A landmark international study finds younger pupils in a class, often born later in the year, face higher odds of mental health concerns than their older peers. Analyzing health records of more than a million children, the research prompts education systems worldwide, including Thailand, to reconsider strict entry cutoffs that can unintentionally disadvantage students.
Researchers from Norway’s NTNU reviewed health data for children aged 4–17 born between 1991 and 2012. The study shows October–December births—the youngest in many classrooms—have higher rates of ADHD and related neuropsychiatric conditions compared with January–March births. The magnitude of risk varies with prematurity, with ADHD diagnoses among the youngest students rising by about 20–80 percent. A lead neonatology consultant notes a meaningful relative age effect in childhood mental health.
Why does relative age matter? Subtle differences in cognitive and social maturity can shape how well a child copes with school demands. When immature behavior is mistaken for a disorder, it can lead to unnecessary diagnoses and interventions. For premature children, developmental gaps can amplify these risks, with late-year girls showing higher rates of anxiety and depression when younger than peers.
Policy discussions abroad have already influenced practice. Some schools offer flexible start dates, optional grade repetition, or enhanced teacher training to recognize developmental variation. In Nordic and other education systems, teachers have learned to avoid prematurely labeling younger students as having attention problems, acknowledging a spectrum of normal development.
Thailand’s context is highly relevant. Many Thai schools use May or June entry cutoffs, meaning some students are nearly a year younger than classmates in the same grade. Educational psychologists note that this age gap can affect academic performance, social integration, and the likelihood of identifying learning or behavioral challenges. In Thai classrooms, a few months can reflect a tangible maturity difference, influencing participation and conduct.
Thai culture often emphasizes early academic achievement and high-stakes testing. Younger students may feel pressure to perform alongside older peers, impacting self-esteem and motivation. Large public-school class sizes—often exceeding 40 students—make individualized support challenging, especially with national exams requiring broad coverage. This context underscores the need for adaptable approaches to developmental differences.
Progressive Thai private schools are experimenting with readiness assessments and flexible entry practices, but nationwide policy change remains limited. While international findings support flexible principles, systemic reform must align with Thai laws and parental expectations.
A key cultural consideration is the tendency for families to push for early entry. Experts advise assessing readiness by developmental milestones rather than chronology alone. Practical steps for Thailand include piloting readiness evaluations, establishing catch-up programs for the youngest learners, and expanding access to school psychologists trained to recognize relative-age effects. The concept of “redshirting”—delaying entry to better match a child’s readiness—offers another option, though it involves social and financial considerations.
To translate research into action, Thailand can pursue a phased approach: pilot readiness assessments, teacher training to distinguish normal immaturity from genuine concerns, and targeted supports for younger learners. Framing school readiness around developmental milestones can reduce stigma and support long-term academic and mental health outcomes.
For families and educators, practical steps are clear. Parents should monitor readiness signals and seek guidance from child development specialists or school counselors when concerns arise, rather than assuming medical diagnoses. Teachers benefit from professional development that highlights the full range of normal child development. Policymakers should pursue pragmatic reforms that balance global evidence with Thailand’s educational realities.
Experts emphasize that any policy shift requires coordinated effort among educators, health professionals, parents, and government bodies, along with sustained investment in training and resources. If Thailand adopts flexible pathways and supportive services, potential benefits include fewer unnecessary mental health referrals, better engagement for younger students, and a more nuanced understanding of learning readiness.
Data and insights from international research on relative age and mental health, together with Thailand’s educational authorities and child development specialists, provide local perspectives on readiness, stigma, and support mechanisms in Thai schools.