Seth Jackson wrote:

It's been suggested to me that it's actually better to hold the kids
back a year so that they're not the youngest in the class.

This really depends on the kids. There is no one right answer that applies to
every child. When they're at the cusp, some are going to be fine either way,
some are going to be better off waiting and being the oldest, and some are
going to be benefited by going ahead and being the youngest. It's a question of
where the child is going to fit in best, and it's a shame that it has to be
decided so young. I've got three late summer kids, in a district with a Sept. 1
cutoff, and I really do feel that in *their* cases they have all been better
off being the youngest in their classes. I was nearly the oldest in mine, for
what it's worth, and I don't feel that it gave me any advantage, it simply put
me *more* out of synch with the other kids instead of less.

--Helen