Get ready folks

[RandomSoccerFan]

Who is being penalized?

If the 12-month year is pushed 2 months ahead of the actual grade divisions to take care of those oldest who started school late instead of following the deadline (hard to do in public in some states, very common in other states), the 2 months of kids on the youngest end now are pushed to either play down with the younger grade, or choose to play an age up, up to 14 months younger than the oldest in their "soccer grade".

The point is by minimizing those who play in a different grade from their school grade, it makes intuitive sense to make the age rules for both school grade and soccer grade as close as possible. Allowing leeway on the soccer grade to help those who don't conform, hurts those on the other end who do conform, unless the cohort is spread to longer than 12 months - which has its own issues.

Not sure why people are not understanding this basic fact, but here we are.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

I do have an August kid (2 actually) but even if I didn’t I would still support maximizing the number of kids who can play with their enrolled grade.

Uh, sure. Nobody is against maximizing the number of kids who can play with their enrolled grade. Doing so by making the "soccer grade" to be the "school grade + a couple months" isn't the way to it, and doing it that way most certainly is choosing to favor some while hurting others. In this case, favoring those who mainly didn't follow the rules in the first place.

Which is always the point - whatever date is chosen will favor some and disfavor others. The loudest are usually the ones who have just realized that it now makes their kid on the younger end.

 

[SoccerSF]

If the 12-month year is pushed 2 months ahead of the actual grade divisions to take care of those oldest who started school late instead of following the deadline (hard to do in public in some states, very common in other states), the 2 months of kids on the youngest end now are pushed to either play down with the younger grade, or choose to play an age up, up to 14 months younger than the oldest in their "soccer grade".

The point is by minimizing those who play in a different grade from their school grade, it makes intuitive sense to make the age rules for both school grade and soccer grade as close as possible. Allowing leeway on the soccer grade to help those who don't conform, hurts those on the other end who do conform, unless the cohort is spread to longer than 12 months - which has its own issues.

Not sure why people are not understanding this basic fact, but here we are.

Does a 2-month swing make that much of a difference, if we did have a 14-month window in play? So many on these message boards claim all really strong players with college/pro potential are playing up a year or more anyway, so what difference would it make to those (very few when compared to the total number of kids playing soccer in this country) select kids? And by having that 14-month window in play once the move the SY registration occurs, the kids who are in soccer to compete, sure, but even more than that who just love the sport and find a lot of joy in playing with their peers/classmates/friends can have an opportunity to do that?

 

[DeaconSoccer12]

I think the reason an 8/1 cutoff makes more sense than 9/1 is because there are at least a handful of states with 8/1 or 8/15 kindergarten cutoff (need to look it up again for exact numbers). I dont believe an 8/1 date should be used to cater to kids who live in a state with a 9/1 cutoff but are "redshirted" because they have August or July birthdays.

Full transparency - I have a kid with a 9/1 birthday and I about spit out my drink when the US Club soccer guy on the podcast said 9/1 was the date they were going to use because I thought for sure it would be 8/1.

Am I thrilled my kid will be able to drop down a year and play with her grade level peers next season if that is in her best interest? Of course! She is a 2014 so will be able to choose whether to play up and move to 11v11 or move to her grade level and play another year of 9v9. As a GK I think it may be beneficial to have another year on the small goals and move to a higher level team possibly.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

Does a 2-month swing make that much of a difference, if we did have a 14-month window in play? So many on these message boards claim all really strong players with college/pro potential are playing up a year or more anyway, so what difference would it make to those (very few when compared to the total number of kids playing soccer in this country) select kids? And by having that 14-month window in play once the move the SY registration occurs, the kids who are in soccer to compete, sure, but even more than that who just love the sport and find a lot of joy in playing with their peers/classmates/friends can have an opportunity to do that?

It's always the first go-to argument when trying to bend the rules. "Come on, it's only a little bit, and the people affected negatively by this decision will only get hurt a little bit." "And it affects them and not who I'm advocating for so it doesn't really matter anyway"

Those affected kids are either hurt by having to play soccer in a different grade than their school grade (which we're ostensibly trying to avoid, as they have to find a new team at least once if not twice), or are a year or more younger than the kids given the special dispensation for not following the rules.

You can't get your drivers license if you are almost the right age, you can't drink until you actually turn 21, and you can't get a free cupcake at Chucky Cheese if it's not your birthday (well, you can probably lie about that one). In the current context, a kid now born on 1/1 at 2 AM is fortunate enough to be the oldest on any calendar-year based team, while the poor sap born 10 PM the night before on 12/31 is going to be playing catchup all the way through. People are much more accepting of the Jan 1 cutoff than whatever the SY cutoff turns out to be - as CY it's much harder to justify any exception requests.

 

[Alemca]

If the 12-month year is pushed 2 months ahead of the actual grade divisions to take care of those oldest who started school late instead of following the deadline (hard to do in public in some states, very common in other states), the 2 months of kids on the youngest end now are pushed to either play down with the younger grade, or choose to play an age up, up to 14 months younger than the oldest in their "soccer grade".

The point is by minimizing those who play in a different grade from their school grade, it makes intuitive sense to make the age rules for both school grade and soccer grade as close as possible. Allowing leeway on the soccer grade to help those who don't conform, hurts those on the other end who do conform, unless the cohort is spread to longer than 12 months - which has its own issues.

Not sure why people are not understanding this basic fact, but here we are.

It's been pointed out repeatedly, but seems worth repeating one more time for those in the back of the room: the deadline only exists in your head. It's a minimum age cutoff, so you don't send your kid to kindergarten too early! It doesn't even say it's recommended that you send them immediately once they pass that minimum threshold.

 

[Alemca]

It's always the first go-to argument when trying to bend the rules. "Come on, it's only a little bit, and the people affected negatively by this decision will only get hurt a little bit." "And it affects them and not who I'm advocating for so it doesn't really matter anyway"

Those affected kids are either hurt by having to play soccer in a different grade than their school grade (which we're ostensibly trying to avoid, as they have to find a new team at least once if not twice), or are a year or more younger than the kids given the special dispensation for not following the rules.

You can't get your drivers license if you are almost the right age, you can't drink until you actually turn 21, and you can't get a free cupcake at Chucky Cheese if it's not your birthday (well, you can probably lie about that one). In the current context, a kid now born on 1/1 at 2 AM is fortunate enough to be the oldest on any calendar-year based team, while the poor sap born 10 PM the night before on 12/31 is going to be playing catchup all the way through. People are much more accepting of the Jan 1 cutoff than whatever the SY cutoff turns out to be - as CY it's much harder to justify any exception requests.

Drinking age and driver's license are terrible analogies. If people could get their driver's license or start drinking on one specific day in a year together with their age cohort, people would be up in arms.

It would not be a problem if kids roll to the next age group in soccer on their birthdays, so they are the oldest in the group some of the time and the youngest some of the time. Would never work in the team concept as established in the US, but Ajax does it in the Netherlands. The issue is that kids are grouped in a cohort of peers and are stuck their the entire childhood.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

It's been pointed out repeatedly, but seems worth repeating one more time for those in the back of the room: the deadline only exists in your head. It's a minimum age cutoff, so you don't send your kid to kindergarten too early! It doesn't even say it's recommended that you send them immediately once they pass that minimum threshold.

It's been pointed out as repeatedly - keeping a kid back so they can be older than their peers in sports is an unfair way to group kids as they grow. It doesn't matter if the parents did this completely knowingly, somewhat knowingly, or somehow had a child and raised them old enough to start school - but had no thought that starting them late would affect them in anything else that goes by school year. And I prefer the back of the room.

Drinking age and driver's license are terrible analogies. If people could get their driver's license or start drinking on one specific day in a year together with their age cohort, people would be up in arms.

It would not be a problem if kids roll to the next age group in soccer on their birthdays, so they are the oldest in the group some of the time and the youngest some of the time. Would never work in the team concept as established in the US, but Ajax does it in the Netherlands. The issue is that kids are grouped in a cohort of peers and are stuck their the entire childhood.

I think you are misunderstanding what an analogy is used for or how it works.

 

[socalkdg]

I think the reason an 8/1 cutoff makes more sense than 9/1 is because there are at least a handful of states with 8/1 or 8/15 kindergarten cutoff (need to look it up again for exact numbers). I dont believe an 8/1 date should be used to cater to kids who live in a state with a 9/1 cutoff but are "redshirted" because they have August or July birthdays.

Full transparency - I have a kid with a 9/1 birthday and I about spit out my drink when the US Club soccer guy on the podcast said 9/1 was the date they were going to use because I thought for sure it would be 8/1.

Am I thrilled my kid will be able to drop down a year and play with her grade level peers next season if that is in her best interest? Of course! She is a 2014 so will be able to choose whether to play up and move to 11v11 or move to her grade level and play another year of 9v9. As a GK I think it may be beneficial to have another year on the small goals and move to a higher level team possibly.

San Diego and Riverside County start in August. Very large portion of soccer players in So Cal.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

San Diego and Riverside County start in August. Very large portion of soccer players in So Cal.

Uh, no. It has nothing to do with when the first day of school might be (which is August for much of California).

It's that a kid can't start kindergarten in public school unless they are born on Sep 1 or later (and have already turned 6). It's been this way for 10+ years, by law.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

Curse the 4 minute timer!

It's that a kid can't start kindergarten in public school unless they are born on Sep 1 or earlier later (and have already turned 5 6). It's been this way for 10+ years, by law.

It's 6 for 1st grade, 5 for kindergarten. Cutoff date is always Sep 1 where determination of age is made.

 

[TeamDadJokes]

Uh, no. It has nothing to do with when the first day of school might be (which is August for much of California).

It's that a kid can't start kindergarten in public school unless they are born on Sep 1 or later (and have already turned 6). It's been this way for 10+ years, by law.

Curse the 4 minute timer!

It's 6 for 1st grade, 5 for kindergarten. Cutoff date is always Sep 1 where determination of age is made.

This is true. My kid is 9/25. A year or 2 before she started kindergarten it was a 10/1 cutoff and got moved to 9/1. She went to a private school who looked at where she was psychosocially and academically and placed her in 1st grade instead of second year kindergarten.

At the time I never thought about the advantages she’d have in sports being held back. I was only thinking of where she’d fit in the most in her schooling and socially.

If I had a younger kid now in the same situation knowing what I know now, I’d hold them back for the sports advantage and to give them an extra year of maturity for academics.

 

[Derek1800]

This is true. My kid is 9/25. A year or 2 before she started kindergarten it was a 10/1 cutoff and got moved to 9/1. She went to a private school who looked at where she was psychosocially and academically and placed her in 1st grade instead of second year kindergarten.

At the time I never thought about the advantages she’d have in sports being held back. I was only thinking of where she’d fit in the most in her schooling and socially.

If I had a younger kid now in the same situation knowing what I know now, I’d hold them back for the sports advantage and to give them an extra year of maturity for academics.

All the books and science say to not start August and later birthdays early before even considering sports. Google will also tell you most experts don’t recommend it.

TK will further help accelerate this even more as the only reason to start early is for parents who want to cut costs of pre school. TK is also making Kindergarten more academically challenging and intense.

The trend is changing and I can see it with myself with my Nov bday TKer. It would be better for 9/1 selfishly for me as it gives my kid more RAE advantage given a bday closer to cutoff date. It just doesn’t make any sense given what is happening right now and where the landscape is headed if we care about classmates and trapped player problem. If my kid cannot compete over 1 month then he probably is trying to play at the wrong skill level or the wrong sport. He definitely wouldn’t be top tier caliber if it is causing issues.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

All the books and science say to not start August and later birthdays early before even considering sports. Google will also tell you most experts don’t recommend it.

The books are recommending that students intentionally delay a year and don't start school on time? Feel free to share any sources, as it's not believable as written. If that's what people want to will themselves to believe - so be it - but it still doesn't make it accurate. If you want to not go by the state schooling schedule, you need to go private, or convince a school district that your kid is slow enough to need special attention and isn't able to start school as recommended - which comes with its own complications.

Experts may certainly be recommending that starting school early, and trying to graduate sooner than expected, while once considered something to shoot for, may no longer be as helpful as it once was. For one thing, the removal a few years ago of most standardized testing for college admissions means that more weight can be put on grades/activities than a single test score; an extra year of schooling can certainly help the former more than the latter. Now that the pendulum is swinging back to requiring such standardized testing more and more, it remains to be seen whether it will go back to being advantageous to skip grades vs. staying on schedule.

At some point perhaps the public school system will be challenged in numbers by the students in whatever is considered "private" after a few more years of people placed in charge of public education to explicitly weaken/disable it to the point such that private becomes the reasonable option for many more than today. Right now about 10% of kids in the US are in private. It also varies widely by state - with Wyoming having 97% in public, while only 45% are in public in DC. (link) If those numbers change markedly, it makes it less useful for any other context (like soccer organizations) to make assumptions for translating what grade a kid is in to what age they actually are. But we are still very far from that being the case.

 

[espola]

All the books and science say to not start August and later birthdays early before even considering sports. Google will also tell you most experts don’t recommend it.

TK will further help accelerate this even more as the only reason to start early is for parents who want to cut costs of pre school. TK is also making Kindergarten more academically challenging and intense.

The trend is changing and I can see it with myself with my Nov bday TKer. It would be better for 9/1 selfishly for me as it gives my kid more RAE advantage given a bday closer to cutoff date. It just doesn’t make any sense given what is happening right now and where the landscape is headed if we care about classmates and trapped player problem. If my kid cannot compete over 1 month then he probably is trying to play at the wrong skill level or the wrong sport. He definitely wouldn’t be top tier caliber if it is causing issues.

Also known as the Texas 2-year Kindergarten.

 

[Derek1800]

The books are recommending that students intentionally delay a year and don't start school on time? Feel free to share any sources, as it's not believable as written. If that's what people want to will themselves to believe - so be it - but it still doesn't make it accurate. If you want to not go by the state schooling schedule, you need to go private, or convince a school district that your kid is slow enough to need special attention and isn't able to start school as recommended - which comes with its own complications.

Experts may certainly be recommending that starting school early, and trying to graduate sooner than expected, while once considered something to shoot for, may no longer be as helpful as it once was. For one thing, the removal a few years ago of most standardized testing for college admissions means that more weight can be put on grades/activities than a single test score; an extra year of schooling can certainly help the former more than the latter. Now that the pendulum is swinging back to requiring such standardized testing more and more, it remains to be seen whether it will go back to being advantageous to skip grades vs. staying on schedule.

At some point perhaps the public school system will be challenged in numbers by the students in whatever is considered "private" after a few more years of people placed in charge of public education to explicitly weaken/disable it to the point such that private becomes the reasonable option for many more than today. Right now about 10% of kids in the US are in private. It also varies widely by state - with Wyoming having 97% in public, while only 45% are in public in DC. (link) If those numbers change markedly, it makes it less useful for any other context (like soccer organizations) to make assumptions for translating what grade a kid is in to what age they actually are. But we are still very far from that being the case.

There is no debate really on topic for academics that starting late provides an advantage. We all agree RAE impacts soccer. Well the data has also been shown true for academics, which of course makes sense and why Aug hold off an additional year. If public school changes to force Aug to start early and according to Sep 1 date then we might have a different conversation but that isn’t the landscape nor what is happening with publicly funded TK at least in SoCal.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

There is no debate really on topic for academics that starting late provides an advantage. We all agree RAE impacts soccer. Well the data has also been shown true for academics, which of course makes sense and why Aug hold off an additional year. If public school changes to force Aug to start early and according to Sep 1 date then we might have a different conversation but that isn’t the landscape nor what is happening with publicly funded TK at least in SoCal.

You continue to obfuscate, without stating what you actually mean. Public school isn't likely to change to an Aug 1 start date any time in the foreseeable future.

You can start your kid early (no longer as recommended as it once was), on time (according your state's regulations), or late (1 year later than required for those without accomodations/disabilities/other reasons to delay).

For California specifically, with a Sep 1 cut-off date, here's what that means.

If a kid is 5 as of Sep 1 when they would enter 1st grade - starting them then would be a year early. This is no longer recommended, while it once was much more common when kids were encouraged to start early.

If a kid is 6 as of Sep 1 when they would enter 1st grade - this is the normal track, and they (and the school district) are highly encouraged for them to be in 1st grade.

If a kid is 7 as of Sep 1, and they are trying to enter 1st grade - they are a year too old, and need to convince a school district why it's necessary.

Change the ages by 1 year if you want to use 1-year kindergarten as an example.

Nobody in their right mind is advocating that you push for your kid to be delayed a full year, and starting 1st grade when they are already 7. But this is what some are already doing by going private, which tends to allow any start date. This is how kids can be in a grade lower than "expected". Taking that into account is certainly a choice that other organizations can make, as that's what basketball has mainly ended up doing - but it's a complete shambles in terms of age/grade verification in many cases.

So yes - starting a kid at 6 instead of starting them at 5 is *later*, but it's on schedule. Starting a kid at 7 instead of 6 is bypassing the state's regulations to make a kid older than their peers in grade - easily doable in private, not so much in public.

 

[CAZZZ]

ECNL will release their final plan by the end of Feb. The CEO has already hinted it will be a 9/1 cutoff. Based on their track record, I don't think any significant flexibility or waiver will be in place.

 

[SoccerSF]

It’s hard to fathom that ECNL who wants to facilitate college recruiting for kids in a given grade and stop dealing with the trapped player problem would be so rigid and leave a chunk of August kids dangling out there playing with the wrong grade and trapped again with little to zero fellow trapped players.

 

[Derek1800]

You continue to obfuscate, without stating what you actually mean. Public school isn't likely to change to an Aug 1 start date any time in the foreseeable future.

You can start your kid early (no longer as recommended as it once was), on time (according your state's regulations), or late (1 year later than required for those without accomodations/disabilities/other reasons to delay).

For California specifically, with a Sep 1 cut-off date, here's what that means.

If a kid is 5 as of Sep 1 when they would enter 1st grade - starting them then would be a year early. This is no longer recommended, while it once was much more common when kids were encouraged to start early.

If a kid is 6 as of Sep 1 when they would enter 1st grade - this is the normal track, and they (and the school district) are highly encouraged for them to be in 1st grade.

If a kid is 7 as of Sep 1, and they are trying to enter 1st grade - they are a year too old, and need to convince a school district why it's necessary.

Change the ages by 1 year if you want to use 1-year kindergarten as an example.

Nobody in their right mind is advocating that you push for your kid to be delayed a full year, and starting 1st grade when they are already 7. But this is what some are already doing by going private, which tends to allow any start date. This is how kids can be in a grade lower than "expected". Taking that into account is certainly a choice that other organizations can make, as that's what basketball has mainly ended up doing - but it's a complete shambles in terms of age/grade verification in many cases.

So yes - starting a kid at 6 instead of starting them at 5 is *later*, but it's on schedule. Starting a kid at 7 instead of 6 is bypassing the state's regulations to make a kid older than their peers in grade - easily doable in private, not so much in public.

I dont think you understand what is happening nor the regulations for CA. Many kids are turning 7 in Aug going into 1st grade in public where I am (whether school starts in mid Aug or sept for them). I actively have a TKer right now at a big school district and see this happening. This is what gives them the RAE advantage as they will be the oldest in their grade.

This doesn’t require the private school route. Private school is only required if you want your kid who is turning 7 after Sept 1 to be in first grade (and they would in turn be the youngest in their class) and CA will reject them starting early. It is the opposite scenario and not applicable for this conversation.