Nick is optimizing for a 6-year-old’s advantages in a kindergarten classroom. The research says those advantages vanish by middle school and may reverse by high school. A 2006 study tracked 15,000 kids to age 26. The redshirted group performed worse on 10th-grade tests, dropped out of school at twice the rate of non-redshirted peers, and were less likely to graduate college. The one measurable benefit? They were marginally more likely to play varsity sports. A University of Wisconsin study of 8,500 students found redshirted kids were 1.89x more likely to need special education services. Not less likely. More likely. The theory is that parents mistake developmental delays or learning differences for “immaturity,” then delay entry instead of getting early intervention. That extra year doesn’t build skills. It delays diagnosis. The confidence argument falls apart too. Separate research found self-concept and peer acceptance were statistically identical between the oldest and youngest kids in a class. Redshirted kids actually showed more behavioral problems in adolescence, not fewer. What Nick is really describing is an arms race. About 9% of American families now redshirt, and the practice skews heavily toward wealthy white parents. 77% of delayed entries are kids born in the last quarter of the year. 30% come from the top income quartile. So when affluent parents hold their kids back, they’re pushing someone else’s child into the “youngest in class” slot who can’t afford the same strategy. The whole premise treats school like a competitive leaderboard where being bigger and older wins. Canadian researchers found the opposite: first graders who were young for their year made considerably more progress in reading and math than kindergartners who were old for their year but just two months younger. The youngest fifth graders scored five points higher in verbal IQ than same-age fourth graders. Struggle and relative challenge build the exact qualities he thinks he’s engineering around.