Age change in Minnesota Hockey?

[JSR]

The numbers are not accurate.

The only accurate numbers are those from the MN Department of Education which show that virtually all children enter kindergarten at age 5.

Appendix D

Delayed entry into kindergarten is a myth - it does not happen

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.

From the Yahoo News article mentioned above:

"According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), about 9 percent of kindergartners were redshirted between 1993 and 1995. Data is currently being collected on this year's batch of kids, but won't be available for several more years. Based on a 2007 report, an NCES representative estimated that 14 percent of kids ages 5 to 6 were redshirted or had parents planning to delay their kindergarten entry."

Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.

Can the propaganda campaign by valleyball, spin-o-rama, and others on this site finally come to an end. If this doesn't prove to them that delayed entry not only exists, but is becoming increasingly common, then they have lost all credibility.

Maybe you should have read the NCES data before you cited it. The very same data you reference above shows that those born in June are among the least likely to delay.
Table 1. Pg 18

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98097.pdf

Also, I am confused. I don't see where anything that welders posted above from the NCES helps or substantiates his side. If anything it actually supports what spin and valley were saying (assuming you actually read everything they wrote and use it in proper context)

[Haute hockeymom]

Reminds me of a dissociative disorder called Ganser Syndrome - characterized by lapses in memory, awareness, identity. Those afflicted commonly respond to questions with absurd answers.

Extremely rare, but not as rare as a 6-year old, born in June, who enters Kindergarten late and plays hockey.

[justbecause]

Welders,

I don't know why you continue to engage certain posters. It's obvious that they have an agenda and have nothing to offer to what should be an open-minded discussion on the possible change in the cutoff date for MN Hockey. Thank you for your insightful opinion.

[BadgerBob82]

justbecause: I will engage you to explain your statement made earlier, "The other 70% that started on time could also play with their grade."

If the cutoff is changed to June first, the 70% that started school ontime just got pushed into playing a grade below their age.

The point I have made is that I question the numbers, which some data would show only 15% hold back in June so you would vote for a change that is for the benefit of 15%-30% of the June kids and adversely impacts 70%-85% of the June kids. And, when you think June birthdates would account for 10% of all the kids in a birthyear, you would further advocate a change that impacts about 98% of the players for the benefit of 2%?

To me, that is the squeeky wheel syndrome at its finest!

Take your argument to the MN Board of Education. If the majority of kids are held out of school with June, July, August birthdates, then get the school entry date changed from Sept 1 to June 1. This would eliminate all issues and MN Hockey would immediately follow with a June 1 cutoff.

This is not resentment. This is logical thinking.

[JSR]

Welders,

I don't know why you continue to engage certain posters. It's obvious that they have an agenda and have nothing to offer to what should be an open-minded discussion on the possible change in the cutoff date for MN Hockey. Thank you for your insightful opinion.

I'll also engage and reiterate that I don't live in MN, my kids don;t play and will never play for a MN team (unless in the UNLIKELY event they end up being good enough to play for an NAHL team based there later in life) so I have no agenda on either side. I just see the logical and illogical agruments and have been trying to give objective opinions to both as an outsider.

[watchdog]

ok badgerbob so explain to all of us why the cut off is july 1st since you seem to have all the right facts and correct way of thinking? i would also like to know how it effects a kid born in july if they change the cut off to june? so they add a kid that might be a month older? wow oh my lord thats not gona fly!! i have two kids born in june and everytime their a first year player their two years younger than the rest of the team when does that EVER happen to a july baby? i have the answer for ya NEVER in youth hockey. so im just gona throw out a guess that your kid is born after july 1. just think about your last post bob the 70 % this and the 30% that is RETARTED. if a kid is born in july and aug and goes to school ON TIME the same year and grade as the kid born in JUNE the june kid could be moving to bantams while the kids born in july and august dont. throw that into your little stat machine. so have the cut of sept 1st if its all about grade.. either way we are talking about 30 days who cares. it will have zero effect on any kids OTHER THAN THOSE BORN IN JUNE... unless your upset about the kids that may or may not make the team because of the june kids taking spots. thats the only way it could possiable affect any other kid not born in the month of june.

[BadgerBob82]

watchdog: Thank you for making my case! The ONLY people screaming for a change to May 31st are the June baby parents. And you've said it loud and clear, your kids are the youngest in hockey and you don't like it. So change the age to benefit your kids.

I have said all along, the age change would ONLY impact June babies. However, various people have pointed to studies and stats showing 15-30% of June babies are held out of school. Therefore, moving to a May 31st cut-off would negatively impact the 70-85% of the kids that were not red shirted as they would have to play down. So, the rule change would be made to benefit 2% of the kids that play hockey. Not a very significant number of people to warrant a rule change, huh?

I 100% agree, I would like to see a Sept 1st cut-off. Then it is aligned with school grade. If not Sept 1, then Jan 1 like the rest of the hockey world. I have no clue when/why the July 1st cutoff was put in place. But I think it's been July 1st for over the 20 years I've been involved in youth hockey.

To carry your argument one step further, why not back up the cut-off to April 1st? I have an April and August kid, so then it could benefit BOTH of my boys. And what would you care, as long as your June babies get to play down? Wait, my nephew is a March birthday, could we change it to March 1st? My sister would appreciate it and you shouldn't mind since your June babies will be able to play down?

[valleyball]

You guys ok with Feb 1? My Neighbor said that would be best for him...something about his kid not being emotiunally ready to tackle the rigors of afternoon kindergarten.

[valleyball]

50% of the Feb b-days are holding back but none of the January.

The kid just wants to play with his class!

[old goalie85]

July 1st makes little or no sense to me. School grade[sept 1] or Jan 1 so we can go to nationals like the rest of the Bantams in the U.S.A.

[justbecause]

justbecause: I will engage you to explain your statement made earlier, "The other 70% that started on time could also play with their grade."

If the cutoff is changed to June first, the 70% that started school ontime just got pushed into playing a grade below their age.

The point I have made is that I question the numbers, which some data would show only 15% hold back in June so you would vote for a change that is for the benefit of 15%-30% of the June kids and adversely impacts 70%-85% of the June kids. And, when you think June birthdates would account for 10% of all the kids in a birthyear, you would further advocate a change that impacts about 98% of the players for the benefit of 2%?

To me, that is the squeeky wheel syndrome at its finest!

Take your argument to the MN Board of Education. If the majority of kids are held out of school with June, July, August birthdates, then get the school entry date changed from Sept 1 to June 1. This would eliminate all issues and MN Hockey would immediately follow with a June 1 cutoff.

This is not resentment. This is logical thinking.

These other 70% (I question the number) would not get pushed into playing a grade below their age. As I understand it, kids in MN youth hockey can't play down a level, but could stay at the level they are at and should in order to play with their grade.

What to you intend to do when these same delayed entry summer bday kids get to high school hockey and play a grade below the kids who started on time?

By the way, where did you find the data that shows that only 15% hold back in June?

[CoachCleats]

More like 5%

Table 1. Pg 18

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98097.pdf

[Haute hockeymom]

Even if the 10% were evenly distributed throughout the year we are talking about less than 1% of the population.

[Haute hockeymom]

Most likely the distribution is Normal with the largest number delaying immediately before and after September 1

[keepmeoutofit]

if you want to use real numbers which pertain to your own circumstance, call your high school and ask them. they can also give you a print out with the birth date and grade point avg of each grade.
a student here doing an article for the school newspaper did three three years ago. 25% delayed kindergarten. only 2 kids out of over 800 had skipped or been moved ahead a year. the school wouldn't print the article

[watchdog]

actually i dont mind one bit my oldest is in high school and playing against older kids all the way up has paid off alot and my youngest is at the top of his team both as a first year and second year so i could careless. my point was simply to point out how stupid your statments were. i still say their is no effect on 70% of anyone the only kids affected would be june kids thats it period end of story and for people to write 27 pages on a trivial 30 days is still funny

[Benito Juarez]

How about two bites?

[council member retired]

[quote="Benito Juarez"]How about two bites?[/quote]

i remember when you could get a haircut and your skates sharpened for two bits. I believe the place was in Hibbing.

[stickdownheadup]

Any update after the meetings today?

[council member retired]

[quote="stickdownheadup"]Any update after the meetings today?[/quote]

If you want The change or don't want the change go to the meeting tomorrow morning.

District 10 director the time has come to listen closer to your constituents.

[stickdownheadup]

Any update after the meetings today?

If you want The change or don't want the change go to the meeting tomorrow morning.

District 10 director the time has come to listen closer to your constituents.

Is this to be voted on tomorrow?

[greybeard58]

if the age change is not pulled it is on the agenda under old business.

CMR, The D 10 Director listens and has in the past voted for what the majority of the members of District 10 were in favor of and I believe that he will vote tomorrow on a number of issues that the majority of his constituents want not what the minority wants.

[Ugottobekiddingme]

You make it sound like TT has a clue on what is being considered for vote...we would all be better off if he found greener pastures.

[greybeard58]

U please explain what has brought you to the conclusion above. What vote or position he has taken has in fact hurt the constituents of District 10 or has gone against the majorities wishes or is this personal?

[hockey_is_a_choice]

Greybeard,

TT does not listen well and he is a bully, especially if you disagree with him. He is stuck in the past and he has alienated members with his "it's my way or the highway approach." I agree with another poster. It's time for TT to find greener pastures.