Age change in Minnesota Hockey?

[muckandgrind]

If it is truly important for kids to play with others in their own grade, then why use birth date at all? Why not just declare that anyone in 4th/5th grade is a Squirt, 6th/7th is a Pee Wee, etc.?

Not advocating, just asking.

What do you do with the "slow learning" child who repeats the 7th grade three times....does he get to be a 15 year old PeeWee?

You would apply "Common Sense" in this case.

You can't use common sense as an argument to get around the rules....if MH scrapped the age requirement and went strictly by grade level...than, yes, you could very well see 15 year old PeeWees or 11-12 year old Squirts. This is the argument of why they CAN'T go by grade level and must stick with age.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

" truly important for kids to play with others in their own grade"

thats not the issue.
with a cutoff of either june or july the summer born kids that delayed kindergarten are moved up to play with the kids in the next higher grade which is where they would have been if they went to school when they were 5

opposite ... a cutoff date of june 1 or july 1 allows summer born kids to stay back (not move up) and play with the kids they are actually going to school with.

All this talk about wether or not to start kids at age 5 ... what gets forgottn is that not all 5's are equal ... kids born in September are almost 6 while summer born kids are just days or weeks off of 4. This is a HUGE disparity at this age group ... more disturbing is that the disadvantage is proven to PERSIST all the way up through their academic and athletic development.

This is not a matter of a simple number (i.e all kids should start at 5) ... this is a matter of starting kids when they are ready ... and once they are ... keeping them with their peer group through development.

Even though a kid born in june, a kid born in august, a kid born in september and a kid born in december are all 5 years old on September 1, the realtive age is vastly different for each. The September child, for example, with 72 months under his belt is a full 20% older than the august child with just 60 months under his belt. This is the relative age difference , which is an enormous difference for these kids - the most exaggerated that it will ever be at any time in their lives.

The concern is, and research backs this up, that kids who start out with a 20% disadvantage in ability do not "catch up". In fact, in many cases the gap widens over time, putting these kids at a sever disadvantage, not just to start - but all the way up.

There can (and will) be discrepencies and exceptions, but the kids most at risk are the kids in the last quarter of the equation - in the case of school and Minnesota Hockey, it's the summer birthdays June-August.

By contrast, if you hold a summer birthday back - his advantage is not as pronounced. In the same example above where we compared an August 5 year old to a September 5 year old, the difference is quite pronounced (72 months vs 60 = 120%). Now if we hold back our August example and compare him against a September child the next year his advantage reads like this (73 months vs 72 = 102%).

Therefore, holding the august baby back doesn't give him any significant advantage but serves to negate a significant advantage over him and prevent him/her from a lifetime of disadvantage.

Of course all kids are different, so it's good for the youngest to have options, that they may join the older kids if they are ready or stay back if they are not.

That's what all these kindergarden preparedness studies are about and most of them recommend holding back kids as opposed to rushing them in when they are not ready.

Academics and athletics follow the same line here.

Anyways, the important thing is not to get stuck on numbers (i.e 5 years old) because not all 5's are equal. It's more important to consider relative age and what is in the best interests of minimizing those gaps to reduce severe disadvantages.

Since Minnesota Hockey is built around the school year, making allowances for summer kids seems fair and appropriate and will accomodate almost all kids through grade 9.

Helps many. Hurts no one. Make the change.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

You can't use common sense as an argument to get around the rules....if MH scrapped the age requirement and went strictly by grade level...than, yes, you could very well see 15 year old PeeWees or 11-12 year old Squirts. This is the argument of why they CAN'T go by grade level and must stick with age.

Muck ... I agree you can't substitute common sense for actual rules ... that's anarchy, as one persons common sense varies different from the next ...

But I have to ask you ... just for your opinion of course ... if the grade model is so flawed, why does it work so well for football and baseball? Why would hockey be any different?

Maybe it isn't ... maybe it's just a FEAR of change or a FEAR of abuse that holds us back ... would parents actually significantly stunt the academic growth of their children to win a few squirt games? Are Minnesota hockey parents that dimented? Or are they just afraid that little johnny next store might get a leg up on their little johnny?

How do baseball and football deal with this relative freedom to play with their grades?

[muckandgrind]

You can't use common sense as an argument to get around the rules....if MH scrapped the age requirement and went strictly by grade level...than, yes, you could very well see 15 year old PeeWees or 11-12 year old Squirts. This is the argument of why they CAN'T go by grade level and must stick with age.

Muck ... I agree you can't substitute common sense for actual rules ... that's anarchy, as one persons common sense varies different from the next ...

But I have to ask you ... just for your opinion of course ... if the grade model is so flawed, why does it work so well for football and baseball? Why would hockey be any different?

I don't know that baseball DOES follow the "grade model"....Little League and Gopher State group players by age, not grade.

I'm not an expert on football, but I have heard stories about 16 year old 9th graders that dominate freshman football for some schools simply because they are more fully developed than everyone else. Besides, football, baseball and basketball are all different sports that require different skill sets than hockey does. Comparing different sports is like comparing apples and oranges.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

I'm not really up to speed in youth baseball and football either, but our baseball association uses a May 1 cutoff date but also gives kids the option to stay with their grade. I guess the option part gives parents some control over where they think the child fits best.

Actually at the younger levels our association groups the baseball players by what grade they are entering in the fall ... maybe that's unique to our association ... I dunno

Football in our association is strictly by grade and nobody seems to be bothered by that, but I think I would be bothered if my pubescent 13 year old grade 9 football player was being hammered by a physically mature 16 year old. The again, I'm not in the football culture ... maybe that's par for the course, but I would think (hope) that would be a rarity

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

The results of the MH Survey will not be helpful because respondents are self-selected.

Bias occurs when individuals have motivation to respond to a survey. (ie., those who favour a Date Change). These individuals are far more likely to respond to the survey and, therefore, are overrepresented in the results.

If MH receives 1000 responses (unlikely) and 80% claim they have delayed entry it cannot be taken to mean 80% of the total (4000 June birthdates) delay entry.

The results of the survey will be VERY HELPFUL. I think we can all agree that playing with older kids is beneficial for development if you can keep up - therefore, parents of June kids who can handle it won't care if the date changes or not. They will keep playing up to benefit the child anyways.

It's the parents of kids who can't keep up - who weren't ready from the time they started - who are severely disadvantaged, undersized and swept aside. Kids who are being forced (by lack of option) to play at a level they are ill-prepared for. THESE KIDS and the PARENTS of the kids NEED OUR SUPPORT.

This is not a time to lobby to continue to keep them down. We should recognize their struggle and LIFT THEM UP. That's what communities do. That's what membership does.

Why are you lobbying to keep these kids down? Let them play the game for christ sake. Cut them some slack.

Change the date and get these kids in the game!

Remember, they aren't re-inventing the wheel with this proposal. We ALREADY make allowances for summer babies! This proposal just INCLUDES all of them, as it should have from the get-go.

It's a good proposal. A very small change but significant improvement. Helps many. Hurts no-one.

[old goalie85]

We go by grade in school for football and community baseball. [Travel ball is May cuttoff I think] Maybe giving the parents the option, or find a way to have a Mn hockey vote. The oldgoalie has no idea how this would or could be done, but lets put it to a vote. Like I've already stated all my kids have different b-months and are all different types of players. I've read great points , from both sides and it seems like this topic is not going to disapear, so Mn hockey should address it.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

oldgoalie ... good take on it ... i personally like the parental option. it's used in baseball and to some degree football ... why is it in hockey we don't trust parents to make the right decisions for their own kids ... or are we just so scared that somebody might gain some small advantage that we prefer to hold back many to prevent the ascension of one ... who cares if a handful of parents in the state hold back their kids to put a pee wee trophy on the mantle ... Considering the alternative of many kids being in over their heads or not getting started at all , does it really matter? Let em have the trophy ...

[sinbin]

whospuck, you're basically describing the Matthew Effect in your analysis. Relative age in months is a good starting point, but of course there are differing rates of development at different ages, certainly for individual kids, and also on average. However, this is a good way of thinking about it. Agreed that the youngest kids in every age group are always at a distinct disadvantage. Changing from July 1 to June 1 basically moves the Junes from most disadvantaged to most advantaged (i.e., from youngest to oldest in their age group) so the Junes receive a HUGE benefit with the proposed change. I'm agnostic to the change and don't know people's motivations one way or the other, but that's the result.

No matter what the cutoff date for any sport is, the younger kids in that age group are, on average, always at a significant disadvantage compared to the older kids. I'm not sure of the solution, but ODP soccer probably comes the closest. For their development camps, they separate in to half-year age groups, the Jan-Jun's and the Jul-Dec's, so the greatest disadvantage one faces is about 5 months, not 11 months.

However, this "solution" is not administratively feasible for most sports, so we're back to square one. I think that the only good thing about age groups is that the cutoff dates are different for different sports (Jan 1 for USA Hockey, May 1 for Little League, July 1 for MN Hockey, August 1 for soccer, September 1-ish for school sports). So almost no matter what your birthdate, you'll be one of the oldest players in your age group in at least one sport; it just might not be the one you want it to be.

[Haute hockeymom]

The results of the survey will be VERY HELPFUL.


The results will be useless.

Valid inferences about a target population are never possible when survey respondents are self-selected.

[OnFrozenPond]

whospuck, you're basically describing the Matthew Effect in your analysis. Relative age in months is a good starting point, but of course there are differing rates of development at different ages, certainly for individual kids, and also on average. However, this is a good way of thinking about it. Agreed that the youngest kids in every age group are always at a distinct disadvantage. Changing from July 1 to June 1 basically moves the Junes from most disadvantaged to most advantaged (i.e., from youngest to oldest in their age group) so the Junes receive a HUGE benefit with the proposed change. I'm agnostic to the change and don't know people's motivations one way or the other, but that's the result.

No matter what the cutoff date for any sport is, the younger kids in that age group are, on average, always at a significant disadvantage compared to the older kids. I'm not sure of the solution, but ODP soccer probably comes the closest. For their development camps, they separate in to half-year age groups, the Jan-Jun's and the Jul-Dec's, so the greatest disadvantage one faces is about 5 months, not 11 months.

However, this "solution" is not administratively feasible for most sports, so we're back to square one. I think that the only good thing about age groups is that the cutoff dates are different for different sports (Jan 1 for USA Hockey, May 1 for Little League, July 1 for MN Hockey, August 1 for soccer, September 1-ish for school sports). So almost no matter what your birthdate, you'll be one of the oldest players in your age group in at least one sport; it just might not be the one you want it to be.

The nice thing about hockey in Minnesota though is that the advantages change from winter to summer as the b-date requirements move from July 1 to Birthyear. Seems to be the best of both worlds.

[Pioneerprideguy]

Here our situation. We have a little guy with a June b-day who we felt was not prepared to begin 1st gradel at age 5. We met with Kindegarten teachers and decided the delay would be the best thing for him. Four years later, we realize it was one of the best decisions we ever made. He is right where he belongs.

As for sports, he plays baseball, football, and hockey. He is an average player in all sports. In baseball & football, he plays with kids in the same grade and is able to compete. In hockey, it varies from year to year. Next year he will be in the 5th grade and move up to play at the peewee level. While almost all of his fellow 5th graders will be playing at the squirt level, our son will be sitting in a locker room potentially with 7th graders. There is a major difference between most 5th & 7th graders....emotionally, socially, and physically. The immediate concern is the type of experience he may have. Trust me, we are not the type of parents who "coddle". We want him to enjoy the game so that he wants to continue playing. The day a player walks away from a sport and doesn't fill it with something positive, society should be concerned.

Obviously, we are hoping that MN Hockey tweaks the date to June 1 because our son would benefit. He would benefit by remaining able to particiapte with kids closer to his grade. He will never be an A level player, so we gain nothing along those lines. We just are hoping that hockey aligns with other aspects of our son's life because school and other sports have him placed right where he belongs.

[black sheep]

Why change...what is not broken

Regardless how u shuffle the deck some will get the age advantage...a year is a year no matter where the beginning or end is

Why can't people get it that kids (or people in general) are NOT equal...there will always be someone better...and someone worse

life is full of advantages & disadvantages

[old goalie85]

Hillman- yours is prime example . Let the parents choose. I can relate I have five different B-mnths and all five kids are different. What is good for my June, b-day might not be cool for yours. [ I don't have a june, but I do have a July, ] I do have a late April [my oldest] and that worked out good. Summer hockey he was one of the older 94's. winter one of the younger bantams. Last year the second youngest soph on high schoolteam. You should be able to choose your boy's path. [in my opinion]

[sinbin]

Black Sheep - "life is full of advantages & disadvantages" and "there will always be someone better...and someone worse". Both are very true, but we're (athletic associations) arbitrarily creating additional advantages and disadvantages independent of people's innate abilities with our age-range setting. We just need to be as thoughtful as possible when setting these and take as much arbitrariness as possible out of the equation.

It seems that with a variety of cutoff months for different sports, things are about as fair as they can be as a whole (although not for individual sports), so the multi-sports system somehow did OK for itself. We need to remember that these effects are most pronounced for those who turn out to be elite athletes - and that's a very small percentage to begin with.

Pioneer, you specific example makes a great deal of sense for your particular situation, but most rules are made for the 90+% and the outliers just need to go along with it, so where do the lines get drawn? How do we reconcile the iron-clad rules with the need for exceptions? Who knows what the actual June numbers are, since I've seen so many numbers here, but it appears that the population (Junes older than their grade-level peers) is growing.

[Wasilla]

whospuck, you're basically describing the Matthew Effect in your analysis. Relative age in months is a good starting point, but of course there are differing rates of development at different ages, certainly for individual kids, and also on average. However, this is a good way of thinking about it. Agreed that the youngest kids in every age group are always at a distinct disadvantage. Changing from July 1 to June 1 basically moves the Junes from most disadvantaged to most advantaged (i.e., from youngest to oldest in their age group) so the Junes receive a HUGE benefit with the proposed change. I'm agnostic to the change and don't know people's motivations one way or the other, but that's the result.

No matter what the cutoff date for any sport is, the younger kids in that age group are, on average, always at a significant disadvantage compared to the older kids. I'm not sure of the solution, but ODP soccer probably comes the closest. For their development camps, they separate in to half-year age groups, the Jan-Jun's and the Jul-Dec's, so the greatest disadvantage one faces is about 5 months, not 11 months.

However, this "solution" is not administratively feasible for most sports, so we're back to square one. I think that the only good thing about age groups is that the cutoff dates are different for different sports (Jan 1 for USA Hockey, May 1 for Little League, July 1 for MN Hockey, August 1 for soccer, September 1-ish for school sports). So almost no matter what your birthdate, you'll be one of the oldest players in your age group in at least one sport; it just might not be the one you want it to be.

The nice thing about hockey in Minnesota though is that the advantages change from winter to summer as the b-date requirements move from July 1 to Birthyear. Seems to be the best of both worlds.

Great point! In the current system, if you consider both AAA and regular season, all kids (including Junes) get some chance at being an older.

AAA: January- June are at an advantage since they played with older kids during the regular season. These kids generally have more AAA opportunities/advantages.

Regular Season: July - fall birthdays are at the greatest advantage.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Correct that the actual cutoff date doesn't really matter, in that some kids will be the oldest and some kids will be the youngest.

I am not arguing that point. Weather the date is set at January 1, June 1 or September 1 is not really the issue to me ...

My point is that the cutoff date needs to have some rhym or reason. For example, the REASON that Minnesota Hockey chose July 1 as the current cutoff is because the Minnesota Hockey model is built on the school year - more specifically, the High School Years. July 1 was chosen because because a lot of people held back their summer birthday kids from SCHOOL and because Minnesota Hockey was building their association model around Minnesota schools, July 1 became the date, so as to accomodate those kids who might be held back.

This was a good premise and good philosophy, as based on this date most kids would have the opportunity to play bantam hockey through grade 9. The date was selected based on the data and/or assumptions of the time.

However, the date actually excluded 1/3 of the summer birthdays (June kids) that faced the same dilema as the other summer kids (July/August), which was, weather or not their kids were mature enough to start school, being 9-12 months younger than their prospective peers. The new data supports this and confirms that June kids are held back at the same rate as July kids, but that May and other month babies who's birthdays fall within the school year are not held back at all - at least not in any significant number. As one Board member, after examing the data, proclaimed;

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%. May is like walking outward into a lake, you go slow to 8' then 30'... May is not measurable, under a percent.

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%.

In other words, the philosphy Minnesota Hockey has is not broken at all - in keeping with their philosophy of building around the school system and allowing summer birthdays to be "held back". The only thing askew is the actual cutoff date, as the data shows, June 1 is a better fit with this philosophy than July 1. A correction to June 1 will bring that philosophy in line with the entire membership.

As it is, it exludes 1/12th of it's members, putting them in an extreme disadvantaged situation of having birthdays that fall outside the school year but without the same benefit as other summer birthdays. For the same reasons that Minnesota Hockey set the date at July 1 in the first place, it should be corrected to June 1.

It's been correctly summized on many occasion that a change to June 1 will not affect the overall model. There are still going to be some kids 24 months older than others. That's not going to change. And it doesn't really matter which kids get that advantage (January, September or June).

What it will do is equalize the opportunity for our potential youngest players (June, July, August) to play with their peers. As it is, only 2/3rds of these kids enjoy that option (July & August). Complete the REASONING for the summer cutoff and bring fairness to the current system.

I understand the need to argue this issue IF you are strong believer in a September 1 or January 1 cutoff. Strong arguments can be made for both dates depending on your philosophy and expectation about what Minnesota Hockey should be about.

BUT if you believe, as many do, that the Minnesota Hockey philosophy is the correct one, that the system itself is not broken and that Minnesota Hockey is right to allow for the summer birthdays, then how can you argue against the June kids while advocating for the July kids when they are in the same boat? By what reasoning do you allow for only some of them but others not? The obvious answer is the few who enjoy the advantages served by the current (yet nonsensical) status quo are desperately fighting to keep that advantage - even at the expense of other kids in the same boat. What other logic can there be for that thinking (keeping July 1) that serves Minnesota Hockey or it's membership, outside of a few advantaged folks desperately trying to protect that advantage?

[valleyball]

The data and now, the "new data"., ..where can it be found?

Please be specific; Publication, Date, Author, Volume etc.

Thanks

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

whospuck, you're basically describing the Matthew Effect in your analysis. Relative age in months is a good starting point. Changing from July 1 to June 1 basically moves the Junes from most disadvantaged to most advantaged (i.e., from youngest to oldest in their age group) so the Junes receive a HUGE benefit with the proposed change. I'm agnostic to the change and don't know people's motivations one way or the other, but that's the result.

Sin, I'm glad you brought Matthew into it. You are correct, sort of, that the advantage will move from July to June and the disadvantage from June to May ... but not really ... at least not to the extent that it is now.

You see, just like all 5's are not equal, all relative ages are not equal either.

The key is that school starts September 1 (maybe not exactly and every year, but for the purpose of cutoffs let's use that as the date).

In the example I gave earlier, a child born September 1 would have an exaggerated advantage over a child born on August 31st if the cutoff were September 1 to coincide with the school year. The September 1 child would effectively be 72 months old at the start of school as compared to the 60 month old child born on August 31.

The difference being a full 12 month represents a full 20% of the August childs entire lifespan. That's a HUGE difference. Indeed, every fraction of a percentage point at this stage in life is huge.

Let's look now at the current structure. Let's take the example of a child born July 1/2004 and a child born June 30th/2005. Both will be starting school - and hockey - this year. It's true that the July 1 child will have the exact same 12 month advantage over his June 30 counterpart, however, when school starts - and the ensuing hockey season, his relative age will be less drastic than the September/August example.

Specifically, the July child will be 74 months at the beginning of school while the June child is 62. Still a 12 month gap, but the 12 months now represents 19.35% of the June childs entire life. That's a drastic drop from the September/June example of 20%.

Now let's say the cutoff date was June 1 instead. The June 1/2004 and the May 31/2005 child would be starting school - and the ensuing hockey season - on September 1 as well. As always, our older guinea pig is exactly 12 months older than our youngest, but on September 1 our oldest is now 75 months old while our youngest is 63 months old. This 12 month gap now only accounts for 19% of the entire life span of our younger subject.

Incidentally, this (June 1) is the MINIMAL DIFFERENTIAL between summer birthdays and non-summer birthdays, MINIMIZING the Matthew Effect overall and representing an OPTIMAL cutoff date under the current Minnesota structure.

You may think that the difference between 19% and 20% in relative age is small, but think for a moment what you or your child could accomplish given 1% of your entire life span. Even for these 6 year olds that represents nearly 3 weeks of critical development time.

By simply changing the date from July 1 to June 1 we can close the gap in relative age to it's OPTIMUM. Now that's a WIN-WIN for Minnesota Hockey and it's youth players everywhere!

Again ... helps many. hurts absolutely no one.

[CoachCleats]

Further evidence which proves that the June 1 movement is a ruse.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2000/ch ... popup=true

Minnesota Hockey cannot credibly contend that there are "large numbers of players with a June birthdate that delay entry into Kindergarten"

Virtually all kids enter Kindergarten before age 6. Almost no one delays. A fact which cannot be denied.

Such blatant ignorance of the facts is questionable - a small minority that want to seemingly advantage their own by changing the rules for all.

The Date is irrelevant. It is the objectiveness of the process (or the lack there of) which needs to be called into question.

[CoachCleats]

Using an invalid survey method does not help the cause of being objective.

[Haute hockeymom]

[quote="CoachCleats"]Using an invalid survey method does not help the cause of being objective.[/quote]

It is the results that are invalid not the method.

[muckandgrind]

I'm really amazed at how much attention this topic is getting on the board.....I mean, who really cares if the eligibility date is moved up a month? Who does it hurt? No one.

[Haute hockeymom]

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2000/ch ... popup=true

Interesting - there are more kids entering early than late.

[sinbin]

Again, I'm agnostic to the decision. But, technically, all the Julys-Mays are harmed incrementally, since they all move one notch lower if Junes become the new oldest month. Again, Junes receive a huge advantage under this scenario. But the disadvantage that other birth months receive is much smaller than the advantage that Junes recieve. I do believe that whatever decision is made, it should be done thoughtfully, with input from all, and done for a very good reason.

I'm still curious as to stats on recent birth month enrollment, especially specific to Minnesota, but can't find any. If I try to Google this, some of the "highest-rated" links turn out to be earlier posts in this thread. Can I use any of those as definitive sources?