Get ready folks

RandomSoccerFan said:
Ha! That's what people should do. Just call it "self biobanding", and maybe people won't think that they're cheating anymore. /s

MLS N is the only league that has tried to implement this, and it hasn't worked out terribly well in meeting its goals (allowing a few who are physically developing more slowly than their peers to play down until they catch up), as once on that track the kids are almost never able to excel at their actual age level again.
Click to expand...

Ha! That's what people should do. Just call it "self biobanding", and maybe people won't think that they're cheating anymore. /s

MLS N is the only league that has tried to implement this, and it hasn't worked out terribly well in meeting its goals (allowing a few who are physically developing more slowly than their peers to play down until they catch up), as once on that track the kids are almost never able to excel at their actual age level again.
[/QUOTE]

Compared to MLSN biobanding, it is laughable to see ECNL parents freak out about the incoming 9/1 cutoff.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
MLSN biobanding = 24 month variance (limited to 3 per age group, need to be individually approved by MLS N leadership)

What I proposed = 14 month variance

SY default = 12 month variance
Click to expand...

(bolding/italics are my edits)

MLS N tries to limit misuse of this by only approving 3 per team, and everyone has to apply individually. It's not clear if you are proposing the same type of limits for over age kids in ECNL, or not.

mls late developer.png
 
So it's not apples to apples. Justifying increasing the window "because MLS N does it", but not incorporating the relatively strict limits they put on it to keep it rare, isn't as clear a comparison.
 
RandomSoccerFan said:
So it's not apples to apples. Justifying increasing the window "because MLS N does it", but not incorporating the relatively strict limits they put on it to keep it rare, isn't as clear a comparison.
Click to expand...
All I'm interested in is...
1. Address all trapped players in SY
2. Have all players on the field be one grade in SY
3. Not allow GY into SY

The other "benefits" of what I proposed are just nice to haves.

I'm not looking to do a 1to1 comparison with any other league or grouping.
 
RandomSoccerFan said:
Then don't put them in a numbered list as if they are stating the same thing.
Click to expand...
Someone else compared what I proposed to MLS + biobanding.

Just clarifying that while both are examples of allowing older players to play down what I proposed allows 2 months older, what MLS does with biobanding allows 12 months older.

They're not the same thing.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
All I'm interested in is...
1. Address all trapped players in SY
2. Have all players on the field be one grade in SY
3. Not allow GY into SY
Click to expand...
Yes - I think most people (including the governing bodies) seem to be supportive of all of these as well. The details are in how well the totality of the rules cover the edge cases, where the relative priorities of fairness to which parties need to be directly weighed against each other.

If they are able to do #2, #1 is done by default (if trapped player is defined as someone not playing with their school grade). #3 is much more nuanced, and just depends how the dates/grades are chosen and spoken about. In most cases, they are interchangeable. What are you specifically trying to prevent by not allowing GY to be defined rather than SY? (for example the Lacrosse example above lists GY on the chart)
 
RandomSoccerFan said:
What are you specifically trying to prevent by not allowing GY to be defined rather than SY? (for example the Lacrosse example above lists GY on the chart)
Click to expand...
Yes GY ruins everything.

This this why I'm looking to specifically protect against it.

If you think MLSN with 24 months of variance is annoying try GY where there can be and often is 36 months of variance. Have you ever seen a 16 year old freshman that can drive to school? I have. And not only are parents drooling for the advantage. Private schools are also on board because it translates to...

1. Better scores from students (Because they're repeating the same grade 2x)

2. Private schools get an extra year of tuition.
 
RandomSoccerFan said:
Funny - I think you've instead clearly demonstrated that you don't - nor have you read the regulations for CA. Here's the link again. Kids need to be enrolled once they turn 5, prior to the start of school year. Typically that's kindergarten. They have to have 1 year of kindergarten, and they need to be promoted to first grade. If they started kindergarten early (and/or did TK), and are sticking around for a 2nd year of kindergarten prior to going to first grade, the parents have to submit the "Kindergarten Continuance Form". If the district doesn't promote enough kids who are otherwise eligible - i.e. too many aren't meeting the requirements to be promoted, the district loses apportionment (money). There is strong encouragement to keep kids on track.

You might want to check your data, and if you're curious, confirm with any of the parents who have an already 7 year old that won't start 1st grade in public until Sep 2025 - and see what was necessary for them to attest to in order to make that happen. In private, the only check is, well, whether it clears.

It is interesting, that for quite some time there was much more pressure to admit kids early (younger), to not only give them a "head start" academically, but simply for the logistics of giving the kid somewhere to go during the day. I have no doubt there is still some pressure in that direction, but there is now also the push being discussed here, trying to bend things so kids can be admitted late (older).
Click to expand...
I am aware of the law. It states you must be in school at 6 (“school is mandatory for six year old students”). You can turn 6 in Aug and start Public Kindergarten to be in compliance with the law. Given the Aug bday is before the Sept 1 cut off it is the elementary schools discretion whether they would allow you to do this when you start kindergarten. This doesn’t require a state or gov exception. It is as simple as the school saying yes.

If you think about incentives there really isn’t any for a school to say no unless they have too many kids in the incoming kindergarten class to accommodate.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
Yes GY ruins everything.

This this why I'm looking to specifically protect against it.

If you think MLSN with 24 months of variance is annoying try GY where there can be and often is 36 months of variance. Have you ever seen a 16 year old freshman that can drive to school? I have. And not only are parents drooling for the advantage. Private schools are also on board because it translates to...

1. Better scores from students (Because they're repeating the same grade 2x)

2. Private schools get an extra year of tuition.
Click to expand...

I'm not understanding your point. Why does soccer choosing to group kids by GY do anything differently than by SY? It sounds like you are against crazy old kids in grades 1, 2, or even 3 years lower than would be expected - which is the point - but who cares if they call the team "the 9th grade team" or "class of 2028"?

Are you thinking this means 5 years in high school?
 
Derek1800 said:
I am aware of the law. It states you must be in school at 6 (“school is mandatory for six year old students”). You can turn 6 in Aug and start Public Kindergarten to be in compliance with the law. Given the Aug bday is before the Sept 1 cut off it is the elementary schools discretion whether they would allow you to do this when you start kindergarten. This doesn’t require a state or gov exception. It is as simple as the school saying yes.

If you think about incentives there really isn’t any for a school to say no unless they have too many kids in the incoming kindergarten class to accommodate.
Click to expand...

No, once again. If they are 6 on or before Sep 1, EC 48010 says they "shall be admitted to the 1st grade of an elementary school". Not Kindergarten. The school is pretty clearly not following the law if they are admitting (already) 6-year-olds into kindergarten without any justification. (link)

Screenshot 2025-01-22 225143.png
There are usually safeguards in place for the later grades as well when kids move into the district. There are guidelines for each grade, matching this 9/1 cutoff, but also there are statements that require anyone who is 15 to be referred only to the high school. Here's an example of such guidelines for one CA district: (link)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top