Age change in Minnesota Hockey?

[spin-o-rama]

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.

Technically they are separate. In the operations of the associations and the mindset of the members they are very closely linked.

[InigoMontoya]

I would even go as far as saying that Minnesota Hockey cultivates that link. Association to high school - very Minnesotan. And it isn't "entirely separate", MNH uses school districts to define association borders.

[InigoMontoya]

NCAA to the NFL or NBA

I'd be a tough sell that they are "entirely separate", as well.

[O-townClown]

NCAA to the NFL or NBA

I'd be a tough sell that they are "entirely separate", as well.

But they are. The professional leagues use American colleges as de facto minor leagues, but it is a far cry from MLB where the league and its teams have total control.

The NCAA might listen to requests from the NFL and NBA. Might.

[Snowmass]

So when is the official vote? When will we know the final decision?

[dumb blonde]

I am having difficulty figuring out why the current date of July 1 is so difficult to live with.

Our association has given the kids who fall July 1 - start of school the ability to play with their grade if that is what they chose. It is not a huge number of players who fall into this category.

Add in June players, now the number grows. I have not seen any June b-days who chose to play up. I know of one kid who stayed back a year because he wasn't ready to go when the other kids his age were. He has played with the older group but I don't think he is any worse for it.

It's a sliding scale. I just don't see what the big deal is here other than a few people who have their undies in a bundle over things that don't matter.

Maybe it's my hair color...

[watchdog]

i think the bigger question here is why do people care enough about this to post 20 pages. they change it one month or they dont who cares! personly i have a son born june 9th alot of his classmates do stay behind but thier are some that do move up. one of the issues or problems people have here is they have the super star player every other year and may loose that if june is added or they have a bubble and that boy will be on the B team. personaly i have no prefrence my son gets an extra year of high school if they dont change it and if they do change it youth hockey will be alot easier for him. so thiers an upside either way.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

I am having difficulty figuring out why the current date of July 1 is so difficult to live with.

Our association has given the kids who fall July 1 - start of school the ability to play with their grade if that is what they chose. It is not a huge number of players who fall into this category.

Add in June players, now the number grows. I have not seen any June b-days who chose to play up. I know of one kid who stayed back a year because he wasn't ready to go when the other kids his age were. He has played with the older group but I don't think he is any worse for it.

It's a sliding scale. I just don't see what the big deal is here other than a few people who have their undies in a bundle over things that don't matter.

Maybe it's my hair color...

I think it's your hair color. June kids shuld recieve the the same treatment as July & August , whatever that may be. How do you make advocate for some kids with summer birthdays but alienate others? You either make allowances for all of them or none of them.

June 1 acomodates them all and coincides with the Minnesota School Calendar (end of year). It also has the added benefit of minimizing the relative age effect. A perfect date for the Minnesota model and working in perfect synchrnization with the Minnesota High School system.

Hurts no one. Helps many.

[murray]

Watchdog

You can get in trouble asking those big questions.

[Pioneerprideguy]

Has anyone had any contact with their local associations to see how they feel about this issue? I believe the District Directors were gathering feedback from the associations. Just curious to see what people have heard from those who will have a say.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Has anyone had any contact with their local associations to see how they feel about this issue? I believe the District Directors were gathering feedback from the associations. Just curious to see what people have heard from those who will have a say.

The 2 Association Presidents I talked to are both anxious to get the date corrected to June 1 ... I hope they get what they are looking for ... Hurts no one. Helps many.

[muckandgrind]

IMO, the only two dates that make any sense are Jan 1 or Sept 1

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

I'm not opposed to January 1, but I don't think Minnesota has the appettite for that.

I agree also with September 1, based on the school year (school start).

June 1 also corresponds with the school year (school end) and has two added components
1.) it accomodates summer babies (all of them) who start who school late
2.) it minimizes relative age within an age group better than any other cutoff

I think we can all agree that July 1 makes no sense at all ...

[TriedThat2]

Keep it up Who, you might take this to 21 pages!

Everyone that I talk to sees no reason for the change. Even MN Hockey's numbers show that this is very small percentage of their customers.

[Snowmass]

I know the answer is probably buried deep in this thread...but when exactly does this all come to a head? When is the 'final vote'? Thank you

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Everyone that I talk to sees no reason for the change.

That may say more about "who" you're talking to then the reason(s) for July 1. I have yet to see 1 single valid reason for July 1 ... perhaps you, or the people you are talking to, can furnish one ...

not being sarcastic by the way, I really would love to hear valid reasons for July 1 ... so far ... nothing has been offered

In the face of of so many valid reasons for other dates (Jan1, June 1, September 1) - July 1 offers nothing but an arbitrary date for no apparent reason(s) ... surely, our kids deserve more than that ...

On the bright side, the people in authority that I have spoken with are in agreement that the date needs to be corrected (not at all suggesting that I am speaking with *THE* people in authority, just the ones in limited rolls that I have spoken with)

[JSR]

Everyone that I talk to sees no reason for the change.

That may say more about "who" you're talking to then the reason(s) for July 1. I have yet to see 1 single valid reason for July 1 ... perhaps you, or the people you are talking to, can furnish one ...

not being sarcastic by the way, I really would love to hear valid reasons for July 1 ... so far ... nothing has been offered

In the face of of so many valid reasons for other dates (Jan1, June 1, September 1) - July 1 offers nothing but an arbitrary date for no apparent reason(s) ... surely, our kids deserve more than that ...

On the bright side, the people in authority that I have spoken with are in agreement that the date needs to be corrected (not at all suggesting that I am speaking with *THE* people in authority, just the ones in limited rolls that I have spoken with)

Not my fight, I don't have a dog in this fight. But just as an objective outsider may I offer that July first is the half way point of the year. And if January 1 is your normal other cutoff date for birth year, July 1 offers the almost exact half way point of the year as the alternative cutoff date. It's not just an arbitrary date, there is reason to it even if you don't liek the reason. If you like that January 1 is used for summer and spring hockey then July 1 surely is the most understandable mirror date (if you are to have one) for winter hockey. I mean it makes pretty simple, logical sense just from that standpoint.

[greybeard58]

We are going for 21 pages. It was USA Hockey thatfirst changed to July 1 MAHA had changed to Sept 1 and were 8 months younger. MAHA then changed to July 1 just to keep peace. When USA Hockey went back to Jan 1 they also changed the birth year also. Here are the findings from the planning committee at the time:

At the Minnesota Hockey Fall meeting the Planning Committee recommended that the age cut-off date for Minnesota Hockey remain at June 30.

The Planning Committee was charged with making a recommendation that is best for hockey in Minnesota. As a result, they developed some basic considerations to look at regarding hockey in the state. A big part of that was the transition from Bantams to high school programs.

By moving to a January 1 the Planning Committee determined that a large number of players would no longer be eligible for Bantams as 15 year olds. These players would be thrust into the high school programs because of that. The problem of how to accommodate and integrate the influx of players no longer eligible for Bantams into the high school programs was a major concern.

Some schools will likely be able to handle that influx; many others will not. In larger schools it appears that coaches would prefer not to have 9th graders on varsity teams, making their only option to play hockey JV. While high school coaches don't believe JV programs will go away, recent budgetary problems in schools may alter that belief. In fact, many smaller greater Minnesota schools don't have JV programs now. In addition, there was fear that 9th graders would have no place to continue their skill development or that coaches would keep 9th graders and drop 12th graders.

It was suggested that an U16/Midget classification would solve that problem. Again, the metro area has already developed a viable U16/midget program (the Metro league) because the numbers are high enough to support the program. Greater Minnesota, on the other hand, will not have the critical mass of kids to form those teams. It was suggested that communities could pair together to create that critical mass. Reality however, is that it would be difficult at best for 15 & 16 year old kids to drive 50 to 60 miles one way 3 or 4 nights a week and on weekends in January and February in Minnesota to play U16/Midget hockey. As a result we lose players from our local programs.

Another option studied was to go to Sept 1 so everyone plays with his grade. However, evidence indicates that boys in Minnesota born in July & August are very often held back a year before starting kindergarten. The original goal of this option, to keep everyone playing with their grade, is negated by the fact that samples taken indicate 80% of the boys registered to play hockey, with July and August birthdates, were held back from starting kindergarten as 5-year olds. So now you are back at square one with age classifications split by grade.

There was a concern expressed by associations playing in the vicinity of Minnesota’s borders that because our players will be six months older that teams may not want to come to Minnesota to play and that tournaments outside of Minnesota may not want our teams. After looking at the issue it was determined that about 95% of all sanctioned games and tournaments played in Minnesota are played between Minnesota teams. While that doesn’t help those specific teams and players possibly hurt by this issue, the original charge was to do what was best for hockey in Minnesota. It also appears that many of those teams who come to MN would still do so and those that go outside MN would still do so.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

It was USA Hockey thatfirst changed to July 1 MAHA had changed to Sept 1 and were 8 months younger. MAHA then changed to July 1 just to keep peace.

>>> Right. Flawed logic from the outset. Changing to July 1 with no apparent reason.

By moving to a January 1 the Planning Committee determined that a large number of players would no longer be eligible for Bantams as 15 year olds. These players would be thrust into the high school programs because of that. The problem of how to accommodate and integrate the influx of players no longer eligible for Bantams into the high school programs was a major concern.

>>> Easy to follow the logic here. Stay away from January 1 and build toward the High School Model

Some schools will likely be able to handle that influx; many others will not. In larger schools it appears that coaches would prefer not to have 9th graders on varsity teams, making their only option to play hockey JV. While high school coaches don't believe JV programs will go away, recent budgetary problems in schools may alter that belief. In fact, many smaller greater Minnesota schools don't have JV programs now. In addition, there was fear that 9th graders would have no place to continue their skill development or that coaches would keep 9th graders and drop 12th graders.

>>> Again. Easy to see this logic.

It was suggested that an U16/Midget classification would solve that problem. Again, the metro area has already developed a viable U16/midget program (the Metro league) because the numbers are high enough to support the program. Greater Minnesota, on the other hand, will not have the critical mass of kids to form those teams. It was suggested that communities could pair together to create that critical mass. Reality however, is that it would be difficult at best for 15 & 16 year old kids to drive 50 to 60 miles one way 3 or 4 nights a week and on weekends in January and February in Minnesota to play U16/Midget hockey. As a result we lose players from our local programs.

>>> Right. A lot of thought put into this. Good thinking. Good discussion.

Another option studied was to go to Sept 1 so everyone plays with his grade.

>>> Another good option. Keep it simple. Coordinate with the start of the school year.

However, evidence indicates that boys in Minnesota born in July & August are very often held back a year before starting kindergarten. The original goal of this option, to keep everyone playing with their grade, is negated by the fact that samples taken indicate 80% of the boys registered to play hockey, with July and August birthdates, were held back from starting kindergarten as 5-year olds. So now you are back at square one with age classifications split by grade.

>>> Here's where things go askew ... there are 3 months of summer - not 2. June, July & August, not July & August. Minnesota Hockey made allowances for SOME of these kids while ALIENATING others. Kids born in June and July are held back at the same rate, yet an allowance is made for the July kids while the June kids are left back. It doesn't take a Harvard lawyer to see the inequity in that.

The original charge was to do what was best for hockey in Minnesota.

>> Fortunately, we can still do this. Correct the date to June 1. Helps many. Hurts no one.

[JSR]

Fortunately, we can still do this. Correct the date to June 1. Helps many. Hurts no one

Could someone please educate me why these June kids are so much more or less important than the ones in May and or July? And what does summer really have to do with anything really? Winter season begins and ends well after and well before a school year ends. Plus spring and summer hockey have January 1 cutoffs. I don't get it. FWIW our schools go well into June (June 12 to be exact) and don't start til September, usually after labor day. I am guesing many schools districts in MN are also like this. Is your kid a June birthday, is this why your so up in arms over it being June 1 instead of July 1?

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

JSR, I don't have a dog in the fight, (my kid is March 18th, so a change to January or September help him, NOT June), but logic is logic. We need to make decisions that are in the best interest of ALL the kids and eliminate this MY kid or YOUR kid mentality. Under the current date, some kids are just getting left out and that should concern us all.

CMR summed it up best ...

I will try to put light in the tunnel.

The new data, well continual data over the last decade has shown that June 1st is what MH once reasoned their July 1st date at. It appears MH has looked at this change as one "how to allow more kids to be bantam eligible in 9th grade", " how to retain hockey players" and is June 1st a better date.

I have asked and seen the data. The trend to start school if a August b-day at 6 is substantial, 50%. The trend to start school at 6, if July and June is rather identical to each other, say 25%. The number is enhanced when you see the % of MN hockey registered player that starts at age 6, August born MH is showing over 80% at age 6, ( That is why it is currently July 1) , July and June is about or over 50%. May is like walking outward into a lake, you go slow to 8' then 30'... May is not measurable, under a percent. With the current date so many kids are not eligible for association hockey in the 9th grade. And during their earlier years so many of them are not playing with their peers for 1 year at each age level, i.e. peewees. Having a July 1 date now has benefited so many kids, that is what it is about. Both those that attended school at age 5, and those that didn't have options. Currently many June kids do not. And some don't have anywhere to play association hockey in the 9th grade. I don't think anyone "pro youth hockey" would want a kid not to be able to play the game? It maybe time to improve on that.

Data shows both National and MN schools trend over the last 15 to 20 years increases the % of summer b-days to enter school at age 6. In the data I saw, some states recently implemented a age increase for when a child can start school. There is your school data. However MN hockey should not take into account the demographics of their state, but of their membership.

Having the right age classification is something MH has looked at from time to time. It has been switched before, each time with reason to better community hockey and allow more kids to participate. Not once has it been for size, competition, or to win a national title. With recent data MH may realize that changing to June 1, betters the program as a whole. If they do I applaud them.

Well said CMR, well said. Hurts no one. Helps many.

[iwearmysunglassesatnight]

[quote="JSR"][quote]Fortunately, we can still do this. Correct the date to June 1. Helps many. Hurts no one[/quote]

Could someone please educate me why these June kids are so much more or less important than the ones in May and or July? And what does summer really have to do with anything really? Winter season begins and ends well after and well before a school year ends. Plus spring and summer hockey have January 1 cutoffs. I don't get it. FWIW our schools go well into June (June 12 to be exact) and don't start til September, usually after labor day. I am guesing many schools districts in MN are also like this. Is your kid a June birthday, is this why your so up in arms over it being June 1 instead of July 1?[/quote]

the disclaimer should be " this post was from a wisconsin resident"

[JSR]

JSR, I don't have a dog in the fight, (my kid is March 18th, so a change to January or September help him, NOT June), but logic is logic. We need to make decisions that are in the best interest of ALL the kids and eliminate this MY kid or YOUR kid mentality. Under the current date, some kids are just getting left out and that should concern us all.

CMR summed it up best ...

I will try to put light in the tunnel.

The new data, well continual data over the last decade has shown that June 1st is what MH once reasoned their July 1st date at. It appears MH has looked at this change as one "how to allow more kids to be bantam eligible in 9th grade", " how to retain hockey players" and is June 1st a better date.

I have asked and seen the data. The trend to start school if a August b-day at 6 is substantial, 50%. The trend to start school at 6, if July and June is rather identical to each other, say 25%. The number is enhanced when you see the % of MN hockey registered player that starts at age 6, August born MH is showing over 80% at age 6, ( That is why it is currently July 1) , July and June is about or over 50%. May is like walking outward into a lake, you go slow to 8' then 30'... May is not measurable, under a percent. With the current date so many kids are not eligible for association hockey in the 9th grade. And during their earlier years so many of them are not playing with their peers for 1 year at each age level, i.e. peewees. Having a July 1 date now has benefited so many kids, that is what it is about. Both those that attended school at age 5, and those that didn't have options. Currently many June kids do not. And some don't have anywhere to play association hockey in the 9th grade. I don't think anyone "pro youth hockey" would want a kid not to be able to play the game? It maybe time to improve on that.

Data shows both National and MN schools trend over the last 15 to 20 years increases the % of summer b-days to enter school at age 6. In the data I saw, some states recently implemented a age increase for when a child can start school. There is your school data. However MN hockey should not take into account the demographics of their state, but of their membership.

Having the right age classification is something MH has looked at from time to time. It has been switched before, each time with reason to better community hockey and allow more kids to participate. Not once has it been for size, competition, or to win a national title. With recent data MH may realize that changing to June 1, betters the program as a whole. If they do I applaud them.

Well said CMR, well said. Hurts no one. Helps many.

I get what you are saying but I think there is athird side to this coin maybe. It's funny because data shows that in ALL states an overwhleming majority of people hold their summer birthday kids back based almost entirely on sports. Not because the kdis are or are not ready for school but so that when they are in high school they will be "older" relative to their peers and will have an advantage in sports because of it. I would think logical people would want to enforce a rule that would discourage this practice, not encourage it. My son is a summer birthday, he is an August 7 birthday, we sent him to school and didn't hold him back. Now granted we don't have an issue here because all levels of hockey are Januray 1 cutoffs down here so if he wanted he could play either Bantams or H.S. when he's a freshman (he'll likely end up playing H.S.). If I would have held him back a year, like many do, he'd play 2 years of batnams but as a freshman would not be Batnam eligible, personally I think that is appropriate but I live in a state with a lesser hockey population. I personally know atleast a dozen kids who are older than my son but a year behind him in school and all but one were perfedctly ready emotionally and mentally, they were all (except that one) held back because of sports. Made my head want to implode.

[JSR]

Fortunately, we can still do this. Correct the date to June 1. Helps many. Hurts no one

Could someone please educate me why these June kids are so much more or less important than the ones in May and or July? And what does summer really have to do with anything really? Winter season begins and ends well after and well before a school year ends. Plus spring and summer hockey have January 1 cutoffs. I don't get it. FWIW our schools go well into June (June 12 to be exact) and don't start til September, usually after labor day. I am guesing many schools districts in MN are also like this. Is your kid a June birthday, is this why your so up in arms over it being June 1 instead of July 1?

the disclaimer should be " this post was from a wisconsin resident"

So??? It's no secret and in fact I think I disclaim it myself in almsot every post to some degree. Even in the post you quoted I elude pretty heavily to the fact that I must not be from MN.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

It's funny because data shows that in ALL states an overwhleming majority of people hold their summer birthday kids back based almost entirely on sports.

>> Not true. See Below.

I would think logical people would want to enforce a rule that would discourage this practice, not encourage it.

>> Logical people don't give a rats ass about holding kids back for sports. Logical people are more concerned about what's best for the child developmentally - both socially and academically. See Below.

My son is a summer birthday, he is an August 7 birthday, we sent him to school and didn't hold him back.

>> That is your choice as his parents and needs to be respected no matter what people *think* your reasoning is. Others expect and are enttled to the same courtesy.

I personally know atleast a dozen kids who are older than my son but a year behind him in school and all but one were perfedctly ready emotionally and mentally, they were all (except that one) held back because of sports.

>> You just don't know that. You are not privy to private discssions between husbands and wives on what is best for their children. You aren't reading books to those kids, playing with them in the park or having discussions with them at the dinner table. Sports may or may not have been part of an equation. Even if a parent told you that wasd the reason exclusively, you just don't know that. I know a guy who said he was holding his kid back for sports, but it turned out the kid was dislexic and the parent didn't feel it was anyone elses business. There are any number of reasons to hold kids back - most of which have nothing to do with sports. See Below.

Made my head want to implode.

>> Don't let your head implode. Here's a reasearch paper (below) done by an expert (no, not Mr.O-Clown, a real expert) , which will shed some light on starting age, relative age and other great insights on childhood development.

(My comments in bold parenthesis)

Those who have spent time in a kindergarten classroom know that there are remarkable differences in children's skills. Research has shown that these skill differences are strongly tied to age, with students who enter kindergarten later in life doing better than younger entrants. Moreover, an "entry-age achievement gap" (hereafter, the EAAG) has been found to persist until as late as the eighth or ninth grade (see, for example, Bedard and Dhuey 2006).

Does this finding imply that parents or policymakers should push children to start kindergarten at a later age? The answer depends in part on what is driving the EAAG. In this Economic Letter, I describe possible interpretations of the EAAG, along with their implications, and discuss new empirical research attempting to establish their relative importance.

Three interpretations of the entry-age achievement gap

There are three broad, and not mutually exclusive, interpretations of the EAAG. The first is "relative age" --that is, older kindergartners stand to gain over the long term because they are temporarily bigger and smarter in relation to their classmates. (<< Same is true for hockey) This can matter for school achievement because elementary school children are sorted into reading and other curricular groups on the basis of achievement, which, as mentioned above, is strongly correlated with age at this point in the life cycle. (<< Or in hockey, A, B & C teams) Placement in the top group (A Team) can be self-reinforcing, since top groups may tackle more advanced material and move more quickly through a given curriculum. At the same time, older school entrants might become relatively more motivated for school or self-confident because of their relative standing in the class. Anecdotally, this concern has created an unsustainable race in some communities to secure one's own child the position at the top of the class, (Understandable) with "kindergartners pushing [age] seven" (<< Whew! 7? Academic parents are crazier than hockey parents) (Gootman 2006).

Importantly, in each case, the result is "zero-sum": (As a group) when older students gain, younger students lose, becoming less engaged with school, being placed in lower reading groups, etc. Therefore, a policy intervention that moves the date by which starting kindergartners should be aged five from December 2 (as is currently the regulation in California) to September 1 would affect who is at the top of the class and who is at the bottom, but not academic outcomes on average. (More important to the individuals than the group - when you force kids who are not ready to begin early you put them at an undue disadvantage)

The second interpretation, "age at entry," is that older school entrants outperform younger school entrants because they are better equipped to succeed in school. While this interpretation of the EAAG might seem quite similar to the relative age interpretation, it differs in a very important way: Here, it is no longer the case that older students gain at the expense of younger students; rather, older students gain without affecting younger students at all. (This is the strongest argument for setting the age to June 1 - the summer kids (younger kids) benefit without taking anything away from the older kids by letting them enter the system at the maximum age , in this case, when the birthday falls within the school year) This suggests that increasing the minimum age at school entry may indeed raise academic outcomes of a cohort on average by promoting the achievement of students who would have otherwise started one year younger. (Exactly) Parents might also be able to improve a child's achievement by holding him back, giving him an extra year of preparation for kindergarten through more preschool and other enriching activities. However, any given child's achievement will not be compromised by other parents making the same choice. (and that's the kicker - as has ben said so many times - "Helps Many. Hurts No One".)

The third interpretation, "age at test," is that age at school entry has no impact on achievement per se, but is correlated with cognitive development and the stock of skills that a child has accumulated outside of school. At any point after kindergarten entry, older children have lived longer and experienced more--had more books read to them by parents, taken more trips to the museum or the zoo, and potentially spent more time in preschool--than younger children who started kindergarten with them. The additional life experience of older students will eventually be minuscule compared to the stock of skills accumulated by their younger counterparts. If "age at test" is driving the EAAG, concern over age at school entry must rest on different grounds.

On balance, this new research suggests that the EAAG is largely an artifact of natural differences in skill between older and younger students. Does this mean that policymakers and parents should not be concerned about age at kindergarten entry? Not necessarily. There are possibly positive spillovers from having older peers, (some here have noted the positives from playing hockey with older kids) but these need to be weighed against the negative effects of starting school later (The vast majority of younger kids who are not able to compete with the older kids and left behind) . First, a lost year of schooling may lower test scores by more than is gained by an additional year of school preparation. Among minorities, high schoolers expected to be youngest in their school cohorts score significantly higher on tests than individuals expected to be eldest in the cohort behind them (Cascio and Lewis 2006). Americans who are older when they start kindergarten also on average end up with less schooling as adults, since the oldest children in a class reach the age at which they can legally leave school in a lower grade (Angrist and Krueger 1991). Further, under the assumption of an unchanging retirement age, the loss of labor market experience among older school entrants might not only negatively impact lifetime earnings, but also lower lifetime contributions to Social Security (Deming and Dynarski 2008). Thus, knowing what drives the EAAG is only a first step toward learning the optimal age at kindergarten entry.

Elizabeth Cascio
Dartmouth College and
Visiting Scholar, FRBSF

References

Angrist, Joshua D., and Alan B. Krueger. 1991. "Does Compulsory School Attendance Affect Education and Earnings?" The Quarterly Journal of Economics 106(4) (November) pp. 979-1,014.

Bedard, Kelly, and Elizabeth Dhuey. 2006. "The Persistence of Early Childhood Maturity: International Evidence of Long-Run Age Effects." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 121 (4) pp. 1,437-1,472.

Black, Sandra, Paul Devereux, and Kjell Salvanes. 2008. "Too Young to Leave the Nest? The Effects of School Starting Age." NBER Working Paper 13969. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Cascio, Elizabeth U., and Ethan G. Lewis. 2006. "Schooling and the Armed Forces Qualifying Test: Evidence from School-Entry Laws." The Journal of Human Resources 41(2), pp. 294-318.

Cascio, Elizabeth U., and Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach. 2007. "First in the Class? Age and the Education Production Function." NBER Working Paper 13663. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Deming, David, and Susan Dynarski. 2008. "The Lengthening of Childhood." Forthcoming, Journal of Economic Perspectives.

Elder, Todd E., and Darren H. Lubotsky. 2008. "Kindergarten Entrance Age and Children's Achievement: Impacts of State Policies, Family Background, and Peers." Forthcoming, The Journal of Human Resources.

Gootman, Elissa. 2006. "Preschoolers Grow Older as Parents Seek an Edge." The New York Times (October 19).

Schanzenbach, Diane Whitmore. 2007. "What Have Researchers Learned from Project STAR?" In Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2006-2007, eds. T. Loveless and F. Hess. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, pp. 205-228.


Set the date to June 1 --- Helps Many. Hurts No ONe.