HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

spin-o-rama
brings up the other side of the coin which are the summer kids that did not delay kindergarten.

if Mn Hockey sends out surveys it should be to the whole population not just the group looking for another perceived advantage.

i say perceived because when you look at graduation rates, and grade point averages in high school the younger kids are doing better with less social issues

19 pages of posts and no one has given the stats?

Please,

percentage of May birthdays that delay the start of kindergarten until they're 6?

percentage of June birthdays that delay the start of kindergarten until they're 6?

percentage of July birthdays that delay the start of kindergarten until they're 6?

Could anyone also add of the number of delayed starts for the months above that are currently playing hockey, not the percentage but an actual number?

The committee behind the Participation Rule is the same group responsible for the June 1 charade?

greybeard58 wrote:Could anyone also add of the number of delayed starts for the months above that are currently playing hockey, not the percentage but an actual number?

Where would this answer come from? I don't recall USA or MN Hockey asking for school grade information. Why would they?

observer wrote:19 pages of posts and no one has given the stats?

Please,

percentage of May birthdays that delay the start of kindergarten until they're 6?

percentage of June birthdays that delay the start of kindergarten until they're 6?

percentage of July birthdays that delay the start of kindergarten until they're 6?

After clogging the previous 18 pages with your unsubstantiated guestimate figures you now want the real stats?
dept of education numbers have already been linked on page 11-13 or so. They say that 9.7% of kids are late start. This means if all late starts are June-Aug born, then at best less than 40% of June-Aug kids are late start. dept of education will do more research if mh wants to pay.

mh did a survery of 7 large associations.
http://assets.ngin.com/attachments/docu ... Change.pdf
They came up with hockey late start %s of 7% May, 44% June, 48% July, and 85% August.

greybeard58 wrote:Could anyone also add of the number of delayed starts for the months above that are currently playing hockey, not the percentage but an actual number?

See page 2 of the pdf in my previous post. It has mh's estimated #s.

[quote="valleyball"]The committee behind the Participation Rule is the same group responsible for the June 1 charade?[/quote]

A few years ago MH created a Discernment Committee. In a nutshell it was created to look at some things that may benefit MH. Among many other things was district realignment. Now the DC appears to be rolled into the Planning Committee. Of which they listen, research, suggest, and create to assist improvements in MH. It consists of some past members of the MH board, current president of MH, a few district directors, and longtime members of MH that have continued to benefit many of us, despite their children being no longer active in our youth programs. The leaders of this committee have repeatedly looked at what will enhance MH at the youth level. And moving forward those of us who enjoy our community based program should hope they continue to do so.

Spin,
If you check you will find the numbers did not come from Mn Hockey but were put in place by the person pushing the change. If the numbers were in fact true and accurate why did the motion fail to get a second to present to the whole board.

greybeard58 wrote:Spin,
If you check you will find the numbers did not come from Mn Hockey but were put in place by the person pushing the change. If the numbers were in fact true and accurate why did the motion fail to get a second to present to the whole board.

The numbers are presented as coming from mh planning committee. If that is not true, shame on mh.
Even worse than the accuracy of the numbers are the illogical conclusions being derived.
The whole proposal stinks in many ways.

black sheep wrote: So why change???...if they don't care...we don't care!!!!

Of course they are trying to gain an advantage....

the bigger problem here is the education system is making K into 1st grade. the rate of delayed entry is increasing every year...we used to color and nap and drink milk...now they read books do math and drink lattes...

I think you just made the best argument for a change to June 1.

spin-o-rama wrote:

Playing against a kid a few grade levels ahead yet the same age is intimidating?

You are starting to lose credibilty here by saying June birthdates would be a a couple(few) grades behind but same age.

The first part is the proposal here is what is on page 3 under discussion.

Discussion
There was a lot of discussion as to where the data came from and if it is accurate.

Motion by Tom Slaird to put this item on the floor for a vote by the board. Motion died for lack of a second.

The Planning Committee was asked to verify the data and to expand the amount of data that they are using to make the decision. It was also expressed the local associations need to be informed of this change before it is voted on by the board. The committee needs to collect their own data from the associations.

Dennis gave the following instructions to the Planning Committee:
1. Random sample of 20% of associations within the state to collect the data to verify Mr. Daily’s data.
2. All District Directors will feed to the Planning Committee the various association policies on moving players up a level.

This information will be presented to the board at the summer meeting so that the changes could be made for the 2011-2012 season.

welders wrote:

spin-o-rama wrote:

Playing against a kid a few grade levels ahead yet the same age is intimidating?

You are starting to lose credibilty here by saying June birthdates would be a a couple(few) grades behind but same age.

Let me spell it out for those who need the extra help:
Kid born 10/1999. Started school 9/2004. Skipped second grade.
Kid born 6/1999. Started school 9/2005.

Under the 6/1 cutoff date proposal both would be second year squirts. The first kid would be in 7th grade. The second kid would be in 5th grade. The 7th grader is 4 months younger.
Don't think that doesn't happen. There is a kid in our neighborhood that is that 7th grader.

How is it the 5th grader should be pitied for having to compete against the younger player?

welders wrote:

black sheep wrote: So why change???...if they don't care...we don't care!!!!

Of course they are trying to gain an advantage....

the bigger problem here is the education system is making K into 1st grade. the rate of delayed entry is increasing every year...we used to color and nap and drink milk...now they read books do math and drink lattes...

I think you just made the best argument for a change to June 1.

It could be looked at through any color glasses...

But I think the bigger issue is why do all of these kids need a delayed entry in the first place...that is the issue that needs to be solved...

we are steadily working towards 19 yr old grads...and why?

it seems we are reacting to a sociological effect, not fixing the cause

i have a june 28...and i don't get what all the fuss is about unless your child is struggling and you are looking for an advantage

"Playing against a kid a few grade levels ahead yet the same age is intimidating?"

Playing against a kid 8 inches taller or 30 pounds heavier than you is intimidating. In all my years of hockey I have never seen any players intimidated by higher level math or elevated reading levels. Either I must be missing the meaning of this quote or it is a really weak argument.

Bummer for my kid who has a 5-31 b-day he would be the youngest plus you would move down a bunch of June b-days from up ahead. Still glad we started school at the right time he is small but does well academically and will be out of college before I am 60.

But I think the bigger issue is why do all of these kids need a delayed entry in the first place...that is the issue that needs to be solved...

we are steadily working towards 19 yr old grads...and why?

it seems we are reacting to a sociological effect, not fixing the cause

I think it is a result has something to do with the mega schools and the domino effect. We had every intention of starting our August B-Day kid in Kindergarten with his regular class when we lived in a small school district, but changed our minds when we moved to a mega district. The school district advised us that it was the best thing to do since so many had done it before. There would be some kids that were over an year older (June and July delayed starts) and it would be best for his academic and emotional development.

It is best to do in the mega school districts for most kids academic and emotional progress, which has a domino effect for others wanting to keep up.

spin-o-rama wrote: Parents who choose to delay their child's K entrance know that their kid will not be in the normal K age group. They may not have checked the age cutoff dates for all potential activities their child may participate in, but they know that age based activities may preclude their kids from participating with classmates.

Why would they even consider checking the age cutoff dates. Pretty much all other sports and activities are facilitated by the school district and kids are grouped by grade. A few summer youth baseball leagues still go by grade, but in 2006 all youth baseball went from an August 1st cutoff to May 1st. Should MN Hockey be one of the only sports that doesn't follow this philosophy entirely?

The bottom line is this - a June 1st cutoff would allow 99%+ of all MN Hockey players to play with their grade from mites through grade 12. I don't see how anyone can be against that.
As someone famously posted several times earlier - "Helps many. Hurts no one. Make the change."

spin-o-rama wrote: Let me spell it out for those who need the extra help:
Kid born 10/1999. Started school 9/2004. Skipped second grade.
Kid born 6/1999. Started school 9/2005.

Under the 6/1 cutoff date proposal both would be second year squirts. The first kid would be in 7th grade. The second kid would be in 5th grade. The 7th grader is 4 months younger.
Don't think that doesn't happen. There is a kid in our neighborhood that is that 7th grader.

How is it the 5th grader should be pitied for having to compete against the younger player?

Look out for the kid who started school at age 4 and then skipped a grade. It's a sure sign of a physical mismatch.

Your arguments are getting weaker as you go. First of all where is the physical mismatch? The two kids in your example are four months apart and both second year squirts. And how does a kid that starts kindergarten at age four and skips a grade have anything to do with the discussion? How many of our roughly 50000 MN Hockey players fit that description. You want to make policy based on a 1 in 10000(?) exception. How about the kid who graduated from North Hennepin CC at age 13 last year. I believe he would have been a first year PeeWee as a senior in high school.

welders wrote:

spin-o-rama wrote: Parents who choose to delay their child's K entrance know that their kid will not be in the normal K age group. They may not have checked the age cutoff dates for all potential activities their child may participate in, but they know that age based activities may preclude their kids from participating with classmates.

Why would they even consider checking the age cutoff dates. Pretty much all other sports and activities are facilitated by the school district and kids are grouped by grade. A few summer youth baseball leagues still go by grade, but in 2006 all youth baseball went from an August 1st cutoff to May 1st. Should MN Hockey be one of the only sports that doesn't follow this philosophy entirely?

Soccer has 8/1. USA hockey has Jan 1. How about communion, bat mitzvah, drivers licenses, etc. All these are age based as well. The point is that activities do get divided by age groups and parents need to take that in consideration when they either delay start or early start their kid.

welders wrote:The bottom line is this - a June 1st cutoff would allow 99%+ of all MN Hockey players to play with their grade from mites through grade 12. I don't see how anyone can be against that.
As someone famously posted several times earlier - "Helps many. Hurts no one. Make the change."

You're pulling numbers out of the air. Most June born kids are regular start and would be playing a grade down. Your referencing fictitious propoganda statements doesn't help your argument either.

welders wrote:

spin-o-rama wrote: Let me spell it out for those who need the extra help:
Kid born 10/1999. Started school 9/2004. Skipped second grade.
Kid born 6/1999. Started school 9/2005.

Under the 6/1 cutoff date proposal both would be second year squirts. The first kid would be in 7th grade. The second kid would be in 5th grade. The 7th grader is 4 months younger.
Don't think that doesn't happen. There is a kid in our neighborhood that is that 7th grader.

How is it the 5th grader should be pitied for having to compete against the younger player?

Look out for the kid who started school at age 4 and then skipped a grade. It's a sure sign of a physical mismatch.

Your arguments are getting weaker as you go. First of all where is the physical mismatch? The two kids in your example are four months apart and both second year squirts. And how does a kid that starts kindergarten at age four and skips a grade have anything to do with the discussion? How many of our roughly 50000 MN Hockey players fit that description. You want to make policy based on a 1 in 10000(?) exception. How about the kid who graduated from North Hennepin CC at age 13 last year. I believe he would have been a first year PeeWee as a senior in high school.

welders wrote:Late entry June birthdate kids would play Bantams in 7th and 8th grade with kids one and two grades ahead of them.

You were the one concerned with playing up 1 or 2 grades despite being the same age. Glad to see you are recognizing the fallacy of your arguments.

any decision should be made based on input from parents representing kids born in all months.
in our association we occasionally have parents ask to move heir son up to play at the next level. after some discussion they sometimes do move up.

only one time in the last 15 years has anyone asked to play down. it wasnt well received but after much debate it was decided to let the boy practice with the younger kids but he wasnt allowed to play games.

Playing down in a contact sport is a big deal for lot of parents that feel their younger players are put at risk.

Having a discussion about moving the date sure leads to a lot of opinions. The rest of the country is on Jan 1 and there's no issue.

A huge part of this discussion centers around school, which is odd because youth sports are separate. I grew up with Jan 1 in Minnesota and wonder if anyone regrets moving away from it.

New England Prep schools are attracting a lot of Florida players right now, almost all asked to "reclassify" by repeating a grade. I've heard of one Minnesota player repeating a middle-school grade. Somehow I think that will happen more and more.

Thinking outside the box, Minnesota can be the leader in addressing the "January effect" by using a hybrid of grade and birthyear using 15-month divisions. Of course, this would create a big problem wherever there is low participation.

A huge part of this discussion centers around school, which is odd because youth sports are separate.

It's the tie to high school hockey that makes it relevant.

InigoMontoya wrote:It's the tie to high school hockey that makes it relevant.

Minnesotans obviously feel the relevance, but it isn't tied to it at all. Your youth association is entirely separate from the school board.

Minnesota Hockey moved the date to align with grades. I get that. However, youth hockey to the MSHSL is no different than NCAA to the NFL or NBA.