|
Post by zizou on Aug 19, 2015 6:51:02 GMT -5
Why do we not have school organized by Birth year? It really has little to do with the needs of the working class. We all know who drove the long summer holiday agenda, right? Rich people who wanted to go somewhere nice when the weather got hot. Rich people pushed an agenda that the middle classes followed. I would say this is close to historical fact. Summer wheat needs to be brought in in July. Pretty sure agriculture has something to do with the historical roots. I don't think that is the most parsimonious interpretation of the historical record. But it is history so it is open to various interpretations. At the time the government changed to something resembling the current school year there were no standards. Rural kids went to school way fewer days than urban kids for the reason you mention, among others. They were available for planting and for harvesting as a result. All the money and power, not to mention the majority of the people, however, was located in cities whose residents had much different agendas. It is more likely than not that their desires overly determined the final outcome when a standard school year was enacted country-wide. That decision ended up being a bad idea for the education of the populous as considerable subsequent research has shown. Maybe this birth year thing will end up being a bad idea also. Maybe it will be a stroke of genius. Who knows?
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Aug 19, 2015 7:12:54 GMT -5
I dont think 8th graders not having a season is going to be a problem. A spring season will be created for those kids...i think everything will be fine. There is NOTHING Ga soccer can do...this is not a GA thing, this is every state. I haven't heard or read anything about a season being created for eighth grade kids and I seriously don't have faith that GA Soccer or USYS will do so.
We havent heard anything, so why would we assume anything? A spring season for those kids means more $$ for clubs and soccer associations. Im pretty sure this scenario has been thought of
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Aug 19, 2015 7:35:26 GMT -5
Summer wheat needs to be brought in in July. Pretty sure agriculture has something to do with the historical roots. I don't think that is the most parsimonious interpretation of the historical record. But it is history so it is open to various interpretations. At the time the government changed to something resembling the current school year there were no standards. Rural kids went to school way fewer days than urban kids for the reason you mention, among others. They were available for planting and for harvesting as a result. All the money and power, not to mention the majority of the people, however, was located in cities whose residents had much different agendas. It is more likely than not that their desires overly determined the final outcome when a standard school year was enacted country-wide. That decision ended up being a bad idea for the education of the populous as considerable subsequent research has shown. Maybe this birth year thing will end up being a bad idea also. Maybe it will be a stroke of genius. Who knows? a little off subject, but where I grew up most of our high schools did not have AC.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Aug 19, 2015 8:13:49 GMT -5
Absolutely incredible that USSF is giving out the same boilerplate response to each states soccer federation to use in selling this "wonderful" idea. The propaganda machine is in full form. Why wouldn't it? Better to have one message than 50 different messages. That is true, but with something this fundamental, perhaps they should have taken the time to write something that makes sense, instead of making up weird and nonsensical things to justify it. If the best justifications they can come up with are clearly utter nonsense, then it makes you wonder why we're bothering. At the very least, this is going to be a major nuisance and require a metric crap-ton (see how I can roll with the changes too by using metric) of volunteer and paid staff time to sort out. Is it too much to ask that they don't invent bogus reasons for it?
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Aug 19, 2015 8:26:43 GMT -5
I don't think that is the most parsimonious interpretation of the historical record. But it is history so it is open to various interpretations. At the time the government changed to something resembling the current school year there were no standards. Rural kids went to school way fewer days than urban kids for the reason you mention, among others. They were available for planting and for harvesting as a result. All the money and power, not to mention the majority of the people, however, was located in cities whose residents had much different agendas. It is more likely than not that their desires overly determined the final outcome when a standard school year was enacted country-wide. That decision ended up being a bad idea for the education of the populous as considerable subsequent research has shown. Maybe this birth year thing will end up being a bad idea also. Maybe it will be a stroke of genius. Who knows? a little off subject, but where I group up most of our high schools did not have AC. i think both research are correct: Previously, urban schools operated year-round with short breaks between quarters. In 1842, Detroit's academic year lasted approximately 260 days, New York's 245, and Chicago's 240. But since education wasn't mandatory in most states until the 1870s, attendance was low. Poor attendance got some people wondering if such a long academic calendar was worthwhile. City school officials began listening to reformers around the turn of the century. Reformers could have instituted a long break in winter, or spring, but they picked summer for three main reasons. 1) Poorly ventilated school buildings were nearly unbearable during heat waves. 2) Community leaders fretted that hot, crowded environments facilitated the spread of disease. 3) Wealthy urbanites traditionally vacationed during the hottest months, and middle-class school administrators were following in their footsteps. Meanwhile, the school districts outside cities had quite different academic calendars. In the 19th century, rural kids spent just five or six months in school—two to three months in summer and the same in winter—and the rest of the year laboring on farms. So while urban educators worried that children were overtaxed by their busy schedule, officials in rural areas thought their students were mentally undertaxed. By the early 20th century, public-school officials in many farm states had lengthened the academic year and introduced a summer break to bring agrarian districts into line with urban ones.
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Aug 19, 2015 10:14:31 GMT -5
Why wouldn't it? Better to have one message than 50 different messages. That is true, but with something this fundamental, perhaps they should have taken the time to write something that makes sense, instead of making up weird and nonsensical things to justify it. If the best justifications they can come up with are clearly utter nonsense, then it makes you wonder why we're bothering. At the very least, this is going to be a major nuisance and require a metric crap-ton (see how I can roll with the changes too by using metric) of volunteer and paid staff time to sort out. Is it too much to ask that they don't invent bogus reasons for it? I haven't heard any reason from GA soccer. Only speculation.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Aug 19, 2015 11:41:03 GMT -5
I haven't heard any reason from GA soccer. Only speculation. I was talking about how two separate organizations had the same language, but no, GA Soccer hasn't said anything yet. www.pugetsoundpremierleague.com/home/862668.htmlwww.wvsoccer.net/assets/958/15/WVSA%20Memo%20on%20US%20Soccer%20Changes-FINAL.pdfThese two are the same, except for the name changes. So I speculated this came from USSF. If it did, it's pathetic to me that some of the answers are so... awful. It's a bunch of made-up justifications to try to soften it, and most of it is just plain wrong. Again, it is what it is, but if we're going to all this trouble and upheaval, the least they can do is come up with some actual, meaningful, useful justifications. What is in these documents is, in some cases, embarrassingly bad.
|
|
|
Post by popsoccer on Aug 19, 2015 13:11:26 GMT -5
After taking a closer look at the FAQ section in the Puget Sound and WVa announcements, it seems to me that there probably won't be much change in the older age groups, especially among the top teams/big clubs. They specfically state that teams may keep their current teams in tact and just play at the age group of the older birth year on the team. Granted, as the say in the FAQ they could have girls playing against competition up to 19 months older, but I don't see the successful clubs/teams breaking their teams apart.
So my daughter who was born in 2001 and is currently on a U15 team (2000/2001) will most likely stay on her current team but will be playing in the 2000 age group. That will probably mean she will skip her U16 season next year I guess.
Does that make sense?
|
|
|
Post by lowden587 on Aug 19, 2015 13:18:38 GMT -5
Here is one of the justifications:
"Why don’t we wait until the US Soccer Federation mandates Birth Year?
For the same reason that if you are preparing for a flood to come, you don’t wait to sandbag your homes the day the flood starts. We do it before the flood starts so we are prepared and can avoid more problems. The same anxiety teams, coaches, parents and players are feeling now will be far greater if we wait until the last minute."
I think it pretty apropos that they compare this change to a natural disaster; speaks volumes.
Also, I love this "logic":
"Are there any disadvantages to playing Birth Year?
There are no disadvantages to playing Birth Year. It will eliminate the ability for older players to play down with younger players as existed under the Calendar Year system. If you believe older players playing against younger players is an advantage, then one could assume closing this loophole is a disadvantage. "
Seriously?!? If you are using a year system there will ALWAYS be older players and younger players! It's just now the older will be Jan,Feb and the younger will be Dec, Nov. This closes no age "loophole". Pure propaganda.
Once again, what is the real reason for doing all of this?!? It can't be just to align ourselves with the "international scene"
|
|
|
Post by guest on Aug 19, 2015 14:17:27 GMT -5
This is a textbook example of a straw man argument.
"If you believe older players playing against younger players is an advantage, then one could assume closing this loophole is a disadvantage. In the opinion of {INSERT YOUR SOCCER ASSOCIATION NAME HERE} instructional staff, playing an older player against younger players is an unfair advantage"
No one believes that is is fair to let older players play with younger players (other than inside the usual 12 month range, however you define it). So there is no reason for WV, Puget Sound and USSF to come out and take such a bold stand against it.
|
|