The current practice of having children begin school within a twelve-month cohort is unfair but can be ameliorated by incorporating a dual-entry system. Such a reform effort will dramatically reduce failure, improve student achievement at all levels, while reducing expenditures.

Many students are penalized from maximizing their academic potential simply by being born at the wrong time of the year. Not only is there a significant decline in achievement for students born in the second half of the year but they also experience higher rates of failure which negatively impacts self-esteem and reduces future success.

Meanwhile, more capable students experience unfairness because of the school’s extraordinary effort at helping their failing students. With so much focus on the weak, many strong students are held back from achieving their potential.

Parents agonize over when to begin their child's formal education but lack data for making informed decisions. Educators understand the issue intuitively but decision makers lack data for justifying reform. These informational needs are now available.

Preface

CHAPTER 1: Fairness to Students

CHAPTER 2: Low Expectations Provide for Mediocre Education

CHAPTER 3: Birth Rather Than Worth Counts Too Much

CHAPTER 4: Relative-Age-Effect in Education

CHAPTER 5: The Annual, Single-Entry Date

CHAPTER 6: A Critical Decision Moment

CHAPTER 7:Grade Level of Achievement

CHAPTER 8: It Is What It Isn’t

CHAPTER 9: Student Achievement by Birth Month

CHAPTER 10: Getting Older Doesn’t Make It Go Away

CHAPTER 11: Education’s Glass Ceiling

CHAPTER 12: Teacher Gender and Fairness to Boys

CHAPTER 13: Social Promotion

CHAPTER 14: Accommodating Our Best And Brightest

CHAPTER 15: A Global Perspective

CHAPTER 16: The Finland Solution: Less Is More

CHAPTER 17: New Zealand Solution

CHAPTER 18: Getting Down To ‘Brass Tacks’

CHAPTER 19: Getting Practical

CHAPTER 20: Dual-Entry Is Not New

CHAPTER 21: Conclusion

References