Tennis Recruiting Appearance on Parenting Aces Show

[10ismom]

Originally Posted by klu375

Not much to think about. All rich school districts figured this one out many years ago and are working very hard to persuade kids with August and later birthdays to wait another year before enrolling. They know that older kids have better grades and test results.

Only could partially agree with this statement. The statement is true for average kids. For gifted or kids with higher intelligence, keep them in average classes can lead to boredom and troubles. Smart kids need to learn at their paces or allowed to take more advance, in depth or faster pace classes.

Intelligence Quotient (IQ) is a ratio between Mental age and Chronological age X 100. For 2 children with the same mental age (ability), the younger one has higher IQ than the other.

Many kids (and tennis kids) are gifted. Many are identified early and take gifted classes. In some school districts, they are allowed to skip a grade or even two. If you have gifted, very smart tennis players, why would you hold them back a grade? The kids will get bored and not challenged.

I have a neighbor who skipped a grade and went to Harvard Med school. I myself also skipped a grade in high school, went to med school and was one of the youngest ones. Still was at the top of my class. Many of us younger students had to help tutoring many older classmates. Neither the Harvard grad neighbor or myself were college athletes. However, I don't believe anyone will do their smart children any favor holding them back for sport success. Average kids might be OK since they might not get bored in not so challenging environment.`

[NoCalParent]

Coming from a state with a late kindergarten eligibility date (12/2), I found this study done at the University of Illinois interesting. "Kindergarten Entrance Age and Children’s Achievement: Impacts of State Policies, Family, Background, and Peers" provides summary findings from two longitudinal studies over 15 years. It says,

"First, our baseline models indicate that being a year older at the beginning of kindergarten leads to a 0.53 standard deviation increase in reading test scores and a 0.83 standard deviation increase in math scores during the fall of kindergarten, a point in time so early in the academic year that very little learning has taken place in school. The entrance age effects tend to diminish as children progress through school but are sizable even in eighth grade. Second, we present compelling evidence that entrance age effects are larger among children from high socioeconomic status families than among poorer children. This pattern is consistent with a relatively high rate of accumulation of
human capital among high-income children in the years prior to kindergarten, and suggests that policies intended to raise average entrance ages will exacerbate socioeconomic differences in achievement in early grades. " http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=916533

[Chemist]

Originally Posted by 10ismom

Only could partially agree with this statement. The statement is true for average kids. For gifted or kids with higher intelligence, keep them in average classes can lead to boredom and troubles. Smart kids need to learn at their paces or allowed to take more advance, in depth or faster pace classes.

Intelligence Quotient (IQ) is a ratio between Mental age and Chronological age X 100. For 2 children with the same mental age (ability), the younger one has higher IQ than the other.

Many kids (and tennis kids) are gifted. Many are identified early and take gifted classes. In some school districts, they are allowed to skip a grade or even two. If you have gifted, very smart tennis players, why would you hold them back a grade? The kids will get bored and not challenged.

I have a neighbor who skipped a grade and went to Harvard Med school. I myself also skipped a grade in high school, went to med school and was one of the youngest ones. Still was at the top of my class. Many of us younger students had to help tutoring many older classmates. Neither the Harvard grad neighbor or myself were college athletes. However, I don't believe anyone will do their smart children any favor holding them back for sport succes. Average kids might be OK since they might not get bored in not so challenging environment.`

It is an even better idea if a gifted tennis player happens to be a girl!

http://tennisrecruiting.net/article.asp?id=1599

[Chemist]

Originally Posted by NoCalParent

Coming from a state with a late kindergarten eligibility date (12/2), I found this study done at the University of Illinois interesting. "Kindergarten Entrance Age and Children’s Achievement: Impacts of State Policies, Family, Background, and Peers" provides summary findings from two longitudinal studies over 15 years. It says,

"First, our baseline models indicate that being a year older at the beginning of kindergarten leads to a 0.53 standard deviation increase in reading test scores and a 0.83 standard deviation increase in math scores during the fall of kindergarten, a point in time so early in the academic year that very little learning has taken place in school. The entrance age effects tend to diminish as children progress through school but are sizable even in eighth grade. Second, we present compelling evidence that entrance age effects are larger among children from high socioeconomic status families than among poorer children. This pattern is consistent with a relatively high rate of accumulation of
human capital among high-income children in the years prior to kindergarten, and suggests that policies intended to raise average entrance ages will exacerbate socioeconomic differences in achievement in early grades. " http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=916533

This CNN report quoted a Harvard study that shows the advantage of redshirted kids disappears after the 3rd grade. Moreover, redshirted kids are more likely to have behavior problem in classroom.

http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.co...or-each-child/

However, redshirted kids do have an edge in sports, particularly those requiring physical contact, such as hockey, football or basketball. For tennis, the age advantage is not as large. In our section, only one redshirted boy is ranked top 10 in both B16 and B18.

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by NoCalParent

Coming from a state with a late kindergarten eligibility date (12/2), I found this study done at the University of Illinois interesting. "Kindergarten Entrance Age and Children’s Achievement: Impacts of State Policies, Family, Background, and Peers" provides summary findings from two longitudinal studies over 15 years. It says,

"First, our baseline models indicate that being a year older at the beginning of kindergarten leads to a 0.53 standard deviation increase in reading test scores and a 0.83 standard deviation increase in math scores during the fall of kindergarten, a point in time so early in the academic year that very little learning has taken place in school. The entrance age effects tend to diminish as children progress through school but are sizable even in eighth grade. Second, we present compelling evidence that entrance age effects are larger among children from high socioeconomic status families than among poorer children. This pattern is consistent with a relatively high rate of accumulation of
human capital among high-income children in the years prior to kindergarten, and suggests that policies intended to raise average entrance ages will exacerbate socioeconomic differences in achievement in early grades. " http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=916533

Thank you very much for posting this study. Some other snippets:

Our evidence is consistent with the notion that older children excel because they have accumulated more human capital prior to entering kindergarten than have younger children. The effects of entrance age are particularly pronounced for children of high-income parents, reflecting the greater level of investments that relatively wealthy parents tend to make in their children prior to kindergarten. We do not find support for the alternative hypotheses that the entrance age premium reflects differences in physical maturity or in the capacity to learn once in school.

If the benefits of delayed enrollment result from human capital accumulation prior to kindergarten, policy debates regarding kindergarten entrance age must also ask what children will be doing if not in school. Our estimates imply that moving a state cutoff from December to September will raise average entrance ages and average achievement in early grades, but such a change will also exacerbate socioeconomic differences in achievement because the test scores of high-income children will tend to increase more than that of low-income children. If the goal of policy is to raise the achievement of the children most susceptible to falling behind, a policy focused solely on entrance ages is likely to fail since at-risk children receive the least investment prior to entering school.

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by Chemist

This CNN report quoted a Harvard study that shows the advantage of redshirted kids disappears after the 3rd grade. Moreover, redshirted kids are more likely to have behavior problem in classroom.

http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.co...or-each-child/

However, redshirted kids do have an edge in sports, particularly those requiring physical contact, such as hockey, football or basketball. For tennis, the age advantage is not as large. In our section, only one redshirted boy is ranked top 10 in both B16 and B18.

Another great reference! This is the best hijack ever!!!!!!

[10ismom]

Originally Posted by NoCalParent

Coming from a state with a late kindergarten eligibility date (12/2), I found this study done at the University of Illinois interesting. "Kindergarten Entrance Age and Children’s Achievement: Impacts of State Policies, Family, Background, and Peers" provides summary findings from two longitudinal studies over 15 years. It says,

"First, our baseline models indicate that being a year older at the beginning of kindergarten leads to a 0.53 standard deviation increase in reading test scores and a 0.83 standard deviation increase in math scores during the fall of kindergarten, a point in time so early in the academic year that very little learning has taken place in school. The entrance age effects tend to diminish as children progress through school but are sizable even in eighth grade. Second, we present compelling evidence that entrance age effects are larger among children from high socioeconomic status families than among poorer children. This pattern is consistent with a relatively high rate of accumulation of
human capital among high-income children in the years prior to kindergarten, and suggests that policies intended to raise average entrance ages will exacerbate socioeconomic differences in achievement in early grades. " http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=916533

The abstract of the article you cited is interesting. The results of the tests at the kindergarten level favors the older kids. It is different than my experience and observation at the medical school, residency and post doc fellowship levels. There have been a lot of younger, very bright, better test taker people I encountered along the way.
I think "the older age has better test result" holds true for average general population but might not apply to smart subgroup of kids.

[Chemist]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

Another great reference! This is the best hijack ever!!!!!!

It's still tennis related.... But yes, let's table this debate

[10ismom]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

Another great reference! This is the best hijack ever!!!!!!

We might need to go back to OP topic like klu suggested.