Age change in Minnesota Hockey?

[timcorbin21]

this practice has an impact on the other kids as well. Someone and I guess its Minnesota Board of Education has decided that on average kids are ready for kindergarten at 5 and that classes should have an age range of 12 months

[spin-o-rama]

MH has 2 year age groupings. There is value in limiting the expansion of that age group. The more it is expanded the greater the physical difference.
MH has a good goal to want kids to be able to play with their grade. 9/1 would be the logical cutoff date because it matches the school cutoff date. As MH hockey moves the date earlier it makes the age gap greater for kids who start school on time and want to play with their grade. Someone has to be the youngest, but the youngest shouldn't have more than a 2 year gap.
MH should not look to increase the gap.

[O-townClown]

If they go to a June cut (vs. July) it will lead to comments from some Mays that it should be another month earlier.

[justaguess]

If you want to go by grades, then use grade cut offs instead of a date cut off. Of course that would be silly, because parents would hold their kids back to gain an advantage.

This is what they do in high school. More maturity in school means more maturity in hockey.

One strong high school freshman player this year has an April birthday. He is in 9th grade and is 16years old. Do you think he has an advantage over a ninth grader who is still 14?

Do you think his parents thought of that?

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

If they go to a June cut (vs. July) it will lead to comments from some Mays that it should be another month earlier.

The cut has to be somewhere ... the June 1 date follows the logic that summer birthdays are the ones most often held back ... the studies show june and july are at the same rate, august is a little higher , may is is insignificant in comparison. The logical and fair thing to do is treat all summer birthdays the same - either June 1 or September 1

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

MH has 2 year age groupings. There is value in limiting the expansion of that age group. The more it is expanded the greater the physical difference.
MH has a good goal to want kids to be able to play with their grade. 9/1 would be the logical cutoff date because it matches the school cutoff date. As MH hockey moves the date earlier it makes the age gap greater for kids who start school on time and want to play with their grade. Someone has to be the youngest, but the youngest shouldn't have more than a 2 year gap.
MH should not look to increase the gap.

This rule change wouldn't affect the 2 year grouping. The gap stays exactly the same. It would be June-May instead of July-June. It simply allows all summer birthdays to be treated the same. Since there is no significant difference between June and July kids when it comes to school starting age, there also should be no difference in starting hockey. June, July and August are different than the other 9 (in school) months of the year, as kids born in these 3 months are most often held back ( June & July at the same rate). However, under the current rule, only July & August birthdays are given options. The summer kids born in June, who face the same unique issues, are not currently allowed the same options.

This rule doesn;t affect that gap, (it remains 24 months) it merely ends over a decade of prejudice against the June born summer kids.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

this practice has an impact on the other kids as well. Someone and I guess its Minnesota Board of Education has decided that classes should have an age range of 12 months

The Education system has shown a great deal of wisdom in this age grouping, as have other major contact sports (and hockey in most of the rest of the world) - it's unfortunate that hockey in Minnesota lags behind.

[O-townClown]

The cut has to be somewhere ... the June 1 date follows the logic that summer birthdays are the ones most often held back ... the studies show june and july are at the same rate, august is a little higher , may is is insignificant in comparison. The logical and fair thing to do is treat all summer birthdays the same - either June 1 or September 1

Exactly. Yes, the cut has to be somewhere. Nationally it is Jan 1. Minnesota, in an attempt to align closer to school grades, is on a July 1 line of demarcation. The reasoning was that school, which is Sept 1 in most states (and I think Minnesota too), often sees boys close to the cut that start late for all the reasons mentioned.

So in this dicussion the date has moved from January to September to July and now June. My point is that it won't eliminate those that say it 'should' be moved.

To me, the logical thing would be to pick a date and stick with it. Whatever that date is.

(My buddy's kid will be a huge beneficiary if it moves back a month.)

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

To me, the logical thing would be to pick a date and stick with it. Whatever that date is.

Agreed. Pick one and stick with it. That said, July 1 is the WRONG date.

- September 1 makes sense ... that's the start of the school year
- January 1 makes sense ... that's the start of the calendar year
- June 1 makes sense ... that's the end of the school year

July 1 makes no sense. It's not the start or end of the school year or calendar year. It's an arbitrary date that further fragments the kids by splitting up the summer birthdays and treating them differently.

When they picked the date, they did so thinking that kids in July and August were held back at a higher rate than the rest. Current research shows June & July kids held back at roughly the same rate, more in August and almost none in the other 9 months combined.

My personal preference is calendar year (January 1) like the rest of the world, but that's just my personal preference. Such a date will never fly in Minnesota and does present conflicts with the high school system ... fair enough.

So the next consideration is in accomodating the summer birthdays ... you either do or you don't. If you don't, then you make it September 1 and tell them to suck it up. If you do, then you set the date at June 1 and include all the summer birthdays the same.

But all July 1 does is empower some while alienating others in the same situation (summer birthdays). It seems on it's surface, unconstitutional - certainly unfair - and at best ilogical.

Moving to September 1 or June 1 is a simple improvement that creates equity amongst the membership, helps many and hurts no one.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

(My buddy's kid will be a huge beneficiary if it moves back a month.)

That depends on who you talk to ... One school of thought is that kids improve more when they play older competition ... the other school of thought is that kids improve more when they dominate an age group ... probably 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

It probably depends on the kid and his association. Many B & C level players will benefit from playing with the lower age group, while high end A players with size would benefit from playing with the older group.

Best scenario is probably to set the date at June 1 and allow parents to opt for the older group if they feel their child is ready and his association allows it.

Really simple stuff. Much to-do about nothing with this age change. Not sure why anyone would be against letting these kids play where they belong ... wherever that may be.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

To me, the logical thing would be to pick a date and stick with it. Whatever that date is.

... and I guess the key word here is logical . Opposition to the date change seems fueled by personal agendas that have nothing to do with the benefit of Minnesota kids or Minnesota hockey - only the benefit of individual kids - or the fear of someone elses kid getting a leg up - and that seems to be the biggest obstacles here.

It's good to see that the Minnesota Hockey Board worked through that and have begun acting on the research. Great steps taken and a logical conclusion seems imminent. Hopefully we will have a June 1 or September 1 date in place for the 2011-12 season.[/i]

[O-townClown]

That depends on who you talk to ... One school of thought is that kids improve more when they play older competition ... the other school of thought is that kids improve more when they dominate an age group ... probably 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

It probably depends on the kid and his association. Many B & C level players will benefit from playing with the lower age group, while high end A players with size would benefit from playing with the older group.

An average player with a bad birth date in a mega association does not have any chance to make an A team and can even struggle to be B1 as a second year PW or Bantam. Move the date a few days and the average player all of a sudden is considered very good.

It would depend on the circumstances, but in this case he'd be a huge beneficiary.

Last week I was talking with a mom about our sons, who were born on the same day in January. She remarked, "if you read Outliers, you know they have a huge advantage!"

Actually, that's not the exact argument. Gladwell writes that in Canada, some late birthdays are stunted by not making teams and then their development is hindered and they don't wind up as good as they could be.

In Florida, it isn't really an issue. Our kids won't get cut from teams very often. Eventually the kids will all go through puberty and things will levelize. At age 17 it won't be a surprise to see Octobers and Novembers as the best one.

We live in the anti-mega association.

[InTheKnow]

Puck,

Why do you care about the date change? I believe your son plays for the Fire, which goes on birth year, and will probably end up at a private school somewhere.

[HeShootsHeScores]

She remarked, "if you read Outliers, you know they have a huge advantage!"

There is so much more to the Outliers than the birth month of a professional hockey player. The author spends 3 pages talking about hockey and 300 pages talking about familes that work hard and pass on those values to their children. What's next? Couples planning to have a baby in January to increase the probility of a professional hockey
career?
My vote would be September 1st, it make the most sense but i don't have a kid born in June so I guess I won't be getting a survey.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Here's a compelling breakdown of last years WHL Bantam Draft. This is the Western Canada/USA draft of Bantam Majors, where January 1 is the start date ...

– The breakdown by birth month:

January – 47 players
February – 38 players
March – 23 players
April – 32 players
May – 20 players
June – 17 players
July – 16 players
August – 11 players
September – 4 players
October – 10 players
November – 13 players
December – 4 players

Moreover, albeit a bit of a coincidence, there were 8 players drafted who had January 1 birthdays. 8!! That's as many kids born January 1 in the draft (the oldest you can possibly be) as were picked from the months of September & December combined.

In fact, there were more kids drafted with January birthdays then all kids drafted with birthdays from August-December!!

Now, before you thinking the bantam draft doesn't matter - consider this;

In last years NHL entry draft, there were 32 WHL players drafted that were eligible for their WHL Bantam draft. Of those 32 players, 11 were 1st round WHL draft picks, 6 of them were 2nd WHL round draft picks, 9 were drafted in later rounds of the Bantam draft and only 6 were passed over in the bantam draft.

So, getting then kids in fair age groupings might not be an important issue for everybody, but if a player has the potential to play at higher levels, it really is critical to get him playing at least with kids his own age (single year) and a definite advantage to being the oldest in a group.

Right now in Minnesota we make allowances for summer birthdays July and August with the ability to play down or up, but summer birthdays in June are robbed of that same opportunity, so, it's unfortunate for those kids - and uneccessary.

Hopefully Minnesota Hockey will rectify that situation. Again, hurts no one but potentially helps many, including the kid of O-Towns friend. I hope he gets an opportunity to play with his peers.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Puck,

Why do you care about the date change?

Actually, the only child I have playing Association Hockey in Minnesota is a March birthday, so this date change would have no impact on him.

I also don't have a kid on the '99 Torspo team, or the Icemen or the Legacy. I also don't have a kid playing Bantam A hockey or in the Detroit MoTown Tourney etc., but I do post in this forum on those topics as well.

I suppose many years deeply involved in youth hockey on both sides of the border at all levels from association to AAA elite, behind the bench and as a player myself has just given me with a deep interest and passion for it. So I enjoy the conversation on these forums (the civil ones anyways).

It's also good to see Minnesota pro-active on this small (but important to many) issue, and they ought to be applauded for it.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Now, as a bit of contrast to the lean on age and size listed above, here's a cool article for those with skilled but under-sized peewees heading into Bantam hockey this fall ... they might get some inspiration from this guy

http://www.westerncollegehockeyblog.com ... ban-knight

[Pioneerprideguy]

(My buddy's kid will be a huge beneficiary if it moves back a month.)

That depends on who you talk to ... One school of thought is that kids improve more when they play older competition ... the other school of thought is that kids improve more when they dominate an age group ... probably 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

It probably depends on the kid and his association. Many B & C level players will benefit from playing with the lower age group, while high end A players with size would benefit from playing with the older group.

Best scenario is probably to set the date at June 1 and allow parents to opt for the older group if they feel their child is ready and his association allows it.

Really simple stuff. Much to-do about nothing with this age change. Not sure why anyone would be against letting these kids play where they belong ... wherever that may be.[/quote]

It's refereshing to read when people actually get it.

[Haute hockeymom]

The underlying premises for a Date Change, put forth by the MH Planning Committee, are false

"Many July-Aug birthdates start KG when six." False

"Number of parents starting their kids in KG at age six is increasing." False

June 1 is arbitrary - no more meaningful than the 2nd or 3rd. Sept 1 is the deadline for school registration and Jan 1 corresponds to USAH.

Where did June 1 come from? It makes no sense.

(June 1 is first day of Hurricane Season)

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

All due respect hockeymom, I believe you have taken the paper out of context and indeed missed some of it''s key points.

The MH initiative is based on COMPLETE enrollment numbers. The Board of Education paper you quote is a readiness study based on a random sampling of 105 elementary schools. For perspective, there are 2,775 schools in Minnesota.

Absent a systematic process for this evaluation, the Minnesota Department of Education in 2002 initiated a series of three yearly studies focused on obtaining a picture of the school readiness of a representative sample of Minnesota kindergartners as they enter school in the fall, and to evaluate changes in the percentage of children fully prepared for school at kindergarten entrance.

The paper concedes that it's study is not inclusive or neccesarily representative of the whole ( merely a sample - including just 105 of 2,775 Minnesota schools). It's purpose is to identify trends in kindergarten readiness.

Many of it's core findings support holding kids back until they are ready. Key amongst them, which support the MH initiative are;

- boys are 3 times more likely to be unprepared to start kindergarten at age 5.

- parents should be relied on as a childs first teachers to best decide when a child is ready to start kindergarten.

- Research has shown, and continues to show that there is a critical relationship between early childhood experiences and positive life-long outcomes. For this reason many states strive to reduce the growing achievement gap between less advantaged students (who begin school unprepared) and their same-aged peers.

These central themes are also true athleticly and Minnesota Hockey is rightly looking to close the gap for those with a disadvantaged start. Summer babies (June-July-August) have always been the traditional late starters due simply to their age in comparison with students with in-school birthdays after the September start. The complete enrollment numbers from the Minnesota Board of Education confirm this to be true and in a wise and correct move, Minnesota Hockey has now turned to the the first teachers of these children (their parents) for their input on the matter.

Eventual outcome aside, the Minnesota Hockey Committee in charge of this issue should be recognized and applauded for a strong and correct process.

The underlying premises for a Date Change, put forth by the MH Planning Committee, is completely spot on and based on State Wide complete enrollment numbers for the past decade.

While this issue may have a benign ripple effects throughout Minnesota Hockey, it will have major positive improvements in the minor hockey careers of 1 in 12 Minnesota Hockey players who who previously disadvantaged in a prejudiced manor. We should all put our own petty interests aside and support these kids and this initiative.

[Haute hockeymom]

the information you are referring to - the "Complete Enrollment Numbers" - where can it be be found?

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

the information you are referring to - the "Complete Enrollment Numbers" - where can it be be found?

It's all listed earlier in this thread. You might also check the Minnesota Hockey website where the minutes are kept for these meetings.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

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 June 1st is 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, 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, 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.

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.

Hockeymom, there it is (from earlier in this thread) ... the sterile version is somewhere on the MH website in archived minutes ... hope that sheds some light

[phil mccracken]

the information you are referring to - the "Complete Enrollment Numbers" - where can it be be found?

The Minnesota Dept of Education, You can call ST Paul and ask for data specific to each month and year. It should be noted that MN Hockey registration percentages and Minnesota public / private school registration are much differnent. The demographics of a traveling hockey player is not necessarily a reflection of all youth enrolled in MN schools. What you may find is those that do wait have many common attributes alike, from family status, to parental education level.

A 10 year trend over many years does show a school enrollment increase, a smaller scope of a few years is not much to go on. A guess would be that in 2009 and 2010 more kids will start school at age 5 with summer b-days then those in 2008, 2007. A optimist may hope just the same in 2011', and 2012' more will wait till the age of 6. That is due the economy. It cost less money to have your child enrolled in elmentary school, then it does to stay home and not work.

The statics of MN Hockey enrolled players is what I believe they will look at. Their demographics, not limited to just hockey, is a much higher percentage.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

The demographics of a hockey player is not necessarily a reflection of all youth enrolled in MN schools.

Right. Which is another consideration. Looking at CMR's data above, you can see that the demographis for Minnesota hockey players is almost double what it is for general enrollment, although, the general enrollment numbers are compelling enough on their own.