HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

I'm beginning to think that we should use spin's suggestion of determining age groups based on astrological signs. That is just as capricious a methodology of many of the others that I've seen purported here. Perhaps we could even mix and match the astological signs to ensure that certain signs play together, because those signs are in better harmony with each other and likewise ensure that certain signs do not play with each other since they're incompatible and would likely not maximize their potential.

I'm still looking for numbers that show that June 1 is preferable to July 1. Maybe it is. If so, why stop there? Has a statistical study been performed that shows that June 1 is the optimal of all possible dates? Why not June 15, May 15, May 1, etc.? Or March 13, I believe, as someone suggested? I still haven't seen numbers that back this up. Or, is the argument simply that June 1 is "less bad" then July 1 since a few more kids could play with their classmates, so we should jump at the opportunity to "improve the system by some unknown degree" and just be satisfied with that modest "improvement"? Is that really in essence the argument for June 1?

Valleyball,

I have expressed my interest in the proposed change because our son (and many others) would be allowed to play with his grade. Please explain your obvious passion against it.

September 1 allows the largest number of kids to play with their grade.

PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS ELIGIBLE TO PLAY WITH THEIR GRADE
by Registration Deadline

DATE / PERCENTAGE
9/1 = 0.876
10/1 = 0.839
11/1 = 0.802
8/1 = 0.800
12/1 = 0.765


Data from America's Kindergartners, National Center for Education Statistics-Statistical Analysis Report 2/2000.

I'm not necessarily for or against June 1

Obviously any move away from the the start of school (September 1) will reduce the number of kids that can play with their classmates.
I'm not sure thats a good thing

Thats implicit - data is not needed for that.

Just because you think it will benefit your kid is not good enough for me.

Stop with the September 1 discussion. Parents don't send kids to school based on September 1.

We currently have July 1 as the cut. The question is does June 1 make more sense. I believe research is saying yes. More than 50% of kids who turn 5 in May start school in the fall. Less than 50% of kids who turn 5 in June start school in the fall. There's your split. Done.

Coach

Agreed. Based on the information at hand September 1 would be the most inclusive of the alternatives per grade.

Where did you find months

I presume the aim is to keep classmates playing together?
ala no player left behind

CoachCleats wrote:September 1 allows the largest number of kids to play with their grade.

PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS ELIGIBLE TO PLAY WITH THEIR GRADE
by Registration Deadline

DATE / PERCENTAGE
9/1 = 0.876
10/1 = 0.839
11/1 = 0.802
8/1 = 0.800
12/1 = 0.765


Data from America's Kindergartners, National Center for Education Statistics-Statistical Analysis Report 2/2000.

When going from 9/1 to 8/1, how do you have less kids?

Observer - I thought the objective was to be more inclusive not less.

A move to any date earlier than September 1 reduces the number of kids who can play with their class.

Haute hockeymom wrote:Observer - I thought the objective was to be more inclusive not less.

A move to any date earlier than September 1 reduces the number of kids who can play with their class.

Math? Adding kids with August birthdays to the total increases the number of kids. I'm all for attempting to be persuasive when making an argument, but let's play within the laws of the universe.

What? I have two kids playing and can only think of one situation in 6 years where either of my kids had a team mate in a different grade that was in their 1st or 2nd year class (I use the term class to define 1st year or 2nd year). That one kid was an August birthday and the parents sent their child to school at 5, with an August birthday, which is rare. In all those years I also ran into two July birthdays and their parents also started them in school at 5. They were allowed to play up with their grade so that worked for them too.

Math? Adding kids with August birthdays to the total increases the number of kids. I'm all for attempting to be persuasive when making an argument, but let's play within the laws of the universe.[/quote][quote]

Not quite.

You cannot simply add or substract from the next data set Moving to August does not mean you add another month to the previous Sum.

Last year in our small association, I believe every grade has a kid or 2 that play up with their age, but not their class (7th grader playing bantams, 5th grader playing peewees, 3rd grader playing squirts); each grade also has one or two that could play down with their age, but in all cases played with their classmates.

CoachCleats wrote:Math? Adding kids with August birthdays to the total increases the number of kids. I'm all for attempting to be persuasive when making an argument, but let's play within the laws of the universe.

Not quite.

You cannot simply add or substract from the next data set Moving to August does not mean you add another month to the previous Sum.

Yes, it absolutely does.

Yes, it absolutely does.[/quote]

How then do you comapare data over like periods ?

observer wrote:Stop with the September 1 discussion. Parents don't send kids to school based on September 1. Yes they do. Do you think the dept of education date is fluff?

We currently have July 1 as the cut. The question is does June 1 make more sense. I believe research is saying yes. More than 50% of kids who turn 5 in May start school in the fall. Less than 50% of kids who turn 5 in June start school in the fall. There's your split. Done.

Ok, let's see the reference to back up your claims. Made up numbers don't mean anything.

observer wrote:What? I have two kids playing and can only think of one situation in 6 years where either of my kids had a team mate in a different grade that was in their 1st or 2nd year class (I use the term class to define 1st year or 2nd year). That one kid was an August birthday and the parents sent their child to school at 5, with an August birthday, which is rare.

It may be rare in your small sample size, but across MN it is far from rare. Go back a few pages, find the the dept of education numbers link, and do a bit of analysis.

InigoMontoya wrote:

Haute hockeymom wrote:Observer - I thought the objective was to be more inclusive not less.

A move to any date earlier than September 1 reduces the number of kids who can play with their class.

Math? Adding kids with August birthdays to the total increases the number of kids. I'm all for attempting to be persuasive when making an argument, but let's play within the laws of the universe.

It increases if more August kids are late start. It decreases if more are regular start.

IM - welcome back to the thread. It's slim pickings these days when the Skinner worship and wolfpack bluff threads are the other choices.

Excuse me, less than 50% for the purpose of this discussion.

I'll guess only 20% of kids that turn 5 in August start school in September. 80% wait until their child is 6.

observer wrote:Excuse me, less than 50% for the purpose of this discussion.

I'll guess only 20% of kids that turn 5 in August start school in September. 80% wait until their child is 6.

Well at least your 80% guess is consistent with your guestimate a few pages back. I'll do the analysis.
dept of education says 9.7% of K kids are 6 on 9/1. Using your 80% for August and assuming an even birth distribution through the year and none of these 6 year olds are born earlier than 6/1 we get the following results:
80% of august b-days are late starts.
18% of June and July b-days are late starts.
The rolloff from Aug to July is a bit steep. If you stick with your 80% assumption for August, you should shift your platform to support a 8/1 cutoff.

I like your idea to find the natural split. That is the only date that should be considered besides 9/1 if the goal is to have kids play with their grade. Non of the data points even close to 6/1 being that split.

i think your "9.7% of K kids are 6 on 9/1" is a national number. if i'm wrong i'm sorry.
in our school district 25% delay kindergarten. my son was the youngest boy with an early may birthday.
basketball gets more of the older kids because its tied to grade. bad for basketball you end up with a lot or short forwards.

maybe a rolling date would make sense so that every month gets to be the big guy. (i believe this was discussed in Canada)

keepmeoutofit wrote:i think your "9.7% of K kids are 6 on 9/1" is a national number. if i'm wrong i'm sorry.
in our school district 25% delay kindergarten. my son was the youngest boy with an early may birthday.
basketball gets more of the older kids because its tied to grade. bad for basketball you end up with a lot or short forwards.

maybe a rolling date would make sense so that every month gets to be the big guy. (i believe this was discussed in Canada)

MN dept of education number. Link was about page 11 of this thread.

I believe the national number is lower. That may be due to later cutoff dates than 9/1 in other states.

spin-o-rama

thanks for bringing me up to speed. our community has delayed kindergarten for 25% of the student population i had assumed it was a state wide practice .

there may be others that are in an area where the practice has gone too far and maybe thats part of why there is such a disagreement.
changing the date to june is a wrong headed idea. the reason hockey has an age cutoff is safety. that why you need to get special permission to play down. by allowing the summer birthdays to "play down" you endanger the younger players.

the rest of the country has been using the year to group players, maybe we should step into the 21st century

How many among the 10% (Min Dept of Ed 2009) are Summer or June birthdates?

Not many

“the majority of children who delayed school entry had autumn birthdates”

The Incidence of Delayed School Entry: A Twelve-Year Review
Early Education & Development, Volume 7, Issue 2 pages 121 - 135

How many among the 10% (Min Dept of Ed 2009) are Summer or June birthdates?

Not many

Average Entrance Age By Birth Month (Sept 1 Cutoff)
NCES / ECLS-K

Jan= 5.6
Feb = 5.5
Mar= 5.4
Apr= 5.3
May= 5.25
Jun= 5.09
Jul= 5.05
Aug= 5.0
Sep= 5.8
Oct= 5.8
Nov= 5.7
Dec= 5.6

Any updates on this issue?

if the average age for a student born in Aug is 5.0. Then some of the students born in Aug are a over 5 and some are under 5.
I must be misinterpreting something. These numbers seem to be saying that summer babies are less likely to delay kindergarten. And more likely to start early.
To my knowledge starting a child early almost never happens in MN.