Age change in Minnesota Hockey?
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 4:33 pm
-
- Posts: 547
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:30 pm
Be careful with what you are hearing. The same person who said 80% of August kids are late start also presented 1 post earlier that 50% of June and 50% of July are late start. All of those claims violate the MN dept of education data linked in valleyball’s post by a large margin.JSR wrote:
I agree with BB82 here. Someone above said that 80% of August birthdates are being held back. 80% of August birthdates are not ready for kindegarten, really?????????? Common sense tells me that 80% of August birthdates likely are ready for kindegarten and that 20% seems a more logicial numebr for those truly being held back for the right reasons, thus ther eis a 60% marguin of unlikelies and those kids are being held back for other reasons than not being ready..... that's assuming the 80% number being reported is accurate.
If June and July have 50% of kids starting late then August would have, at best, 13% late starters. That doesn’t make sense. Why would August have substantially fewer late starts than June or July? If August has 80% late starters then June and July have at best an average of 16.5% late starters. That doesn’t support a move to an earlier cutoff date either.
The practice of pulling unsubstantiated numbers out of thin air is common practice for the 6/1 supporters. They make it up because they don’t have anything real to support their stance.
Thank you spin and valley for giving me actual numbers and facts that seem to support what my gut/common sense was telling me all along. The real numbers don't support any of this. So current system basically hurts no one and changing it would help very very very few, not enough to even make a statistically significant impact which scientifically means no impact at all.spin-o-rama wrote:Be careful with what you are hearing. The same person who said 80% of August kids are late start also presented 1 post earlier that 50% of June and 50% of July are late start. All of those claims violate the MN dept of education data linked in valleyball’s post by a large margin.JSR wrote:
I agree with BB82 here. Someone above said that 80% of August birthdates are being held back. 80% of August birthdates are not ready for kindegarten, really?????????? Common sense tells me that 80% of August birthdates likely are ready for kindegarten and that 20% seems a more logicial numebr for those truly being held back for the right reasons, thus ther eis a 60% marguin of unlikelies and those kids are being held back for other reasons than not being ready..... that's assuming the 80% number being reported is accurate.
If June and July have 50% of kids starting late then August would have, at best, 13% late starters. That doesn’t make sense. Why would August have substantially fewer late starts than June or July? If August has 80% late starters then June and July have at best an average of 16.5% late starters. That doesn’t support a move to an earlier cutoff date either.
The practice of pulling unsubstantiated numbers out of thin air is common practice for the 6/1 supporters. They make it up because they don’t have anything real to support their stance.
I wonder why I even respond to some posters. Some of you are so caught up in how this change to June 1 could negatively affect your own personal situation, that it won't matter what anyone says. Do you really think there is a direct parallel between the kids in the MN Education study and the membership of MN Hockey? Hockey families, having higher incomes on average, are more likely to delay entry to Kindergarten and pay for an extra year of childcare. Summer birthdate boys are much more likely to be advised to delay than girls. Boys far outnumber girls in the Mn Hockey membership. The study above just happens to take place during the Great Recession of 2007-09, making the likelyhood of delaying school entry, and paying more daycare, less likely in those two years.spin-o-rama wrote:Be careful with what you are hearing. The same person who said 80% of August kids are late start also presented 1 post earlier that 50% of June and 50% of July are late start. All of those claims violate the MN dept of education data linked in valleyball’s post by a large margin.JSR wrote:
I agree with BB82 here. Someone above said that 80% of August birthdates are being held back. 80% of August birthdates are not ready for kindegarten, really?????????? Common sense tells me that 80% of August birthdates likely are ready for kindegarten and that 20% seems a more logicial numebr for those truly being held back for the right reasons, thus ther eis a 60% marguin of unlikelies and those kids are being held back for other reasons than not being ready..... that's assuming the 80% number being reported is accurate.
If June and July have 50% of kids starting late then August would have, at best, 13% late starters. That doesn’t make sense. Why would August have substantially fewer late starts than June or July? If August has 80% late starters then June and July have at best an average of 16.5% late starters. That doesn’t support a move to an earlier cutoff date either.
The practice of pulling unsubstantiated numbers out of thin air is common practice for the 6/1 supporters. They make it up because they don’t have anything real to support their stance.
You say the 9-10% statewide that delay entry into Kindergarten prove that the numbers cited previously have been pulled out of thin air. In order for the 50% June & July, and 80% August delay rates to be accurate (and making the other months statistically insignificant, which they are), the annual rate would be about 15% for boys and girls equally, and somewhat lower yet for the much higher number of boys in hockey. Fifteen percent delaying entry for the MN Hockey membership looks pretty likely to me. We shall see.
In my association, roughly 90% of all summer birthdate boys have delayed in the six age groups that I have coached over the last four years. Go to your own associations and check into it, you will probably be surprised. But why would you do that, it wouldn't fit the agenda.
So you have no problem with the July 1 cutoff?JSR wrote:Thank you spin and valley for giving me actual numbers and facts that seem to support what my gut/common sense was telling me all along. The real numbers don't support any of this. So current system basically hurts no one and changing it would help very very very few, not enough to even make a statistically significant impact which scientifically means no impact at all.
-
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:26 am
-
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:36 pm
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:49 am
-
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:26 am
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:49 am
welder: I just looked at our association's database for 2009-10, from Jr. Gold to Mites. (Boys and only girls playing with boys) It is about 50-50 for July and August birthdates starting school on time. I found close to 70% of June birthdates started on time. I did find a handful of March-May that were withheld from starting. Alot different than your 90%?
The point I make, for the 50% that start on time, the current June 30 cutoff causes the reverse of the issue you are refering to.
So you want it changed another month to negatively impact 70% of those kids starting on time to benefit 30%?
Let me guess, you have a kid born in June and held him out of school?
The point I make, for the 50% that start on time, the current June 30 cutoff causes the reverse of the issue you are refering to.
So you want it changed another month to negatively impact 70% of those kids starting on time to benefit 30%?
Let me guess, you have a kid born in June and held him out of school?
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:49 am
Thank you Benito. The Sept baby, do you mean turned 6 right when school started, or turned 7 right when school started? The August is obviously common (50-50). The April is rare (less than 5%) I can't think of ever hearing of one full year hold out? That would mean up to 24 months older than some kids in the same grade?
-
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:26 am
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:49 am
-
- Posts: 547
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:30 pm
welders wrote: I wonder why I even respond to some posters. Some of you are so caught up in how this change to June 1 could negatively affect your own personal situation, that it won't matter what anyone says. Do you really think there is a direct parallel between the kids in the MN Education study and the membership of MN Hockey? MH would be dumb not to look at the effect a decision will have on their recruiting pool. Of course they should look at it. Hockey families, having higher incomes on average, are more likely to delay entry to Kindergarten and pay for an extra year of childcare. Summer birthdate boys are much more likely to be advised to delay than girls. Boys far outnumber girls in the Mn Hockey membership. Agreed, but is it really 50%, 50%, 80% like you claim? See below for evidence to the contrary. The study above just happens to take place during the Great Recession of 2007-09, making the likelyhood of delaying school entry, and paying more daycare, less likely in those two years. Interesting hypothesis. More info is needed to prove if you're right. Care to dig up numbers of delayed starts prior to 2007-2009 for comparison?
You say the 9-10% statewide that delay entry into Kindergarten prove that the numbers cited previously have been pulled out of thin air. In order for the 50% June & July, and 80% August delay rates to be accurate (and making the other months statistically insignificant, which they are), the annual rate would be about 15% for boys and girls equally, and somewhat lower yet for the much higher number of boys in hockey. Fifteen percent delaying entry for the MN Hockey membership looks pretty likely to me. We shall see.
In my association, roughly 90% of all summer birthdate boys have delayed in the six age groups that I have coached over the last four years. Go to your own associations and check into it, you will probably be surprised. But why would you do that, it wouldn't fit the agenda.
How about MH's infamous June birthday survey? http://assets.ngin.com/attachments/docu ... -26-10.pdf
It showed only 30% of June b-days as late starts. I would still question the survey's accuracy. An analysis of membership records would be better. However, the survey does not support a move to 6/1. Once again, the only supporting data for a move to 6/1 are made up claims.
Why would I, as most everyone on here knows I live in Wisconsin. I've been trying my best to give an outside objective opinion on this topic since it has no effect on me personally at all one way or another. We have January 1 cutoff down here and I am fine with that (FYI I have August, September and January kids, the January and August went on time and the September was early entry). I think having the dead center July 1 cutoff for winter hockey as the mirror to January 1 for spring/summer makes some logical sense though and as the numbers show it is not a statistically significant enough number to warrant a change to June 1, in fact you could make an argument that it would "harm" an eaul numebr of kids to the ones it would help overall. It would seem to me that the small percentage of folks who have June kids that play hockey AND who chose to hold those kids back a year are the only ones who want this change, I don't see any objective people (aka non June birthday parents) clamoring for it. It's just my outside observation.welders wrote:So you have no problem with the July 1 cutoff?JSR wrote:Thank you spin and valley for giving me actual numbers and facts that seem to support what my gut/common sense was telling me all along. The real numbers don't support any of this. So current system basically hurts no one and changing it would help very very very few, not enough to even make a statistically significant impact which scientifically means no impact at all.
-
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:00 am
i've read through "the Minnesota School Readiness Study". We've lived in the same rural community in minnesota for a long time and it may be that our community is out of step with the rest of the state.
But here most with a summer birthday are held back. (25 % of the high school could be in the higher grade)
a few of the families with a strong sports orientation hold back kids that are born in march or april. its more common in basketball cliques. and in famllies were dad is vertically challenged, has a farm or owns a business.
i'm not trying to be mean just posting my observations.
by the way appendix d says that 1% start school at 4. I've never come across one and was under the impression that it wasnt allowed in minnesota
But here most with a summer birthday are held back. (25 % of the high school could be in the higher grade)
a few of the families with a strong sports orientation hold back kids that are born in march or april. its more common in basketball cliques. and in famllies were dad is vertically challenged, has a farm or owns a business.
i'm not trying to be mean just posting my observations.
by the way appendix d says that 1% start school at 4. I've never come across one and was under the impression that it wasnt allowed in minnesota
Somewhere in this thread the rules are mentioned and it can happen but the kid has to be evaluated and ok'd by the school baord etc... It's similar to here in Wisconsin, my daughter has a September 25th birthday and was technically 4 when she started kindegartenkeepmeoutofit wrote:i've read through "the Minnesota School Readiness Study". We've lived in the same rural community in minnesota for a long time and it may be that our community is out of step with the rest of the state.
But here most with a summer birthday are held back. (25 % of the high school could be in the higher grade)
a few of the families with a strong sports orientation hold back kids that are born in march or april. its more common in basketball cliques. and in famllies were dad is vertically challenged, has a farm or owns a business.
i'm not trying to be mean just posting my observations.
by the way appendix d says that 1% start school at 4. I've never come across one and was under the impression that it wasnt allowed in minnesota
-
- Posts: 2510
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 11:40 pm
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:17 am
http://assets.ngin.com/attachments/docu ... -26-10.pdf
Regarding the so-called survey;
According to MH Planning Committee statisticians; 30% of the respondents said their kids started kindergarten at age 6.
This does not mean 30% of all players born in June started at age 6 – as implied by the Committee.
Respondents were self-selected - those who favour a Date Change were far more likely to respond to the survey and, therefore, are overrepresented in the results.
The number is far less than 30%.
Also, the term “statistically significant” is used incorrectly. It does not mean important or meaningful as intended by the Committee. It describes whether a result is likely to have occurred as a result of chance.
I would hope it is ignorance alone which is perpetuating what is otherwise a non-issue. Seems somewhat dubious.
Regarding the so-called survey;
According to MH Planning Committee statisticians; 30% of the respondents said their kids started kindergarten at age 6.
This does not mean 30% of all players born in June started at age 6 – as implied by the Committee.
Respondents were self-selected - those who favour a Date Change were far more likely to respond to the survey and, therefore, are overrepresented in the results.
The number is far less than 30%.
Also, the term “statistically significant” is used incorrectly. It does not mean important or meaningful as intended by the Committee. It describes whether a result is likely to have occurred as a result of chance.
I would hope it is ignorance alone which is perpetuating what is otherwise a non-issue. Seems somewhat dubious.
Everytime I think I'm out, they pull me back in
Now ask spin, valley, and the other rabid opponents of the change to June 1 if they have a problem with a July 1 cutoff. Of course they do. A change to June 1 almost guarantees they will never see their dream of a Sept. 1 cutoff.JSR wrote:Why would I, as most everyone on here knows I live in Wisconsin. I've been trying my best to give an outside objective opinion on this topic since it has no effect on me personally at all one way or another. We have January 1 cutoff down here and I am fine with that (FYI I have August, September and January kids, the January and August went on time and the September was early entry). I think having the dead center July 1 cutoff for winter hockey as the mirror to January 1 for spring/summer makes some logical sense though and as the numbers show it is not a statistically significant enough number to warrant a change to June 1, in fact you could make an argument that it would "harm" an eaul numebr of kids to the ones it would help overall. It would seem to me that the small percentage of folks who have June kids that play hockey AND who chose to hold those kids back a year are the only ones who want this change, I don't see any objective people (aka non June birthday parents) clamoring for it. It's just my outside observation.welders wrote:So you have no problem with the July 1 cutoff?JSR wrote:Thank you spin and valley for giving me actual numbers and facts that seem to support what my gut/common sense was telling me all along. The real numbers don't support any of this. So current system basically hurts no one and changing it would help very very very few, not enough to even make a statistically significant impact which scientifically means no impact at all.
-
- Posts: 547
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:30 pm
MH didn't do a great job with the survey.Haute hockeymom wrote:http://assets.ngin.com/attachments/docu ... -26-10.pdf
Regarding the so-called survey;
According to MH Planning Committee statisticians; 30% of the respondents said their kids started kindergarten at age 6.
This does not mean 30% of all players born in June started at age 6 – as implied by the Committee.
Respondents were self-selected - those who favour a Date Change were far more likely to respond to the survey and, therefore, are overrepresented in the results.
The number is far less than 30%.
Also, the term “statistically significant” is used incorrectly. It does not mean important or meaningful as intended by the Committee. It describes whether a result is likely to have occurred as a result of chance.
I would hope it is ignorance alone which is perpetuating what is otherwise a non-issue. Seems somewhat dubious.
It makes it hard when we don't know what the survey questions were or how many responsed. One even has to question the "about 30%" number. The slanted questions on the association survey are also very leading.
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:17 am
After further review....
There is something not quite right with the 30% number.
Typically, the non-probability approach results in biased samples reporting at much higher levels.
30% seems like an impossibility given the nature of the "survey".
Indeed, the Questionnaire is written from a predisposed position.
There is something not quite right with the 30% number.
Typically, the non-probability approach results in biased samples reporting at much higher levels.
30% seems like an impossibility given the nature of the "survey".
Indeed, the Questionnaire is written from a predisposed position.
Everytime I think I'm out, they pull me back in
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:17 am
-
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 3:41 pm
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 11:46 am
I have been reading these age change posts off and on for the last several months, mostly because it is always near to top of the topics list and goes on and on and on. I have finally decided to throw my two cents in. First of all, I don't have any summer bday kids. However, I do know of several friend's and relative's kids (a couple are hockey players) with summer bdays that didn’t start until they were six. I am told it is the thing to do these days. One of my good friends has two summer bday boys (not hockey players) that both started kindergarten at age six at the recommendation of their school district. They told them that waiting until age six was more common than starting at age five. They have said it was the best decision they could have ever made. I promise you, athletics was the last thing on their mind.
I just don't believe that any great number of parents hold their kids back in order to excel in athletics. Sure a few do, but not many. Those who say athletics is the main motivation to hold a kid back are just plain cynical. Don't you think that if it was just parent's trying to gain an athletic advantage for their kids, there would be much larger numbers of late entry kids that were born outside of the June-August timeframe?
After reading these posts, the one thing that seams most apparent to me is that parents of summer bday kids that start kindergarten at age 5, resent the fact that other parents have delayed their summer bday kids. It also seems that these same parents are the most vocal opponents of a change to June 1st.
I am just one person, but a change to June 1st seems to make the most sense to me. It is the only date the allows the vast majority of kids to play with their grade. If only 30% of June kids started late, that 30% could play with their grade. The other 70% that started on time could also play with their grade. Everybody wins except for those parents that resent the late starters, and thats OK by me.
I just don't believe that any great number of parents hold their kids back in order to excel in athletics. Sure a few do, but not many. Those who say athletics is the main motivation to hold a kid back are just plain cynical. Don't you think that if it was just parent's trying to gain an athletic advantage for their kids, there would be much larger numbers of late entry kids that were born outside of the June-August timeframe?
After reading these posts, the one thing that seams most apparent to me is that parents of summer bday kids that start kindergarten at age 5, resent the fact that other parents have delayed their summer bday kids. It also seems that these same parents are the most vocal opponents of a change to June 1st.
I am just one person, but a change to June 1st seems to make the most sense to me. It is the only date the allows the vast majority of kids to play with their grade. If only 30% of June kids started late, that 30% could play with their grade. The other 70% that started on time could also play with their grade. Everybody wins except for those parents that resent the late starters, and thats OK by me.