[DevilWatcher]

I'm not a huge fan of "hold backs" but it does happen. I would say by Sophmore year the difference of being held back is less noticeable. I just think it's comical when you hear how strong lil Johnny is for a freshman or how fast lil Johnny is when everyone knows he should be a Sophmore. Just using that as a reference. My nephew was held back to play basketball when he made perfectly good grades. Parents used the "immature for his age" ticket. Lol

[footballfever]

I didn't. As a Junior, so far my Son didn't!

I have an October Birthday. As a 16 yo Senior, I did well in Football and played scholarship baseball!

I know we are talking apples and oranges, but an athlete is an athlete - Bryce Harper was 17 when he started college baseball. Kobe Bryant did OK going straight to the NBA as a 17 yo.

If you are good enough at 19, then you were good enough at 17!

Let your kids be who they "Are", not who you "Think" they are. Again, if this whole argument is about sports, then it is the parents who are foolish and you have no right asking the public to pay for that foolishness! If it's about education, then we all support it and gladly pay for it!!

My point. I'm talking about academics. Less than 4% of athletes in HS get a scholarship of any kind. I just feel a 19 year old entering college has a better chance of not dropping out than a 17 year old.

[Fly Like a Duck]

^^ Agreed.

[sstack]

My point. I'm talking about academics. Less than 4% of athletes in HS get a scholarship of any kind. I just feel a 19 year old entering college has a better chance of not dropping out than a 17 year old.

And you back this up by what research? Some of your brightest kids enter college at 15-16 years old. Latin school here in NKY kids skip a year of school in middle school to enter HS earlier and are 16-17 entering college, these kids are tops in the state in test scores. I am not saying every 16-17 year old is successful in college, but your broad statement of all 19 year olds are better entering college has no substantial backing.

[willseeuntheHOUSE]

Let me encourage those of you considering holding back your child for any reason. First, talk with your child. Hopefully you have a great relationship and both of you can discuss all the why's, hopes, if's, maybe's, positives and negatives of this subject. The only reason to stop and go no further is if your child is dead set against the idea. Otherwise, keep a dialogue open and fully discuss this event with your child over TIME.
Talk with multiple parents who chose to hold their child back and talk to the kids that were held back. Ask all questions of both kids and parents. Also talk to people who thought about holding their child back and chose not to. I think you will find a vast number more parents who will say "I wished I would have held my child back" over those who say "I wished I hadn't held my child back".
I think you will find the only negative thing about holding your child back is the stigma associated with the event. The same people who vehemently oppose the idea will proudly point out to their child and the public that your child is a "hold back". They are ruthless and sadly want to inflict as much embarrassment on you and your child as possible.
The majority of people, however, are very supportive and have no problems at all. I encourage you to TALK with your child and get him prepared for what will happen. Once again I think you will find the people that did it are extremely pleased with the decision as are the children.

[Cardfan1]

Your average 19 year old has a better chance of having the focus required to succeed in college as a freshman than your average 17 year old. If you have ever spent a second in a classroom you don't have to research.

That's not too broad. I know some of you are above average, and you will be on here to tell your story, but there is a good percentage of the world that is not.

[sstack]

Your average 19 year old has a better chance of having the focus required to succeed in college as a freshman than your average 17 year old. If you have ever spent a second in a classroom you don't have to research.

That's not too broad. I know some of you are above average, and you will be on here to tell your story, but there is a good percentage of the world that is not.

Once again I do believe it is too broad, just your biased opinion. I have spent many years in college classrooms as a 18 year old all the way up to 26 year old, and do not agree. I have seen 17 year olds who were excellent students and excellent social skills as well as 19 year olds. I have seen students in mid 20's who acted like 12 year olds. Some might be better to start at 19, but I think your statement that all would do better has no factual merit to back it up.

[Cardfan1]

Once again I do believe it is too broad, just your biased opinion. I have spent many years in college classrooms as a 18 year old all the way up to 26 year old, and do not agree. I have seen 17 year olds who were excellent students and excellent social skills as well as 19 year olds. I have seen students in mid 20's who acted like 12 year olds. Some might be better to start at 19, but I think your statement that all would do better has no factual merit to back it up.

Well I was talking about teaching in a classroom and an average student. Over my career, and in my experience, the older students are better. The students who were held back because their parents wanted them to have a maturity advantage were extraordinary. In fact, the best students I ever had. The students who were young for their grade were by-in-large IMMATURE.

Witnessing this in high school students and knowing I graduated at 17 (turned 18 in college), I said I don't want my children to have this disadvantage. I don't have to do a research paper to know it.

[Mjolnir]

Well I was talking about teaching in a classroom and an average student. Over my career, and in my experience, the older students are better. The students who were held back because their parents wanted them to have a maturity advantage were extraordinary. In fact, the best students I ever had. The students who were young for their grade were by-in-large IMMATURE.

Witnessing this in high school students and knowing I graduated at 17 (turned 18 in college), I said I don't want my children to have this disadvantage. I don't have to do a research paper to know it.

Sorry Cardfan1 that you felt disadvantage as fresh in college. I must say however that I disagree that children in their proper grade level are immature,I would argue that the holdbacks have an academic advantage and are easier to teach. Try teaching college!

[Cardfan1]

As a reminder we are talking about kids in their proper grade. We are not talking about students who would be ineligible for athletic contests turning 19 before August 1st, so according to all rules in place they are in the proper grade.

On a college board we can talk the immaturity of adults in college since we are talking about hs and ms students I don't have to worry about those students.

But IME college teachers tell you to get the hell out and not come back.

[wiseguy85]

In a recent article in Parents.com a study showed and I quote "study showed that the oldest middle-school students outperformed younger classmates by 2 to 9 percent, and that high-school students who were among the oldest in their class were nearly 12 percent more likely to enroll in a four-year college or university." 2006 University of California at Santa Barbara study. Researchers Kathy Bedard and Elizabeth Dhuey completed the study.
I think that would be considered empirical evidence.

[pjdoug]

What are the numbers on students being held back for academic purposes vs. athletic advantages?

[pjdoug]

I would say the largest percentage of holdbacks is to gain an advantage in athletics? if you're grades are not good enough you're going to get held back anyway.

[johnnyd]

I would say the largest percentage of holdbacks is to gain an advantage in athletics? if you're grades are not good enough you're going to get held back anyway.

Not true. Most schools are against this practice. They pass them on hoping that magically they will get better instead of dropout. In reality what you end up with is a student with a major academic problem that cannot get fixed by that point. This is why we have students in 12th grade reading on a 8th grade level and are not special education. The problem from the beginning is they were too young and no one worked with them at home. Then they got to school and because it counts against their retention schools pass them on. I'm not for 8 year old kindergarteners but schools should use the extra year that most kids these days have to make them more mature. Think of the world that they will be going into in 10 years. they better have every advantage that they can.

[sstack]

Not true. Most schools are against this practice. They pass them on hoping that magically they will get better instead of dropout. In reality what you end up with is a student with a major academic problem that cannot get fixed by that point. This is why we have students in 12th grade reading on a 8th grade level and are not special education. The problem from the beginning is they were too young and no one worked with them at home. Then they got to school and because it counts against their retention schools pass them on. I'm not for 8 year old kindergarteners but schools should use the extra year that most kids these days have to make them more mature. Think of the world that they will be going into in 10 years. they better have every advantage that they can.

You hit the two main reasons kids fail, the biggest is parents who do not give a damn and a school systems that passes kids on when they can hardly read.

[pjdoug]

Not true. Most schools are against this practice. They pass them on hoping that magically they will get better instead of dropout. In reality what you end up with is a student with a major academic problem that cannot get fixed by that point. This is why we have students in 12th grade reading on a 8th grade level and are not special education. The problem from the beginning is they were too young and no one worked with them at home. Then they got to school and because it counts against their retention schools pass them on. I'm not for 8 year old kindergarteners but schools should use the extra year that most kids these days have to make them more mature. Think of the world that they will be going into in 10 years. they better have every advantage that they can.

sounds like bad teachers in the beginning.I have a learning disability and was lucky enough to have a good first grade teacher that wouldn't give up on me and had me reading highschool level. school was difficult for me but I graduated at 17. I would have hated being held back and don't see a reason for it.