastics, but less so for
published research.

~~~
prolly_a_moron
> _If you press, it usually comes down to, "Doing the best we can," which is
> nice for gymnastics, but less so for published research. _

If "doing the best we can" is too low of a standard for research, then it's
all garbage. Yes, there are many problems with some of the research out there,
but you deal with it, not ignore it all. The purpose is to reduce uncertainty,
not "get the right answer".

~~~
im3w1l
Doing-the-best-we-can science is valuable. But we should be careful about
turning it into policy. I'd rather stick with tradition than very uncertain
science.

~~~
M_Grey
Who suggested anything about turning this into more than a _personal_ policy?

Edit: Not to mention that if you want to publish "tradition", don't call it
"science".

------
commieneko
I seem to fall into both categories. I started kindergarten at age 4 and went
three years; my mother used a private kindergarten as a kind of daycare. I
started first grade at age 7. I learned to read in first grade almost
instantly and was reading children's novels, not picture books, in just a few
months. My brother, by contrast, who followed the same academic path, taught
himself to read around age 4 by looking at comic books that I was buying.
(This was all in the early '60s.)

Academically I did so-so. Less of a problem with ability than boredom. I got
into a good college solely on my standardized test scores. In college I had a
B average.

One advantage that I remember from being a year older than my classmates was
that I was considerably larger. I was large for my age, and a year older to
boot. Despite being bookish and a nerd, before that was considered a good
thing, no one would mess with me. Plus I went to kindergarten with, and was
friends with kids that were up to two years older.

A lot of that faded away as we all got older and the differences evened out.
But the main advantage, in retrospect is that I always considered my self an
outlier. I didn't need peer support to be interested in things and didn't
really care much about what everyone around me was doing. I expected to do the
unexpected. I got into computers and computer graphics in the late '70s when
no one had even heard of such a thing. I was playing with the internet long
before it became a thing, or was even very useful. I started my own business a
year out of school was doing entrepreneur type things until I hit forty.

(A downside is that I would often get bored with something _before_ it became
a thing, and would have moved on to the new shiny before something got
viable.)

These days I'm involved in education, university level and adult education,
and it's interesting to see the mix in student's ages at the other end of the
education cycle. Older students, especially those that have been out of school
for a while, are much more motivated and serious about their subjects. I
suspect there is quite a bit of selection bias here, as those not serious
aren't likely to try and get more education. But I also see some younger
students who are delighted to suddenly be in a place where they can take their
education seriously and stretch their abilities.

------
ChuckMcM
They had my interest until they quoted the Gladwell Hockey spec.

Maturity and age are correlated but not causal. I could easily believe that
success in school is strongly correlated with maturity (I have observed that
students that are less mature than their peers are disciplined more often and
teased by their peers, both have a strong correlation with poor scholastic
achievement) and that children whose maturity is lagging their peers, will do
better if they are only started in school when their maturity supports it,
however I have also observed that children seem to be maturing at later and
later ages.

Given the preponderance of evidence of children in the 19th and 20th century
demonstrating much higher levels of responsibility and maturity at a younger
age[1] it seems that there is more at work here than just 'age.'

Finally, in the study[2] doesn't break it down across socio-economic groups
rather, from their abstract : _" We estimate the causal effects of delayed
school enrollment using a "fuzzy" regression-discontinuity design based on
exact dates of birth and the fact that, in Denmark, children typically enroll
in school during the calendar year in which they turn six. We find that a one-
year delay in the start of school dramatically reduces
inattention/hyperactivity at age 7 (effect size = -0.7), a measure of self
regulation with strong negative links to student achievement"_

I'm going to guess that the physical number of years a person has at the start
of their school career is not as big an impact on whether or not they have
self control issues as the parenting impact on the first 5 - 6 years of their
life.

[1] It is also possible that immature children in the 19th and early 20th
century simply died early.

[2] [http://www.nber.org/papers/w21610](http://www.nber.org/papers/w21610)

------
glangdale
Ugh. We have lots of people in our area into the whole red-shirting thing,
where parents send their kids later and later, then bitch about kindergarten
not being 'academic' enough for their enormous child who is 1-2 years older
than the other kids.

I seem to recall that most studies show the advantage of this practice fades
over the years. As the article suggests, class is heavily correlated here with
the practice (more likely to be able to afford another year of childcare).

------
icc97
Reminds me of the 90s UK sci-fi comedy series "Red Dwarf" and the bitter
cowardly Rimmer whose alternate reality self was held back a year in school
and now is a daring, heroic test-pilot [0].

    
    
      [0]: http://reddwarf.wikia.com/wiki/Ace_Rimmer

~~~
aaron695
Very off topic, but it's still coming out. The was a season released late last
year.

------
wordpressdev
When I started schooling, parents used to send kids to school at around 4
years. Now, kids see teachers as early as 1 and half years of age. This is
ridiculous.

We did an experiment and sent our youngest to school when she was 5 years old.
She was home schooled using some apps and books - in her own time and
depending on her mood. Now, her teacher says she's one of the brightest in the
class, a quick learner filled with creativity.

~~~
mistermann
Can you recommend any good apps/books/websites for home schooling? I'd very
much like to find a (paid, preferably) website that has excellent video
presentations followed by exercises and tests.

~~~
wordpressdev
I used a number of free apps for pre-schoolers available on Google Play Store
to teach basic English skills (words, rhymes, counting) and simple maths.
Haven't bought anything fancy.

------
uptownfunk
As someone about to have a kid this is quite interesting. My personal
experience - I took a break from college for a few years (well, five) and when
I came back I felt more emotionally and socially mature than I was when I
first joined. I was also older than all the kids using college as their first
out-of-house explore-the-world experience. It made my whole experience that
much more rich and enjoyable and worthwhile.

I think it's important for kids to learn the fundamentals in school correctly.
If delaying my kid a year helps them feel and be more mature and adept to
handle school, I'm for it, and maybe I'll also give them that gap year or two
after high school to see the world and explore it a bit before they get ready
to tackle the books in college.

I think another dimension of this whole thing does boil down to the natural
nature and tendencies of the child. Would also recommend everyone to watch
"The Beginning of Life" on Netflix if you haven't already, a very eye-opening
perspective on kids, education, and how living situations differ for kids
around the world, very eye-opening.

------
dragonwriter
How much of this is being held back a year, and how much is “parents who
actively make a non-default education choice are, on average, more engaged
overall in their child's education, providing advantages”?

------
Spooky23
I always thought it would be interesting to look at birthdate and correlate
against other items.

Based on news stories and personal observation in various datasets, there is a
lot more sex going on in the holiday season and dead of winter, as births
spike July-September. Late night activity starts slowing down in February.
I've always been curious if kids born in these peaks get less attention, are
more likely to be unplanned, less likely to breastfeed, are more miserable in
the heat, etc.

Birthdate heatmap: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2145471/How-
common...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2145471/How-common-
birthday-Chart-reveals-date-rates.html)

------
cmrdporcupine
Biggest mistake I made as a parent was sending my late-birthday (October)
daughter to all day junior kindergarten here in Ontario before she was 4. The
gov't has switched the program here to all day, and Ontario has an unusually
early start for kindergarten (3.5-4). She was intellectually way beyond her
peers (reading at 3) but emotionally and physically unable to handle the no-
naps, no-hugs, lining-up, sitting-still atmosphere of a public school.

She would have been better off with another year of her daycare centre.

~~~
kbenson
That interesting, in Northern California where I am it seems like preschool is
not much different than daycare, other than they also try to do some
educational segments. For example, my children went to a daycare and preschool
combination school, where they moved them to a different "class" each year
(much less formal, named dragonfly, butterfly and firefly classes), and the
closer they got to kindergarten, the more education material they would
include (usually just letter/number recognition). That said, it was still a
very relaxed, environment, and they still took naps, got hugs, etc.

~~~
cmrdporcupine
Yeah this is a full public school kindergarten, inside a public school. It's
not a preschool, but a school.

I'm not a fan of it, but for lower income families it may actually be a god-
send.

~~~
kbenson
My mistake, I misread it as preschool. Yes, kindergarten here is more
structured and in the public system (and is what preschool is supposed to ease
them into). For my youngest, we were lucky to get in on a pilot program to
pre-kindergarten (transitional kindergarten), which they offered for children
that missed the age cutoff by 3-4 months. It was still offered by the public
school, but was in-between preschool and kindergarten in activities.

The length is still short though, as is normal kindergarten, so they're only
at school for about 5 hours.

------
mkagenius
How about a hack -- start the KG late, but later skip the 7th grade?

------
ThomPete
There are no rules, there isnt even a proper definition of being successful.

------
anothercomment
I seem to remember reading that while the younger kids were disadvantaged
during school, they made up for it later and overtook their peers. Presumably
because they were used to working harder.

~~~
tedunangst
Unless they become accustomed to doing poorly and internalize failure.

~~~
anothercomment
Sure, it seems a lot could go wrong. Unfortunately I could not readily find
the article in question again (damn you, Firefox bookmarks manager). Instead I
found one in German that said kids who are schooled at a younger age have a
significantly higher rate of ADD diagnoses, suggesting they are being
misdiagnosed because of their younger age.

------
anotheryou
I whished I would have been with older classmates, I connected much better
with those a year ahead. I also was boored from the 2nd year of elemantary
school onwards.

However I don't remember the extra kindergarden year and how nice it probably
was compared to school. I'd guess this was more important, but I'm not sure.
After all it's 1 year (an important year though, becuase childhood is so very
important), against 13 years that might have been better.

Finishing school a year earlier I don't see as a benefit. It took me extra
year after school to really know what to do further anyways.

------
dba7dba
Read an article about NHL players with late birthdays few years ago.

Majority of NHL players have late birthdays. It means kids that are just
slightly older than teammates by just a few months have advantage over early
birthday team mates. This advantage helps them advance over younger ones (just
by a few months) through their young hockey career and eventually to NHL
career.

~~~
ec109685
Or athletically minded parents tend to have children on certain months.

Correlation is not causation.

~~~
npunt
Both arguments are not equally plausible though.

The argument for the compounding effects of physical advantage relative to
peers is a lot stronger than the supposition that parents would happen to have
children on certain months.

~~~
ec109685
Unless you conduct a study where you divide peer groups blindly and send some
early and send some later, it is just a (educated) guess this is the reason.

Otherwise, you can just walk trough data sets until you find one that meets
your conclusion.

------
nhumrich
Personally, I am glad I went a year early. It means I started college a year
early, and was ahead of all my peers by that point in time. I pushed hard in
school, and I finished and entered the work force really early, jump-starting
my career. All that even with taking two years off in the middle of my college
years.

~~~
startupdiscuss
What is the benefit of starting your career "early"?

What happens in the "end"?

~~~
joefourier
In general, programmers (and similar individuals) do not have the best
experiences during elementary and high school.

Why wouldn't you want to get to the stage where you have freedom to make your
own decisions, to control how you spend your time, to earn and spend your own
income, as quickly as possible?

------
artur_makly
our toddler is in Montessori 3hrs a day. mixed with kids that are 1yr younger
and 1 yr older. its the sweetest spot.

------
mattbgates
My mom held me back in kindergarten. I don't remember, but she says the school
told her I wasn't "mentally" at the educational level that the other children
were at. I could be upset about it, but I don't think it ruined my life or
anything. Graduated high school at age 18.

------
bahmboo
It could also be an indicator of the parents inability to discern what is best
for the child. It can be a tough call but it should be a decision based on the
characteristics of the child. I would never fault any reasonable parent on the
choice. Statistics and all, it's 20/20 hindsight.

------
tvanantwerp
My mother taught 1st grade for 30 years. I had a late birthday, and she made
sure I waited a year. Her anecdotal experience from teaching was that the
late-birthday kids who came in early weren't ready for school and often did
worse / behaved worse.

------
pagnol
> They taught multiplication, but none of them knew that multiplication is
> used to find the area of a rectangle. Their most common guess was that you
> add the length and the width to get the area.

Am I the only one reminded of fizz-buzz by this sentence?

------
coss
not surprising, very similar to Gladwell's hypothesis about star hockey
players being born in the months of January - February. Students a year older
than other students have a huge competitive advantage.

~~~
prolly_a_moron
Especially in the early years of life, when the 11 month difference between a
January baby and December baby in a class might be 1/5 to 1/10 of the child's
life. That's a huge advantage, physically, intellectually and socially, for
the older child.

------
psyc
My parents sent me to school 1.5, really 2, years early. I can confirm I'm not
particularly successful. The factors in Malcolm Gladwell's hockey story apply
to everything, not just sports.

~~~
Hydraulix989
I'm so glad my parents decided to send me to school (a lackluster public high
school in the rural midwest with asbestos and underqualified teachers that
hated their jobs) a year later, I _hated_ school, and enjoying one more year
of a normal childhood was all the more valuable.

When I finally got to school, I was bored out of my mind though. I taught
myself how to read, and my classmates were still sounding out words at a
painfully slow pace. I could solve addition problems mentally, and my
classmates were counting with their fingers. I finished the worksheets right
away (within 30 seconds), and my classmates couldn't tell basic shapes apart
in the fifteen minutes of time they had to do the worksheet.

My IQ was tested at above the 0.1% percentile, and the school refused to
identify me as academically gifted so that they wouldn't have to spend the
money (as obligated by the state for "gifted students") on enriching me, so
the administration "trained" the teachers to say that I was bright but not
gifted. It eventually came down to my parents having to threaten them with a
(no contest) lawsuit because there was such a disparity in the results of the
IQ test that my school gave me and the IQ test that a local, nationally
renowned psychologist gave me.

Of course, I had to sit around and wait for my classmates to "catch up," and
the teachers wouldn't even let me read other books or get ahead. Some of the
stories we read had Spanish translations, so I learned the Spanish. I'd
literally just tap my foot and watch the clock go from 8 AM to 3 PM every day.
Terrible. They wouldn't even give me more books to read (how hard is it to
just toss six year-old me a book and let me go "off task"?).

~~~
jacquesm
What a sad story.

Schools excel at pulling the highs down to average and fail at pulling the
lows up to average. I've seen so many examples of this by now I'm happily
surprised every time there is a contrary one.

~~~
kbenson
What sticks out to me from all these stories, and ones I've heard before, is
that maybe 20-35 kids to a class and annual changes to curriculum aren't
necessarily the optimal learning environment. There's nothing special about a
year for human development, it's just a common long-term time measurement. If
instead of measuring academic achievement by years we measured it in 90 day
periods (quarters), would that not possibly solve a lot of the problems
presented here? You wouldn't have to worry about getting your child into
school early or waiting for the next year, and possibly paying thousands of
more dollars for daycare or preschool where it's not subsidized (and that
_does_ factor into a great many people's decision making process), and if your
child got held back, they wouldn't be a full year behind everyone else.

It seems odd that we still let nature dictate the schedule to this degree, and
that so little thought seems to go into why.

~~~
jacquesm
This is something I wonder about in a much more general way. So many things we
take for granted are dependent on planetary orbits and lunar cycles that have
absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Our whole sense of time is so steeped in accident and tradition that hardly
anybody ever stops to ask questions such as 'why is it that we get paid per
week or per month' and 'why is it that the earth revolving around the sun
once' makes X, Y or Z happen which is not related at all?

The degree to which accidental items shape our economies and perceptions is
odd, to say the least.

------
rednerrus
Won't the advantage be gone once everyone is doing this?

~~~
tedunangst
The advantage may not be entirely relative. Some may be absolute. If everybody
starts school at six instead of five, nobody will have an "advantage" but
everybody will do better.

~~~
sitkack
So you are saying we could be starting school too soon. Or maybe school
crushes the soul before it has had a chance to form.

------
faragon
Advantages, and... disadvantages? I would like to know if there are
disadvantages as well, e.g. less social skills, etc.

------
joveian
See also When Less Is More: The Case for Teaching Less Math in School

[https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-
learn/201003/wh...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-
learn/201003/when-less-is-more-the-case-teaching-less-math-in-school)

~~~
dboreham
Worth noting that TFA does not actually say what the headline says. Rather it
talks about teaching less _Arithmetic_. This is something I've thought would
be a good plan throughout my kids progress through the elementary and middle
school phases. I'd try teaching algebra much earlier, in place of all the
Arithmetic that can be done with a computer, and needs some knowledge of
algebra to understand anyway.

------
pfarnsworth
Both my wife and I skipped a grade in elementary school. Neither of us had any
issues and were both successful academically as well as in our careers. I was
both the class clown and a frequent bully (not something I'm proud of) so
being a year younger than everyone didn't make me less social or vocal.

I met someone who was the youngest in his grade and he wished he was held
back.

I think it definitely depends on the individual.

