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.
Get ready folks
- Thread starter soccer4us
- Start date
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
PREMIER
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.
I think you are misunderstanding what an analogy is used for or how it works.
San Diego and Riverside County start in August. Very large portion of soccer players in So Cal.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
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
PREMIER
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.
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
PREMIER
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.
Also known as the Texas 2-year Kindergarten.
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
PREMIER
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.
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.
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.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
You may be right - and it was an Aug 1 cutoff before, maybe it will be that again. But if it is Aug - it's choosing which Aug kids ECNL favors - those who started school late (older), rather than those that started school on time.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
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).
The August kids who are young for their grade will be the youngest on their SY soccer team if they use a 9/1 soccer cutoff. With 8/1 soccer cutoff, these kids can play up with their grade and still be the youngest (same as with a 9/1 cutoff), or play with the grade below them and be the very oldest. They have options. This is a better alternative than what happens to the August kids who are old for their grade in a 9/1 scenario, where they have no choice but to play up with the grade ahead of them and be the very youngest as well.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
I get your opinion - I just think you're biased and wrong.
Whether the final date is 9/1, 8/1, 7/1, or any alternative - it is going to leave kids on one side of it or the other - and those affected will be legitimately disappointed.
Whether the final date is 9/1, 8/1, 7/1, or any alternative - it is going to leave kids on one side of it or the other - and those affected will be legitimately disappointed.
MSK357
GOLD
The argument about wanting to play with friends from the same school and school year seems BS. Maybe at the rec level but as they get older and/or get on competitive teams, they will have players from different schools, districts, even counties. Mainly meeting up for soccer only. Maybe about 3 players from the same school at most. any more than that would be rare for a competitive team. Players on these teams just want to be on the best team they can get on, wanting to play with classmates is not going to make them quit soccer. Clubs might benefit with more kids playing at the rec or lower level with this age group change but 100% its parents with trapped kids that want this change because they think it will help their kid get on a top team.
High school aged kids are a different story. You might get players from a top competitive team grouping together at a private school. But again, they would play soccer regardless. They will not quit soccer because they can't play with their school/classmate friends.
Having said that, I think kids should be able to play with kids their grad year. For recruitment, it puts kids graduating the same year on the same playing field, literally. Just keep controls in place for crazy parents that would hold their kid back in school for an advantage. I think they should just be honest why they are wanting to do this.
High school aged kids are a different story. You might get players from a top competitive team grouping together at a private school. But again, they would play soccer regardless. They will not quit soccer because they can't play with their school/classmate friends.
Having said that, I think kids should be able to play with kids their grad year. For recruitment, it puts kids graduating the same year on the same playing field, literally. Just keep controls in place for crazy parents that would hold their kid back in school for an advantage. I think they should just be honest why they are wanting to do this.
The issue is a 9/1 soccer date cutoff doesn’t just impact ECNL kids at older levels (though those kids continuing to be trapped and even more on an island alone without other trapped kids from Sept - Dec is a legit problem), but presumably all of US Club will go the same way, and that impacts the younger kids who play club from early ages (eg U8 and older in NorCal). The impacts are felt across all age groups.