Age change in Minnesota Hockey?

[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.

Based on the data, May is a non-starter in theis conversation. Apples & Oranges.

council member retired wrote:

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.

Pretty compelling. Change the date to June 1. Close the books and move on.

[spin-o-rama]

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

Do hockey/sports families delay school starts for non-academic reasons like athletic advantages? I had a friend in college who, along with his 6 siblings, started K at age 7 for basketball reasons. I bet that if the MH age date were 9/1 there would be fewer hockey kids starting school at age 6.

Of the summer b-day kids, I also bet fewer delayed Kindergarten start kids will be lost by a move to 9/1 than will/are being lost of regular K start kids under the proposed/current dates. The regular start kids will either be the youngest by over 2 years or not be able to play with their school peers. That will hurt the recreational B/C player recruiting/retention which is the majority of MH numbers.

The stars are still going to be the stars and they will still play. It's the B & C kids that MH needs to look at attracting and maintaining.

The idea to move the date to June 1 for the sole purpose of not making June kids the youngest is absurd. Someone has to be the youngest. Why not make the date March 3rd? Or have a rolling date? Or every season it gets drawn out of a hat?

If MH wants to group kids by grade, as long as they are in the right age range, then 9/1 makes the most sense. Moving the date earlier is not going to help numbers.

I do have a June born kid, but since he is a 2004, makes HD41's 2000 6'3" kid look like a cone, and will be playing Edina Peewee A this year, a cutoff date change won't effect him.

[Haute hockeymom]

Among kids who start school at age 6, there are an equal number born in June and May

SOURCE: Education Policy Analysis Vol 12 No 49

[Haute hockeymom]

Sept 1 is the only date that makes sense

[old goalie85]

Whats the difference. I have five kids with five different mnths and see no difference. The only two choices are leave well enough alone. [ july 1] Change it back to the way it was when most of us were kids [jan1] then the kids from mn can play in the silver stick, nationals tournys like that. I know we miss some 9th grade kids who are out of bantam eligbility. These kids play what we used to call midgets. Now I think they named it u16.

[valleyball]

june 1 is the brainchild of one of our squirt A coach/parent

he has nothing to back it. purely personal agenda.

imagine that?

[valleyball]

this guy presents a bunch of questionable data to the Planning Committee
at the Winter Meeting and now they are santioning a survey to confirm or deny?

look at the meeting minutes..."a lot of discussion about where the data came from and if its accurate"

Brutal. Maybe he should pay for the study

[Haute hockeymom]

Pretty compelling. Change the date to June 1. Close the books and move on.[/quote]

Compelling? Not really. Its one guy with made up numbers trying to change the rules for the benefit of his own kid.

[muckandgrind]

The only two dates that make sense to me are:

Jan 1 - to keep in line with USA hockey.

Sept 1 - to keep players together in the same grade at school.

Any other date, IMO, is purely arbitrary.

[Haute hockeymom]

[quote="muckandgrind"]The only two dates that make sense to me are:

Jan 1 - to keep in line with USA hockey.

Sept 1 - to keep players together in the same grade at school.

Anything other date, IMO, is purely arbitrary.[/quote]

Yes. Agreed

[observer]

Why does this happen with smart people like the two of you? And, why is this discussion going backwards on the "bored."

Listen while I simplify. People make decisions about when to start their child in kindergarden. Some are born in January, February, March and April. All of those children turn 5 and are sent to kindergarden in the fall with very few exceptions. Some are born in September, October, November and December. Those children, almost entirely, wait until they're 6th birthday to start school.

Now the middle, May, June, July and August birthdays. I have a child with a May birthday, my birthday is in May too, I never considered holding my May birthday back from starting kindergarden in the fall as a 5 year old. I'm not sure I would have held my child back even if it were born in June. August, like September, is almost always held until their 6th birthday. July increasingly so. What people are saying is that it's now become more common to have your June birthday wait until they turn 6 before starting kindegarden. That's it. It's never going to be all but it's a solid majority. Frankly, if it's 51% of June birthdays are being held back until their 6th birthday then 51% is a majority. Done.

It's never going to please everyone because there will always be exceptions. If the majority of June birthdays are being held back, which I'm told statistics back up, then the discussion is over. The rule will changed from July 1 to June 1 and it will satisfy the majority of families. The date was selected because it's changed over the years and now a higher percentage of June birthdays are held back from starting school until they're 6.

Focus your energy elsewhere.

Didn't someone share the stats for percentages from each month. I'm just guessing here,

January 95% start at 5
February 94% start at 5
March 90% start at 5
April 89% start at 5
May 80% start at 5
June 49% start at 5
July 40% start at 5
August 80% start at 6
September 90% start at 6
October 100% start at 6
November 100% start at 6
December 100 start at 6
etc.

[spin-o-rama]

Observer, you need to rethink your observations.

Why does this happen with smart people like the two of you? And, why is this discussion going backwards on the "bored."

Listen while I simplify. People make decisions about when to start their child in kindergarden. Some are born in January, February, March and April. All of those children turn 5 and are sent to kindergarden in the fall with very few exceptions. Some are born in September, October, November and December. Those children, almost entirely, wait until they're 6th birthday to start school. No they don't. They start school when 5 and turn 6 before the end of the calendar year.

Now the middle, May, June, July and August birthdays. I have a child with a May birthday, my birthday is in May too, I never considered holding my May birthday back from starting kindergarden in the fall as a 5 year old. I'm not sure I would have held my child back even if it were born in June. August, like September, is almost always held until their 6th birthday. July increasingly so. What people are saying is that it's now become more common to have your June birthday wait until they turn 6 before starting kindegarden. people are saying that, but where are the accurate stats to back it up? That's it. It's never going to be all but it's a solid majority. Frankly, if it's 51% of June birthdays are being held back until their 6th birthday then 51% is a majority. Done.So are you against a move to June 1 if less than 50% of June B-days are held back until 6?

It's never going to please everyone because there will always be exceptions. absulutely agree!If the majority of June birthdays are being held back, which I'm told statistics back uphere's the hearsay problem again. you might say it's heresy., then the discussion is over. The rule will changed from July 1 to June 1 and it will satisfy the majority of families. The date was selected because it's changed over the years and now a higher percentage of June birthdays are held back from starting school until they're 6.

Focus your energy elsewhere.

Didn't someone share the stats for percentages from each month. I'm just guessing here,Oh great, more made up stats that can be later quoted as fact.

January 95% start at 5
February 94% start at 5
March 90% start at 5
April 89% start at 5
May 80% start at 5
June 49% start at 5
July 40% start at 5
August 80% start at 6
September 90% start at 6
October 100% start at 6
November 100% start at 6
December 100 start at 6
etc.

Let's use some real facts to see if your majority claim is right. Let's round numbers and make the estimates all in your favor.

hockey mom linked a state survey 2 pages ago. While it is a sample size, it is large enough that we can assume it is a close representation for the state. It said 287 of 2959 Kindergarteners started school at age 6. Let's round that up to 10%. So what percentage of June birth kids started school at age 6? Let's assume an even birthday distribution. This means 1/12 or 8.3% of kids are June born. Let's also assume that all 6 year old were June-Aug birthdays (although some were probably pre June). Let's also assume an even distribution in the summer months (although there are probably more Aug late starts than June). This means 3.3% of kids are late start and born in June. 3.3/8.3 is .4. So 40% of June kids are late start. And this is a generous estimate.

Is this the exact percentage? No, but it is a better estimate than the "out of thin air facts" that are all over this thread.

Probably greater than 60% of June-Aug birthday kids start school at age 5. If MH wants the most kids playing with their grade, they will put the cutoff date at 9/1.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Let's use some real facts to see if your majority claim is right. Let's round numbers and make the estimates all in your favor.

hockey mom linked a state survey 2 pages ago. While it is a sample size, it is large enough that we can assume it is a close representation for the state. It said 287 of 2959 Kindergarteners started school at age 6. Let's round that up to 10%. So what percentage of June birth kids started school at age 6? Let's assume an even birthday distribution. This means 1/12 or 8.3% of kids are June born. Let's also assume that all 6 year old were June-Aug birthdays (although some were probably pre June). Let's also assume an even distribution in the summer months (although there are probably more Aug late starts than June). This means 3.3% of kids are late start and born in June. 3.3/8.3 is .4. So 40% of June kids are late start. And this is a generous estimate.

Is this the exact percentage? No, but it is a better estimate than the "out of thin air facts" that are all over this thread.

Probably greater than 60% of June-Aug birthday kids start school at age 5. If MH wants the most kids playing with their grade, they will put the cutoff date at 9/1.

You start off by saying you are looking at real facts , then you rattle off a host of your own assumptions, estimates and guesses. What is clear is that yourself and hockeymom have some desperate invested personal interest in keeping summer kids at the end of the line. That's the real problem with this (and many) issues.

It's difficult for a board to make decisions when individuals are willing to twist logic and offer up random samplings (like the study of kindergarden preparedness) of snapshot numbers that appear to support their agenda, but actually do not.

The process to get to the bottom of the matter and make an informed decision is not straightforward, quick or easy, no matter how matter-of-fact we tend to come to our own conclusions. They must;

1.) Identify the issue - they've done that


2.) Form a committee to look at the matter, or assign the matter to an appropriate committee - - they've done that


3.) Gather the pertinent/relevant data both overall and how it applies to the membership of Minnesota Hockey - - they've done that


4.) Gather information from their membership relevant to the issue - they are in the process of doing that

5.) Bring all the material facts and data back to the board for discussion and make an informed decision - that will come

Wether you agree or disagree with the data collected by the committee or with the results of their internal surveys will largely depend on how you feel about the issue itself. Those that staunchly opposed to a date change will dismiss any data or research supporting one, but will be quick to accept any assumptions, estimates or guesses which support their own agenda. This says nothing about the issue at hand, but rather, is a window into the personal agenda of the persons making the argument.

Sorry, but the complete and thorough Board of Education data collected by a Minnesota Hockey Committee charged with collecting this data seems more authorative to me than an unrelated random sampling in a survey done on an unrelated matter and certainly more authorative than a group of assumptions, guesses and estimates made on a public forum by a person who clearly has a horse in the race.

I certainly don't disagree with your September 1 opinion. September 1 has merit as the school date start and a good argument can be made for hockey to fall in line with this across the board.

That said, there is a compelling argument for June 1 as well IF we want to stay with the logic and reasoning for the current cutoff of July 1. That current date is an arbitrary one privellaging only 2/3 of kids with summer birthdays while alientating the other 1/3. That in itself is unfair and ilogical. If you are going to make allowances for summer birthdays then include them all - it's not an exclusive club.

The bottom line is wether or not MH chooses to make allowances for summer birthdays. Currently we do, and if we continue to do so, the current data screams that the date really has to be June 1.

Regardless of the outcome of this issue, you have to respect the process undertaken by Minnesota Hockey.

[spin-o-rama]

wpiia-
they are real facts. Here's the link I used: http://education.state.mn.us/mdeprod/gr ... 017120.pdf
Are they the complete numbers? No, but it is better than any of the subjecture presented elsewhere in this thread. I rounded to simplifly. The detailed figures would further work against your argument. If you care to reference more complete facts, please do so. The puck is in your rink.
So far the argument for a June 1 cutoff date seems to be, "the majority of June born kids delay starting Kindergarten until age 6 - at most 40%." A rather lame spin attempt.
You seem pretty concerned with not disadvantaging kids. That is good. However, you don't seem as concerned with kids playing with their grade as you are that June kids are the oldest. Perhaps you have the agenda? Guess what? Someone has to be the youngest. MH can pick any date out of the hat. I don't care. But if they want to match the age groups up with classmates, they will have more success with a 9/1 cutoff date than a 6/1 date.

[gorilla1]

I want to start by saying I don't know which way is best. But couldn't they treat the age issue using the same concept as they do with choosing associations? I think everyone agrees that they respect a parent's decision at what age they send their child to school, which is at the heart of this discussion. Well, they make the players choose which association they are going to play for, can't they do the same thing with the age? In other words, prior to their first year of squirts (or first year of hockey if they play for the first time after that) you make the parent elect at what level your child will be playing. So if you elect to begin playing squirts, then you only get 2 years of squirts, Pee Wees and Bantams. The only kids who get the advantage of electing 3 years are the tweeners. Allow the parents to have the child play with the kid's age level or grade level, and then they have to live with that decision going forward.

[greybeard58]

Lets go back to the date Mn Hockey had before USA Hockey changed to July 1 and that would be Sept 1 and also change the year so we will again be younger than USA Hockey age levels. It was not a problem before so it should not be a problem now.

[valleyball]

Current data screams that the date really has to be June 1.

What Data??????

Regarding your supposed "Complete Enrollment Numbers"

The Minnesota Department of Education does not release data beyond that which is published. Specifically, the MDE does not
release detailed Date of Birth information. Information about Age is available in a summarized format only - similar to that found in the Readiness Studies.

The Readiness Studies dating back to 2002 confirm that a very small percentage (10%) of all Kindergartners enter school at age 6. The 10% figure is consistent with national data as found in longitudinal studies such as ECLS from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

NCES data shows that a statistically insignificant number of 6 year-old Kindergartners have "Summer" birthdays.
Further, the number of 6-year old Kindergartners born in April, May & June are nearly equivalent. A line of demarcation does not exist.

- Minnesota Hockey should not be allocating resources to special interests. This is one guy promoting his own interests

- The data already exists.

- The literature is conclusive & clearly contradicts a move to an earlier date.

- June 1 is arbitrary and it is not inclusive

- Minnesota Hockey cannot produce a meaningful survey without a significant financial commitment.

If there is a change it will be to Sept 1 or Jan 1.

[justaguess]

MH wants to keep this in grades as much as possible.

So lets have the facts: What percentage of June b-days are in the same grade as the October kids v. same grade as the February kids from their birth year?

[Pioneerprideguy]

Who is negatively affected if the date is moved from 7/1 to 6/1?

[muckandgrind]

Who is negatively affected if the date is moved from 7/1 to 6/1?

No one...but 6/1 is an arbitrary date. Sept 1 (Grade Level) or Jan 1 (Birth Year) are the only two dates that make any sense.

[Haute hockeymom]

No one is negatively affected.

However, it cannot necessarily be concluded from the premise that the date should be moved.

The conclusion must always be supported by the premise in order to be logical.

I assume this is where you were going ...the "if its not wrong ..its right" angle?

Sorry if you had something other in mind????

[timcorbin21]

"Who is negatively affected if the date is moved from 7/1 to 6/1?"

The people that are obviously negatively affected are the younger players (and their parents) that end up playing kids that are more than a year older. The younger kids are always a bit smaller, weaker, slower/ (this is on average) In the long run it probably makes them better if they dont drop out from the frustration.
It also impacts the kids that are older because they play down a grade for the first few years in hockey. I've seen a few petition to move the kids up

Whenever Minn Hock looks into it seems like they talk to the parents of the older kids not the parents of the kids that have to play with them.

[valleyball]

[i]No change in the Age Classification start date of July 1st for the 2010-11 season

The Minnesota Hockey Board of Directors is currently considering a change to the Minnesota Hockey Age Classification. Currently the Age Classificationyear is from July 1st – June 30th. The change being considered is to adopt a June 1st – May 31st Age Classificationyear. There are several reasons to consider this change, most notably the large numbers of players with a June birthdate that delay entry into Kindergarten and thus end up playing hockey every other year with players that are ahead of them by one – two grades in school. There are approximately 4000 Minnesota Hockey players with June birthdates. All of these families were recently sent a survey via email. The intent of the survey is to gather real data and feedback about this proposed change to help guide the Board of Directors in their decision making process. The Minnesota Hockey Board of Directors will discuss this topic further at the next Board Meeting held June 25th – 27th in Red Wing. Please note that if a change is adopted it will not take effect until the 2011-12 season. If you have any feedback you’d like to share, please email it to info@minnesotahockey.org[/i]

Newsflash: Survey finds that Families of Minnesota Hockey players with June birthdates overwhelmingly support a change to June 1st.

Have they never heard of sampling bias? What next, Roosevelt really was defeated by Landon ?? Minnesota Hockey hired the same outfit to conduct their survey?

Here we go again……“the large numbers of players with a June birthdate that delay entry into Kindergarten..”

Really?? large numbers?

- percentage of Kindergartners that are 6 years old upon entry- 10%

- trend; percentage of Kindergartners that are 6 years old upon entry - declining

- percentage of Kindergartners that are 6 years old upon entry with a summer birthday (June, July, August) - 4%

- percentage of Kindergartners that are 6 years old upon entry with a June birthday - 1%

- percentage of Kindergartners that are 6 years old upon entry with a May birthday - 1%

*SOURCES:

Brent, D., D. C. May and D. K. Kundert (1996). "The incidence of delayed school entry: A twelve-year review." Early Education and Development 7(2): 121-135.

Cosden, M., J. Zimmer and P. Tuss (1993). "The impact of age on
kindergarten entry." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis
15(2): 209-222.

Crosser, S. (1991). "Summer birth date children: Kindergarten entrance age."
Journal of Educational Research 84: 140-146.

Green, D. R. and S. V. Simmons. "Chronological age and school entrance." The
Elementary School Journal 63: 41-47.

Spitzer, S., Cupp, R., & Parke, R. D. (1995). School entrance age,
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10(4), 433-450.

West, J., Denton, K., & Germino-Hausken, E. (2000). America's
kindergartners. (NCES No. 2000-070). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.

[valleyball]

But our highly scientific survey showed that Minnesota Hockey is vastly different in terms of demographics from the results found in the montains of data that already exist.

That is apparently the forthcoming "real data" referred to by MH in the Age Update.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Survey finds that Families of Minnesota Hockey players with June birthdates overwhelmingly support a change to June 1st.

Parents usually know what's best for their kids but you don't need a survey to know that June 1 makes more sense than July 1. Change it to June 1 then and move on to new business. Helps many. Hurts no one.