Calendar effects and education, ACT/SAT, etc

Parents Forum
1

Many folks may have heard of calendar effects in various domains. The classic example that I have heard is that in many countries, youth soccer leagues are grouped by age such that kids born in January are ~11 months older than their teammates born in December, and that, as a consequence of their age-related superior skill manifesting itself (and thus attractive coaches’ favor, etc.) those January birthdays are over-represented at the highest levels, and December is under-represented.

In education, we’ve heard of redshirting, especially for boys.

It occurs to me that a kid who is naturally old for his age (born shortly after the kindergarten cutoff date) will not only be disproportionately advantaged, to some degree, in K-12, but also, such kids probably do better on their SATs/ACTs. I’d guess standardized tests reward kids who are both grade-advanced (i.e. 12th graders do better on average than 11th), and age-advanced, relative to grade (a kid who is 17.9 years old when taking it September of their senior year probably outperforms kids who are 17.1).

Studying this question would be confused by a few issues:

  • Different states have different date cutoffs for kindergarten, and some may be harder/softer
  • Sometimes, delayed entry into Kindergarten is correlated with immaturity (two kids with same B-Day - the less mature one gets held back by his parents)
  • Of course, kids can also get held back during K-12, and such kids are likely those who struggle academically.

So, you’d have a somewhat hard time separating out the kids who enter 12th grade relatively old, vs. relatively young for their grade, due to semi-random birthday effects, vs. other effects that may cause an opposite-direction measured effect.

Anyways, is anyone aware of good studies on this issue?

FWIW, it’s too late for this to matter much for my kids - it’s mostly idle curiousity for me at this point.

2

The relative age effect is higher in elementary and middle school. But it diminishes over time. I haven’t seen any literature showing such an effect late in high school or in college.

3

I’d add to this list differences in “intrinsic capabilities” because humans are not equal in this regard (such that physical age becomes the key determinant of outcomes). But maybe that’s implied in your third bullet.

4

I know of no studies.

But I can tell you anecdotally that the “opposite” could be true. Of the kids I know who were discovered to be “exceptional” (not the standard Gifted and Talented-- but truly off the charts) if they were exceptional at 12, they’ve gone on to become exceptional adults.

There is abundant research on this population done by the Center for Talented Youth at Johns Hopkins- so start there. Kids who were scoring 1600’s on their SAT’s at age 12- and what their trajectory looked like after that.

The kids I know who were redshirted-- closer to the mean academically. And my guess (again, anecdotal but I’m sure someone did a study) is that the kid was struggling academically or developmentally- so the decision to hold them back, or make sure that they ended up in a classroom where they were among the oldest— was an easy one. Gives them time to “catch up” to their chronological age. Being older than everyone else doesn’t help if you’re lagging at the traditional benchmarks.

5

And alternatively, a kid who is young for their age (vis a vis school cutoffs) may be held back to give them an extra year to mature BUT if they are clearly ready for school both academically and socially will probably be enrolled, thus potentially making the youngest cohort among the better prepared, if they maintain that “readiness”.

1 Like
6

Here is an article: