All-Star Age Changes?

[2cheer]

My daughter had always been one of the youngest on a team. When she started cheer at the age of 4 she was on a mini 1, then a y2 and then when she was 6 (turning 7) on a junior 2 team. Following year a J3 team. I think each child is different and some are more mature than a 12 year old. So in my opinion I think each situation is different depending on the child.

 

[FloridaFlya]

True it was never "specified" before, but I get what they're saying. Specifying the bottom age of 5 opens the door for coaches to take advantage of that and abandon common sense. Now, when you see a small kid on a junior team, no one will bat an eye. I thought that the purpose of the age bracket was not only to ensure that athletes stayed in their appropriate age range, but to do so without limiting them skill wise. So, while yes, Jane has a robhs layout, she's only 6. let's give her at least another year to mature before putting her with kids twice her age. Now, coaches won't hesitate. You'll see a lot more of the big base, tiny flyer teams. I know in some cases, it can't be helped. But why open the door for people to take advantage of it. I also agree this will bring out more Suzie's moms.

I agree. And not only when it comes to suzies mom begging for her to be on J2 instead of Mini1. I think some really crazy Suzie's moms will try to push their kids harder at such a young age since they know they can be eligible for teams up to J5. I would hate to see Suzie's mom forcing Suzie to take 3 privates a week to get a full by age 5. I can't imagine that is good for their bodies.

I think without the bottom age before (1) clearly not all parents and athletes were aware and (2) that could be because gyms have their own policies in place. Now that social media is huge and cheerupdates and others tweet out the changes, it seems to hit a much bigger platform than in the past.

On the other hand, I saw a video from Rebels instagram of a Jr level 1 stunt group from a small gym (at D2 summit). A comment had said the flyer was 6 years old. From the way she hit the stunt, it seemed like J1 was where she belonged.

 

[FamousxMindset]

75% of these suggestions and ideas would literally kill 60% of the gyms in our industry. Many of the people suggesting to raise the bottom age are the same ones complaining about lack of competitors at competitions, or are said when the medium sized gym down the street closes or when they merge with a super gym in efforts to survive in this sport. More teams equals more cost for programs who are desperately trying to walk the fine line of operating a top notch competitive cheer leading program while trying to not out price our families. For every parent begging for more rhinestones and new bows there is another family scrambling to cover the cost of their stay to play hotel.

Many of you are parents who only see one side of the sport, most of the industry was in a panic when the bottom age was raised to 8 because there was going to be an exponential increase of cost for gym owners to create 'extra teams to accommodate' and that cost would have been placed on parents only continuing to price parents out. OR gym owners would have to turn away athletes (profit) to try to keep their heads above water but in the long run that option will likely still be expensive in the long run. Also there was virtually no real warning given this all happened very fast.

This summer I took a chance and put a very young 6 year old on my J2 team much to the dismay of some parents and almost my whole staff. She didn't have the courage to throw her tumbling, and this also affected her stunting ability. All of that changed when she was able to work my older kids. All of her bases either fly or just stopped flying so they motivated her into becoming one of the sassiest things under 4ft I have ever seen. My staff has trained her to be a flyer, and not just relying on being little. She wasn't the runt of the team, she wasn't ignored, and she wasn't unable to hang with the big kids in fact most of the time she out shined her 14 year old counterparts.

 

[cheer25mom]

75% of these suggestions and ideas would literally kill 60% of the gyms in our industry. Many of the people suggesting to raise the bottom age are the same ones complaining about lack of competitors at competitions, or are said when the medium sized gym down the street closes or when they merge with a super gym in efforts to survive in this sport. More teams equals more cost for programs who are desperately trying to walk the fine line of operating a top notch competitive cheer leading program while trying to not out price our families. For every parent begging for more rhinestones and new bows there is another family scrambling to cover the cost of their stay to play hotel.

Many of you are parents who only see one side of the sport, most of the industry was in a panic when the bottom age was raised to 8 because there was going to be an exponential increase of cost for gym owners to create 'extra teams to accommodate' and that cost would have been placed on parents only continuing to price parents out. OR gym owners would have to turn away athletes (profit) to try to keep their heads above water but in the long run that option will likely still be expensive in the long run. Also there was virtually no real warning given this all happened very fast.

This summer I took a chance and put a very young 6 year old on my J2 team much to the dismay of some parents and almost my whole staff. She didn't have the courage to throw her tumbling, and this also affected her stunting ability. All of that changed when she was able to work my older kids. All of her bases either fly or just stopped flying so they motivated her into becoming one of the sassiest things under 4ft I have ever seen. My staff has trained her to be a flyer, and not just relying on being little. She wasn't the runt of the team, she wasn't ignored, and she wasn't unable to hang with the big kids in fact most of the time she out shined her 14 year old counterparts.

For every story like yours there are 5 or 6 that go the other way. A 6 year old on a junior team is going to be a problem the overwhelming majority of the time. It's simply NOT a good idea to have a 6 year old and a 14-15 year old on a the same team, no matter how mature the 6 year old. My CP has been on the receiving end of this, having to play mommy to kids who whined, cried, laid down on the mat and refused to get up, ect or kids that just couldn't handle the pressure, had anxiety attacks, got sick back stage ect because they were not developmentally ready for the position they had been put in. Our small gym figured it out after a couple of seasons and quit putting kids on teams they had no business on, even if they had the tumbling.

Yes, the age floor limited what some very small gyms could do, and I think that for gyms of less than say, 40-50 kids there should be some kind of exception system, but if you have more kids than that you shouldn't have a problem offering age appropriate teams. Does that mean 8 year old Suzy with a full will be on J3? Probably, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Kids need time to be kids, and to be with their age appropriate peers. There is no need to rush little Suzy to level 5 just because she has the tumbling. I think the age floors will do a lot to slow progression and build quality skills and athletes who are strong both mentally and physically. I think they are in the best interests of the kids, and this is what this sport is supposed to be about, what is best for the development of the athletes.

 

[FamousxMindset]

For every story like yours there are 5 or 6 that go the other way. A 6 year old on a junior team is going to be a problem the overwhelming majority of the time. It's simply NOT a good idea to have a 6 year old and a 14-15 year old on a the same team, no matter how mature the 6 year old. My CP has been on the receiving end of this, having to play mommy to kids who whined, cried, laid down on the mat and refused to get up, ect or kids that just couldn't handle the pressure, had anxiety attacks, got sick back stage ect because they were not developmentally ready for the position they had been put in. Our small gym figured it out after a couple of seasons and quit putting kids on teams they had no business on, even if they had the tumbling.

Yes, the age floor limited what some very small gyms could do, and I think that for gyms of less than say, 40-50 kids there should be some kind of exception system, but if you have more kids than that you shouldn't have a problem offering age appropriate teams. Does that mean 8 year old Suzy with a full will be on J3? Probably, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Kids need time to be kids, and to be with their age appropriate peers. There is no need to rush little Suzy to level 5 just because she has the tumbling. I think the age floors will do a lot to slow progression and build quality skills and athletes who are strong both mentally and physically. I think they are in the best interests of the kids, and this is what this sport is supposed to be about, what is best for the development of the athletes.

The development of every athlete is unique to every athlete. Some kids work better with older kids, some of my kids work wonderfully with younger kids. I have actually noticed better team atmosphere when there are dramatic variances in ages when most of my kids are within a year or two of each there is constant drama between athletes AND parents.

I believe its all in the way the team is coached. In the very beginning I told my older kids not to hold the little like babies. I hold my 6 year olds just accountable as my 14 year olds. I have seen nothing but 6-8 year olds flying across the country absolutely killing it! In warm-ups they aren't kicking & screaming on the warmup floor, they are the ones who show up ready to go, I cant always say the same for their older counterparts.

 

[cheer25mom]

The development of every athlete is unique to every athlete. Some kids work better with older kids, some of my kids work wonderfully with younger kids. I have actually noticed better team atmosphere when there are dramatic variances in ages when most of my kids are within a year or two of each there is constant drama between athletes AND parents.

I believe its all in the way the team is coached. In the very beginning I told my older kids not to hold the little like babies. I hold my 6 year olds just accountable as my 14 year olds. I have seen nothing but 6-8 year olds flying across the country absolutely killing it! In warm-ups they aren't kicking & screaming on the warmup floor, they are the ones who show up ready to go, I cant always say the same for their older counterparts.

Pretty much everything that modern child psychology and child development research says on the subject is directly to the contrary. When children are trying to learn new material and new concepts in a large group setting, a smaller age range is much more effective. It's why pretty much everything children participate in, from school to church groups, to sports teams, are divided in narrow age ranges. It what works best for the growth and development of young children. The younger the child, the more magnified the effect.

Very, very few kids work well with others in a large age range. The vast majority of 6 year olds have nothing in common with, and share no common experiences with a 14 year old. You cannot coach them into that, no matter how you are coaching the team. You have been EXTREMELY lucky up until this point if you have never had an issue with that kind of age spread, but you will eventually have problems. Its inevitable. There is no "super coach" out there that can magically make this kind of age spread a non issue. A 6 year old is not CAPABLE of being just as accountable of as a 14 year old. Also, how many of those 6 year olds are still cheering by high school, and how many burn out and quit?

 

[DonnaM]

I have kind of a strange perspective on this due to having experience with radical (6+ year) academic acceleration. There are absolutely kids who benefit from being accelerated that far, that fast academically.

But the fact is, it requires exceptional maturity on both sides. It is much harder to be an 8 yr old in high school classes with high school students than to be a 12 yr old in college classes with college students. Part of this is that a 12 yr old is more mature than an 8 yr old-but part of it is that early adults are a lot more mature than adolescents. You don't seen many 12 yr olds shutting down and bursting into tears over a poor grade-they at least wait until they get home. You do see such behavior among 8 yr olds-particularly 8 yr olds who have built their identity around being the smartest in the room. In academics, that's usually handled by having the kids work individually on their strong areas for a few years, but stay in an age appropriate group-and then to revisit radical acceleration in a few years.

I saw the same thing last year when the age grid was expanded. CP's team had already been a mix of juniors and seniors, and that worked. But when some of the younger kids were moved up because they had the tumbling. The maturity gap was just too wide. It wasn't that the 7-8 yr old's couldn't handle the skills,but that they struggled with the pacing and were unable to handle frustration. It ended up being a really negative experience for all the kids. We're not the only ones who planned to leave after the end of the season. And while CP still wants to cheer, some will probably leave the sport entirely.

My gut feeling is that as early juniors, those minis will have no trouble on a senior team-but that the gap between mini and junior was just too much on both sides. Maybe what is needed is to keep those minis on a Y3 (or whatever the highest youth team a gym has) is, but provide outlets for them to work at a higher level as well.

 

[FamousxMindset]

Pretty much everything that modern child psychology and child development research says on the subject is directly to the contrary. When children are trying to learn new material and new concepts in a large group setting, a smaller age range is much more effective. It's why pretty much everything children participate in, from school to church groups, to sports teams, are divided in narrow age ranges. It what works best for the growth and development of young children. The younger the child, the more magnified the effect.

Very, very few kids work well with others in a large age range. The vast majority of 6 year olds have nothing in common with, and share no common experiences with a 14 year old. You cannot coach them into that, no matter how you are coaching the team. You have been EXTREMELY lucky up until this point if you have never had an issue with that kind of age spread, but you will eventually have problems. Its inevitable. There is no "super coach" out there that can magically make this kind of age spread a non issue. A 6 year old is not CAPABLE of being just as accountable of as a 14 year old. Also, how many of those 6 year olds are still cheering by high school, and how many burn out and quit?

I can go and find credile scholarly articles that will argue the exact opposite. and I did just that.

"He concludes that age-mixed play offers opportunities for learning and development not present in play among those close in age, permitting younger children to learn more from older playmates than they could from playing with only their peers. In age-mixed play, the more sophisticated behavior of older children offers role models for younger children, who also typically receive more emotional support from older kids than from those near their own age. Age-mixed play also permits older children to learn by teaching and to practice nurturance and leadership; and they are often inspired by the imagination and creativity of their younger playmates." from Psychology Today

"The problem is that age segregation works well for students in the middle of the group in terms of ability. However, those who are developing faster or who are older must be pulled back to the pace of the whole group and are often frustrated by their inability to move forward; those who are developing more slowly or are younger may feel left behind and lost." Headsup.org via
Charles D. Bernstein (Ph.D)


"5 UNEXPECTED BENEFITS OF MIXED AGE MONTESSORI CLASSROOMS; More effective teaching, More effective learning time, Greater interest in learning, Stronger foundation and unlimited learning potential, and Leadership skills." By Ms. Marty Shepard

"Children today may have few opportunities to be around children younger or older than they are, especially in a fairly informal environment. Managed well, an OSHC service gives children many of the same opportunities that an extended family might provide. Children can learn so much from older children, and older children can gain confidence and satisfaction from the opportunity to ‘teach’ younger children and demonstrate, often to an admiring audience, their skills and talents. In an environment that is supportive, older children can increase their selfawareness through opportunities that come from being around younger children. They may gain some insights into how they used to be when they were younger. They can also come to appreciate the strengths and wisdom of younger children."

I really wish I still had access to my University academical journals because I know the list can just go on, but this is what I was able to get from Google in five minutes. This is NO one size fits all answer for our athletes not by Doctors, you, me , or USASF. There will be exceptions and out-liers to ever possible scenario.

 

[cheer25mom]

I can go and find credile scholarly articles that will argue the exact opposite. and I did just that.

"He concludes that age-mixed play offers opportunities for learning and development not present in play among those close in age, permitting younger children to learn more from older playmates than they could from playing with only their peers. In age-mixed play, the more sophisticated behavior of older children offers role models for younger children, who also typically receive more emotional support from older kids than from those near their own age. Age-mixed play also permits older children to learn by teaching and to practice nurturance and leadership; and they are often inspired by the imagination and creativity of their younger playmates." from Psychology Today

"The problem is that age segregation works well for students in the middle of the group in terms of ability. However, those who are developing faster or who are older must be pulled back to the pace of the whole group and are often frustrated by their inability to move forward; those who are developing more slowly or are younger may feel left behind and lost." Headsup.org via
Charles D. Bernstein (Ph.D)


"5 UNEXPECTED BENEFITS OF MIXED AGE MONTESSORI CLASSROOMS; More effective teaching, More effective learning time, Greater interest in learning, Stronger foundation and unlimited learning potential, and Leadership skills." By Ms. Marty Shepard

"Children today may have few opportunities to be around children younger or older than they are, especially in a fairly informal environment. Managed well, an OSHC service gives children many of the same opportunities that an extended family might provide. Children can learn so much from older children, and older children can gain confidence and satisfaction from the opportunity to ‘teach’ younger children and demonstrate, often to an admiring audience, their skills and talents. In an environment that is supportive, older children can increase their selfawareness through opportunities that come from being around younger children. They may gain some insights into how they used to be when they were younger. They can also come to appreciate the strengths and wisdom of younger children."

I really wish I still had access to my University academical journals because I know the list can just go on, but this is what I was able to get from Google in five minutes. This is NO one size fits all answer for our athletes not by Doctors, you, me , or USASF. There will be exceptions and out-liers to ever possible scenario.

You don't understand what you are quoting , and it actually supports my argument. The mixed age Montessori classrooms these articles talk about are 2-3 age ranges, even more narrow than the original proposed age ranges. Montessori DOESN'T mix ages in a broader range than that. NONE of this supports 6 year olds and 14 year olds in the same setting. it supports NARROW age ranges within appropriate social capabilities. It also notes that for most children, those who fall within the middle ability range, this offers little benefit.

 

[BlueCat]

Thought experiment - what if there were fewer ability level breakdowns for D2? You could have more athletes that "fit" within the resulting levels. There is discussion about needing wider age ranges, what if the skill ranges were wider, but the ages were a little narrower instead of vice-versa?

I'm not necessarily promoting this, just curious what thoughts are.

 

[FamousxMindset]

You don't understand what you are quoting , and it actually supports my argument. The mixed age Montessori classrooms these articles talk about are 2-3 age ranges, even more narrow than the original proposed age ranges. Montessori DOESN'T mix ages in a broader range than that. NONE of this supports 6 year olds and 14 year olds in the same setting.

You don't understand that there were also 4 more other articles I was referring to, and you also don't seem to have the capability to realize the post was simply mentioning and crediting the unintentional benefits of the Montessori based classs room counter the method and your opinion.

We can also discuss the the flaws associated through the Montessori system, such as:

Criticism #1: There isn’t enough opportunity through group activity for social development and interaction.
Criticism #2: Creativity is quelled and the childhood taken from students due to early use of cognitive thinking – and too much time spent on the practical life.
Criticism #3: There is far too much freedom in the classroom for the child to choose.
Criticism #4: There is no research that proves Montessori education has an advantage for children over public school.

 

[cheer25mom]

You don't understand that there were also 4 more other articles I was referring to, and you also don't seem to have the capability to realize the post was simply mentioning and crediting the unintentional benefits of the Montessori based classs room counter the method and your opinion.

We can also discuss the the flaws associated through the Montessori system, such as:

Criticism #1: There isn’t enough opportunity through group activity for social development and interaction.
Criticism #2: Creativity is quelled and the childhood taken from students due to early use of cognitive thinking – and too much time spent on the practical life.
Criticism #3: There is far too much freedom in the classroom for the child to choose.
Criticism #4: There is no research that proves Montessori education has an advantage for children over public school.

What does any of that have to do with what we were discussing, age ranges? I am done here as you aren't looking for a discussion, just an argument.

 

[cheer25mom]

Thought experiment - what if there were fewer ability level breakdowns for D2? You could have more athletes that "fit" within the resulting levels. There is discussion about needing wider age ranges, what if the skill ranges were wider, but the ages were a little narrower instead of vice-versa?

I'm not necessarily promoting this, just curious what thoughts are.

I think that could be workable, but scoring would have to see a big shakeup, and the definition of level appropriate would have to be much wider, so essentially a separate scoring system. It would also mean there would be zero mobility between D1 and D2, but I don't necessarily view that as a bad thing.

 

[HappyGirls]

I can see pros and cons on both sides of this. My middle daughter gave up another sport for cheer this year...a sport she absolutely dominated in and was really talented in...when I asked her why she wanted to give it up, she said "because it's boring...I always score a lot of goals. With cheer there are always new skills I can learn." I think if she were made to stay at lower levels due to her age she would lose interest in cheer as well. All that said, I would prefer she not be on teams with girls that already have boobs and boyfriends. We are trying out at a big gym in hopes for higher-level youth teams. If we had to choose between a higher-level junior team and a lower-level youth team, I would want to talk with my daughter to see how she feels about it... She has just begun landing her standing full and I doubt she would want to cheer level 2 at this point... so hopefully we'll be lucky and there will be something both age and level appropriate. A lot of times though you don't get everything you want and you have to decide what trade-offs will be made.

If a gym needs a wide age range to have viable teams I would think that would be better than no team at all.

Just my opinion though...

 

[Mndl]

I guess I don't see how the Susie's moms of the cheer world would have thought that an age bracket saying 14 and younger would have meant that their 5/6 year old superstar couldn't be on that J5 team; also realistically if a gym can field a J5 it probably has a good amount of athletes and several age appropriate teams and I doubt the gym/coaches need to cater to the crazies.
IMHO I don't think giving 5 as a bottom age is going to make much of a difference in how gyms choose teams, but I do know that raising it to 8, or 11 for Senior would have definitely affected small gyms ability to make teams.