HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Posted: **Thu Sep 02, 2010 9:54 pm**

Nicely put JB and welcome to the "bored".

Posted: **Thu Sep 02, 2010 10:31 pm**

This topic has run its course. Move on, it's boring. Who cares! Move the cut date or keep it. Little Johnny or Jane plays with his/her mates in their grade for a couple of years and then they have to play with kids older or younger when they hit the older leagues. Big deal. Your kid will either keep up with the others or fall behind, it has more to do with his ability level then what time of the year the little tike was born. Let's move on.

Posted: **Fri Sep 03, 2010 9:16 am**

Sorry for continuing a boring thread HOTG. You are continuing the myth. Kids aren't playing with older kids and wanting to change the age cutoff to fix that. The ages are standard 2 years per level. The grade of school is confused by those that hold their kids out of K. PPG has said 5th graders shouldn't have to play hockey with 7th graders. That is the misconception. 11 and 12 year olds are playing PW together. YOU chose to withhold your kid from school, thereby creating the wider mythical grade gap.

There are endless reasons for starting kids on time or late for K. We sent our August birthdate on time and have not regretted it (from a school standpoint which is the way it should be) There have been many issues with other sports using grade level and hockey has created the issue of playing with kids in lower grade in school. I do not resent those that hold their kids out of K, but I am in the perfect position to dispell their rationalization/misinformation because I was in their position to make the send/hold back decision and know the pros/cons. It's kinda like don't BS a BS'er.

For a final time, my opinion is the MN birthdate should do one of three things. Stay as it is. Move to Jan 1st. Or move to Sept 1.

The only way the cutoff should move to June or May 1st is if the MN Schools move it's entry cutoff to June 1st and REQUIRE summer birthdates to wait a year.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 1:45 pm**

Interesting that this came out today on Yahoo News.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/201 ... ergartners

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 9:05 pm**

valleyball wrote: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

spin-o-rama wrote: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.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 9:43 pm**

justbecause wrote:After reading these posts, the one thing that seams most apparent to me is that parents of summer bday kids that start kindergarten at age 5, resent the fact that other parents have delayed their summer bday kids. It also seems that these same parents are the most vocal opponents of a change to June 1st.

I am just one person, but a change to June 1st seems to make the most sense to me. It is the only date the allows the vast majority of kids to play with their grade. If only 30% of June kids started late, that 30% could play with their grade. The other 70% that started on time could also play with their grade. Everybody wins except for those parents that resent the late starters, and thats OK by me.

I couldn't agree more. I contend that the "over the top parents", as the parents of late entry kids have been referred to, are actually the parents that are against allowing the "redshirt kids" to play with their grade. Seriously, some of you rabid opponents of a change to June 1 need to look in the mirror and ask youself "who is the over the top parent here?".

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 9:51 pm**

Sounds like it is time for a vote on the main topic here, see poll question.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:08 pm**

The majority of those who redshirt have autumn birthdays - not summer.

A summer cutoff makes no sense even if there were large numbers of kids delaying

The incidence of delayed school entry: A twelve-year review. EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Posted: **Mon Sep 06, 2010 1:49 am**

ive just been checking in on this thread and am very pleased with all the concern over a ONE month change in cut off. this is why i love the hockey board its hularious. lets face it people its one of two reasons anyone would care about this 30 days.

1. my little johnny will get an extra year and be a super stud.
2. my little johnny wont be the super stud anymore because so and so's little johnny was born in june... lol lol

Posted: **Mon Sep 06, 2010 9:02 am**

welders wrote:
spin-o-rama wrote: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.

Welders, once again you are missing the mark. The article is about national numbers. MH shouldn't be concerned with them when they have MN numbers to draw from. (BTW, you conveniently avoided mentioning that the article states that a good chunk of the increase in 6 year old entry into kindergarten is due to states changing their cutoff dates to earlier in the year. MN has not done that.) Using irrelevant information and omitting pertinent parts are classic forms of propaganda.

Is the trend for delaying K start increasing in MN? Possibly. Maybe you would like to research that. It might give you an indication of when your "50% of June b-days are late start" might be true. It will require at least a 50% increase in late starts over the current #s.

MH sent a weighted & questionable survey out to try to justify support for 6/1. The numbers there were also well short of supporting a shift to an earlier date.

The MN Dept of Education numbers don't support an earlier date and neither does the slanted MH survey. Once again, there is no data support for a move to 6/1.

Posted: **Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:38 am**

CoachCleats wrote:The majority of those who redshirt have autumn birthdays - not summer.

A summer cutoff makes no sense even if there were large numbers of kids delaying

The incidence of delayed school entry: A twelve-year review. EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Where do you come up with this stuff? The number of autumn birthdates that delay these days is virtually nonexistant. I'm sorry, but you obviously don't have a very good grasp of this issue.

Posted: **Mon Sep 06, 2010 12:22 pm**

Welders

Its published in Early Education and Development Volume 7, Number 2
pages 121 - 135.

the article is entitled "The Incidence of Delayed School Entry: A Twelve Year Review"

The author is Dr. Donna Brent from Skidmore College.

Posted: **Mon Sep 06, 2010 12:27 pm**

The full text is available here

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/conten ... a784758796

Alternatively, the Abstract includes a reference to the fact that the majority of those who redshirt are born in the autumn.

You assumed this practice applied only/primarily to those born in the summer?

Posted: **Mon Sep 06, 2010 1:29 pm**

spin-o-rama wrote:(BTW, you conveniently avoided mentioning that the article states that a good chunk of the increase in 6 year old entry into kindergarten is due to states changing their cutoff dates to earlier in the year. MN has not done that.) Using irrelevant information and omitting pertinent parts are classic forms of propaganda.

As your name implies, you seem to be an expert at distorting information, or you just didn't understand what the article was saying. This part of the article talks about the decrease in the percentage of 6-year-olds in first grade from 96% to 84% over 40 years:

"According to a 2008 paper published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, 96 percent of 6-year-olds were enrolled in first grade 40 years ago. Now, 84 percent of 6-year-olds are in first grade. The missing 12 percent haven't dropped out - they're enrolled in kindergarten instead. About a quarter of the shift (OVER 40 YEARS) is due to state and school district policies that push age cut-off dates earlier in the year, the researchers reported."

Nowhere does it talk about the increase in 6-year-old entry to kindergarten. You also say "MN has not done that", refering to "school district policies that push age cut-off dates earlier in the year". From the 2000 NCES study referred to previously: "Once it was standard practice to require kindergartners entering in September to have turned five by the following December or January; now it has become increasingly common for schools to require that children have turned five by September or October". Yes MN has done exactly that as well as most other states.

Any way you look at it, that paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with the paragraph that follows it that cites the NCES data of 9% redshirting in 1993-95 and the 14% redshirting in 2007.

From the article:
"Boys are more likely to be delayed than girls, as are white children and children in high-income families."

That description fits the demographics of MN Hockey to a tee. Face it, the total number of "redshirted" kids in MN Hockey is much higher than the 9-10% as you claim. It could easily push the 20% range. I contend that the June delay rate of 30% is actually much higher. If 50% of June, 60% of July, and 80% of August delay, that still only accounts for 15.8% of the total.

It's not a myth. The numbers, although not rock solid at this point, do not come from thin air. I don't expect you to admit it or accept it, but I think you do actually know that well over half of all summer birthdates in the MN Hockey membership have delayed Kindergarten entry.

Posted: **Mon Sep 06, 2010 1:50 pm**

CoachCleats wrote:The full text is available here

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/conten ... a784758796

Alternatively, the Abstract includes a reference to the fact that the majority of those who redshirt are born in the autumn.

You assumed this practice applied only/primarily to those born in the summer?

The study you cite was for one suburban school district, who knows where, and started almost 30 years ago. I don't think it has much relevance here. Talk to your local school district's kindergarten screeners, unless you don't want to hear what they are going to tell you.

Posted: **Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:25 pm**

BadgerBob82 wrote:welder: I just looked at our association's database for 2009-10, from Jr. Gold to Mites. (Boys and only girls playing with boys) It is about 50-50 for July and August birthdates starting school on time. I found close to 70% of June birthdates started on time. I did find a handful of March-May that were withheld from starting. Alot different than your 90%?

The point I make, for the 50% that start on time, the current June 30 cutoff causes the reverse of the issue you are refering to.

So you want it changed another month to negatively impact 70% of those kids starting on time to benefit 30%?

Let me guess, you have a kid born in June and held him out of school?

Interesting, your association's database has kids listed by grade? I don't recall USA Hockey or MN Hockey ever asking for grade information. If MN Hockey knew the grade level of its participants, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We have to find out our player's grade by asking them.

You say 70% of June birthdates would be negatively impacted. How would they be negatively impacted if they were to play with the grade they are in? I'll say it again, 9th graders shouldn't play varsity hockey, and tenth graders shouldn't play bantam hockey.

All of the coaches in our association feel that youth hockey is the feeder system for our high school and everything we do has an impact on our future success at the high school level. We should all be in favor of every late entry summer kid in our own associations playing with the core group of players in their grade from Kindergarten through 12th grade. These delayed summer birthdate kids (specifically June) will be a grade behind the early starters when they get to high school. MN Hockey needs to align with MN high school hockey and a change to June 1 would allow 99%+ to play with their grade from mites to 12th grade.

The people who are against a change to June 1 are basically saying: There isn't anything we can do about these late entry summer birthdate kids once they get to high school hockey, but at least we can force them to play a year ahead throughout their entire youth hockey career and bump them out of association hockey after 8th grade.

Posted: **Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:49 pm**

I'm not getting it. Could someone please spell it out for me?

If little Johnny's birthday is June 30th and little Bobby's birthday is July 1st, and they both start school on time, what advantage/disadvantage will each receive?

Same question but both delay starting school.

Same question but Johnny delays and Bobby doesn't.

Same question but Bobby delays and Johnny doesn't.

Thanks in advance.

Posted: **Mon Sep 06, 2010 3:14 pm**

welders wrote:
CoachCleats wrote:The full text is available here

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/conten ... a784758796

Alternatively, the Abstract includes a reference to the fact that the majority of those who redshirt are born in the autumn.

You assumed this practice applied only/primarily to those born in the summer?
The study you cite was for one suburban school district, who knows where, and started almost 30 years ago. I don't think it has much relevance here. Talk to your local school district's kindergarten screeners, unless you don't want to hear what they are going to tell you.

Your right. How does this garbage end up in these academic journals? I'm sure your guesses are much more accurate

Posted: **Mon Sep 06, 2010 5:01 pm**

welders wrote:
spin-o-rama wrote:(BTW, you conveniently avoided mentioning that the article states that a good chunk of the increase in 6 year old entry into kindergarten is due to states changing their cutoff dates to earlier in the year. MN has not done that.) Using irrelevant information and omitting pertinent parts are classic forms of propaganda.
As your name implies, you seem to be an expert at distorting information, or you just didn't understand what the article was saying. This part of the article talks about the decrease in the percentage of 6-year-olds in first grade from 96% to 84% over 40 years:

"According to a 2008 paper published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, 96 percent of 6-year-olds were enrolled in first grade 40 years ago. Now, 84 percent of 6-year-olds are in first grade. The missing 12 percent haven't dropped out - they're enrolled in kindergarten instead. About a quarter of the shift (OVER 40 YEARS) is due to state and school district policies that push age cut-off dates earlier in the year, the researchers reported."

Nowhere does it talk about the increase in 6-year-old entry to kindergarten. What do you think the line, "the missing 12 percent haven't dropped out - they're enrolled in kindergarten instead," means? You also say "MN has not done that", refering to "school district policies that push age cut-off dates earlier in the year". From the 2000 NCES study referred to previously: "Once it was standard practice to require kindergartners entering in September to have turned five by the following December or January; now it has become increasingly common for schools to require that children have turned five by September or October". Yes MN has done exactly that as well as most other states. MN has not changed their cutoff date. Other states have moved cutoff dates. I believe CA used to be 12/1 and has moved earlier in the year. MN has had the 9/1 cutoff for a very long time, at least 40 years.

Any way you look at it, that paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with the paragraph that follows it that cites the NCES data of 9% redshirting in 1993-95 and the 14% redshirting in 2007. Yes it does, they are different studies that support each other. However, neither study is applicable to this discussion because they represent national numbers, not MN numbers.

From the article:
"Boys are more likely to be delayed than girls, as are white children and children in high-income families."

That description fits the demographics of MN Hockey to a tee. Face it, the total number of "redshirted" kids in MN Hockey is much higher than the 9-10% as you claim. It could easily push the 20% range. I contend that the June delay rate of 30% is actually much higher. If 50% of June, 60% of July, and 80% of August delay, that still only accounts for 15.8% of the total. That's your contention. Where's the proof?

It's not a myth. Until you have proof, it is. Especially when actual numbers are so far from supporting it. The numbers, although not rock solid at this point, do not come from thin air. I don't expect you to admit it or accept it, but I think you do actually know that well over half of all summer birthdates in the MN Hockey membership have delayed Kindergarten entry. I don't know that, and neither do you. Even if that is eventually proved (the burden of proof is on those wanting the 6/1 change), there still is far from 1/2 the June b-days late starting. That is pretty certain.

Posted: **Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:22 pm**

HockeyDad41 wrote:I'm not getting it. Could someone please spell it out for me?

If little Johnny's birthday is June 30th and little Bobby's birthday is July 1st, and they both start school on time, what advantage/disadvantage will each receive?
If we say they are both 9, they would both be 4th graders. Johnny would be a 1st year squirt, Bobby could be a mite, but should opt for squirts in order to play with his grade his entire hockey career and not be a 10th grade bantam.

Same question but both delay starting school.
Again, if both are nine, both would be 3rd graders. Johnny would still be a 1st year squirt, but with a June 1 cutoff, would be able to join Bobby and all the other third graders as a 4th year mite and not be forced to play varsity hockey as a ninth grader.

Same question but Johnny delays and Bobby doesn't.
Without a June 1 cutoff, Johnny would be a third grader that is forced to play squirts with 4th and 5th graders and would play varsity in 9th grade. Again, Bobby is mite eligible 4th grader, but could and should play squirts in order to stay with his classmates from mites through 12th grade.

Same question but Bobby delays and Johnny doesn't.
Again, Johnny is a 4th grade 1st year squirt. Bobby is a 4th year mite in 3rd grade.

Thanks in advance.

The only advantage with any of these scenarios is being able to play with your grade your entire hockey career. The only disadvantage is not being able to play with your classmates every year. Kindergarten through 3rd grade should be mites, 4th and 5th grade should be squirts, 6th and 7th grade should be peewees, 8th and 9th grade should be bantams, and 10th-12th grade should be high school hockey. I'll say it again, a change to a June 1 cutoff allows the advantage for 99%+ of all hockey players in MN Hockey.

Posted: **Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:33 pm**

welders wrote:
HockeyDad41 wrote:I'm not getting it. Could someone please spell it out for me?

If little Johnny's birthday is June 30th and little Bobby's birthday is July 1st, and they both start school on time, what advantage/disadvantage will each receive?
If we say they are both 9, they would both be 4th graders. Johnny would be a 1st year squirt, Bobby could be a mite, but should opt for squirts in order to play with his grade his entire hockey career and not be a 10th grade bantam.

Same question but both delay starting school.
Again, if both are nine, both would be 3rd graders. Johnny would still be a 1st year squirt, but with a June 1 cutoff, would be able to join Bobby and all the other third graders as a 4th year mite and not be forced to play varsity hockey as a ninth grader.

Same question but Johnny delays and Bobby doesn't.
Without a June 1 cutoff, Johnny would be a third grader that is forced to play squirts with 4th and 5th graders and would play varsity in 9th grade. Again, Bobby is mite eligible 4th grader, but could and should play squirts in order to stay with his classmates from mites through 12th grade.

Same question but Bobby delays and Johnny doesn't.
Again, Johnny is a 4th grade 1st year squirt. Bobby is a 4th year mite in 3rd grade.

Thanks in advance.

The only advantage with any of these scenarios is being able to play with your grade your entire hockey career. The only disadvantage is not being able to play with your classmates every year. Kindergarten through 3rd grade should be mites, 4th and 5th grade should be squirts, 6th and 7th grade should be peewees, 8th and 9th grade should be bantams, and 10th-12th grade should be high school hockey. I'll say it again, a change to a June 1 cutoff allows the advantage for 99%+ of all hockey players in MN Hockey.

Thank you.

Posted: **Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:20 pm**

we have a high school senior that made it to the adv summer fest as a 15, and the spring fest for 16&17 year olds. he has a january birthday which was an advantage. it was also an advantage that he was always the youngest kid on his assoc. team competing against players that were always older.

none of our kids ever cared about what grade the kids on the team were in.

i'm not comfortable with people that join an activity that has clearly stated rules that they then try to change.
I've tried to do this when i play myolder son in chess and he says i'm cheating.

i havent heard of any group of parents with kids that didnt get held back trying to change the date the other way.

Posted: **Tue Sep 07, 2010 10:26 am**

welders: I think I am finally figuring out your point. You want MN Hockey to eliminate using birthdates at all. Only use grade in school regardless of age. Forget birth certificates all together. I get it. I don't think USA Hockey will go along with it though?

The part I don't get with the move from June 30th to May 31st. I think the number thrown around is 30% of June birthdates withhold entry from school in Sept and wait to enter when 6 years old. That means 70% entered on time. (This is ON TIME not EARLY!) Therefore, if the age was changed to June 1st, 70% of the kids would be playing squirts as a 6th grader PW in 8th and Bantam in 10th. (Now I think the 30% is high for June 5 late starters and data presented here says it is more like 15%) If the 15% number is correct, you are wanting the age change to benefit 15% yet impacting 85% of the kids to play outside of their "grade".

I suppose you will say those 85% can "opt up" to stay with their grade? But that would mean 85% are going against the norm and you are wanting a rule change to benefit 15% of the kids?

Maybe you should be taking this up with MN Schools to change school entry cutoff to June 1st, then when that is passed, MN Hockey will follow suit?

Please show me where I am wrong.

Posted: **Tue Sep 07, 2010 11:09 am**

welders wrote:
HockeyDad41 wrote:I'm not getting it. Could someone please spell it out for me?

If little Johnny's birthday is June 30th and little Bobby's birthday is July 1st, and they both start school on time, what advantage/disadvantage will each receive?
If we say they are both 9, they would both be 4th graders. Johnny would be a 1st year squirt, Bobby could be a mite, but should opt for squirts in order to play with his grade his entire hockey career and not be a 10th grade bantam.

Same question but both delay starting school.
Again, if both are nine, both would be 3rd graders. Johnny would still be a 1st year squirt, but with a June 1 cutoff, would be able to join Bobby and all the other third graders as a 4th year mite and not be forced to play varsity hockey as a ninth grader.

Same question but Johnny delays and Bobby doesn't.
Without a June 1 cutoff, Johnny would be a third grader that is forced to play squirts with 4th and 5th graders and would play varsity in 9th grade. Again, Bobby is mite eligible 4th grader, but could and should play squirts in order to stay with his classmates from mites through 12th grade.

Same question but Bobby delays and Johnny doesn't.
Again, Johnny is a 4th grade 1st year squirt. Bobby is a 4th year mite in 3rd grade.

Thanks in advance.

The only advantage with any of these scenarios is being able to play with your grade your entire hockey career. The only disadvantage is not being able to play with your classmates every year. Kindergarten through 3rd grade should be mites, 4th and 5th grade should be squirts, 6th and 7th grade should be peewees, 8th and 9th grade should be bantams, and 10th-12th grade should be high school hockey. I'll say it again, a change to a June 1 cutoff allows the advantage for 99%+ of all hockey players in MN Hockey.

What about kids who've been held back twice? Once for not being ready and a second time for not making the grade as it were? Should a nine year old really be playing mite hockey just because he is in third grade?

Posted: **Tue Sep 07, 2010 1:04 pm**

welders wrote:
valleyball wrote: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

spin-o-rama wrote: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

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Age change in Minnesota Hockey?