Proposed Changes to the JO levels for the next cycle

[Mack_the_Ripper]

None of this affects me, since I graduate high school spring 2013, but it seems to me that arguing about level names and how it will affect the gymnasts and parents is a little silly. They'll probably complain. They usually do. But arguing about semantics is a little pointless - it's still the same skill level even if it's called something else. You just have to recognize that saying "my daughter is a level 6" means something different than it used to.

 

[jdf]

On a side note: I wish they would up the age requirements on some of the upper levels - not drastically, just by a year or so. I just think it would slow down some of the crazy coaches and parents - and give these little girls time to mature emotionally/mentally/physically.

Are there age requirements now?

 

[emorymom]

I think this will cause some issues (especially for the compulsary levels). To make a Level 5 become a Level 4 or Level 6 stay a level 6 even after achieving the skills needed for the next level seems counterproductive in terms of the gymnast feeling like they are moving forward after all the hard work they have put in and IMHO could make them feel defeated. Hopefully they will rethink the naming of the levels so this can be avoided.

I am not sure why it would though? The girls will clearly be moving forward and learning new, harder skills and routines or will be staying with their same routines, basically. It should be clear. Even if they haven't been watching the next level up practice, they could watch videos. They will know that they are at the next level because of what they're doing. They will be living it ...

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

you are correct gymnut1. and no, there will be no drastic changes to the mens program.

I think the men's program is mostly pretty solid right now... I just wish they'd change that stupid level 7 vault.

None of this affects me, since I graduate high school spring 2013, but it seems to me that arguing about level names and how it will affect the gymnasts and parents is a little silly. They'll probably complain. They usually do. But arguing about semantics is a little pointless - it's still the same skill level even if it's called something else. You just have to recognize that saying "my daughter is a level 6" means something different than it used to.

Yeah, you're probably right. Surely, there are very very few parents crazy enough to flip out about something like this.

...

AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Oh, man, I was SOOO close to making it through that post with a straight face, but I couldn't quite do it.

Yeah, explaining this to the more militant parents won't be fun.

Oh, well.

 

[mariposa]

I think the men's program is mostly pretty solid right now... I just wish they'd change that stupid level 7 vault.




Yeah, you're probably right. Surely, there are very very few parents crazy enough to flip out about something like this.

...

AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Oh, man, I was SOOO close to making it through that post with a straight face, but I couldn't quite do it.

Yeah, explaining this to the more militant parents won't be fun.

Oh, well.

Good luck on that one! Glad I am just a parent!

I do think that parents are going to be the ones making a big deal out of this and the kids will take their parents lead. So many parents stuck on what level their kid is.

 

[gymjoy]

Are there age requirements now?

You can look at the chart Shawn linked to near the beginning of this thread. The last column is the age minimums. For L10 it is 9yo, L8/9 is 8yo , L4/5/6/7 is 7yo, L1/2/3 are ages 4/5/6 respectively.
IMHO, I think the upper levels (L8/9/10) would be better with at least a year added to the minimum age.

 

[CreateMagic]

Some where I have the notes and some pics about the new levels and routines from Congress... I'll try to dig them out. Where could I have put those??? hmmmmm. This could take a while.

I think the key to dealing with the level name changes is going to be talking about it often and early. Is it silly that it will be such a big deal? Yeah. But try telling *those* parents that. I think that I would want to introduce the idea to the team parents and kids no later than the beginning of next season, so they can wrap their heads around it. As the 2013 season gets closer, send out reminders in a team newsletter or something, as a side note at first. Then when the new levels/routines are published officially, send home something that details the new levels system with comparisons to the old leveling system. With highlights. Maybe sticky notes. Florescent, preferably. And plastered on the top in BIG BOLD LETTERS "Your child is NOT BEING HELD BACK!" Subtle, yet effective.

 

[Azgymmiemom]

I don't have a problem understanding this...correct me if I'm wrong, but the "new" level 6 (which would be the old level 7) is an optionals level. So, the girls will see that they become an optionals gymnast at level 6.

you are right, though, the parents of the kids who are no longer level 1 but "beginners" will be offended. sigh.

 

[Pineapple_Lump]

What will Suzie's parents say? I don't think they will be happy about her moving to level Three... I guess they will find a gym that will put her in level Five.

You can explain thing all you like to a child/parents, but if you move the numbers you are moving their goalposts. I know a gymnast who repeated level Five, then moved up the next year when the numbers changed, while she understood, it still upset her to still be a level Five. I think the changes are probably needed, I wish everyone luck in transitioning the minds of athletes and parents.

 

[Bobby]

What about a girl who under the 'old' system would have 'repeated' L6. Does that mean she goes back to being L5 the next year??
I'm outside of the US, but I do get why girls might care about the number. At the end of the day when you retire, we all compare what level we got up to. Common sense says that someone who did L5 in 2012 was way more advanced than someone who did it in 1995, but it is a useful approximation of 'how far you got'.

 

[nevertooold]

What will Suzie's parents say?

You can explain thing all you like to a child/parents, but if you move the numbers you are moving their goalposts.

Suzies's parents will say:
But I don't understand.
But Suzie has worked very hard.
But Suzie has already done 2 yrs of level 5 and she would rather do cheerleading than stay in level 5.

I could not think of how to put this into words but yes moving the goalposts. That's it. It will be detrimental to the self esteem of that vulnerable tween/adolescent group to tell them essentially "what you thought was pretty good... Is actually less good."

It worries me for girls finishing 2nd yr level 5 who will still be 5's.

It worries me for older 2nd yr 6's who may have fought long and hard just to get to 6 and then become 5's again.

It worries me for any new system 3 whose parent has heard for so many years how useless, silly, and just a waste of time level 3 is.

It just isn't fair to make a change which benefits a small amount with a potential negative effect to a much larger number. Come on Committee just think of another name for the new level and leave everything else alone.

How bout 8a and 8b, 8 and adv8, 8 and pre9, 8 and the new level which shall remain nameless?

 

[emorymom]

Look ... presumably they will repeat levels less often in optionals? Presumably there is a smaller jump between the optional levels?

I believe everyone can handle it, but the boys L4s are going to think they are the schiz because they have such a high number compared to the girls who are training the same hours and could seriously hurt them.

 

[UnoMas]

...It worries me for girls finishing 2nd yr level 5 who will still be 5's...

Yep,I think this will be my 10 yr old DD. She's repeating L5 next year, and then at the end of next year will again be a 5! Ohhhh...makes my stomach hurt just to think about dealing with that one! She's already somewhat unhappy about repeating, can't even imagine explaining that she will "get" to be a L5 for 3 years!!!! Oy.

 

[mariposa]

I still think it is just a number. People get too hung up on the levels (and I do believe it is mostly the parents or even the gym culture and it trickles down to the kids). And really, what's in a level? It already means different things depending on what gym a kid is at. I have seen "level 5s" (and I mean at meets) that can't even do most of the level 5 skills and I have seen "level 5s" that have all their level 6 skills, but you don't hear people mention that most times. Are they really the same? No. Because really, the level doesn't tell you much regarding a gymnasts skill level.

I think instead of focusing on the "negatives" of the new level system, I think focus should be put on the "positives". Hopefully good transition between the levels will help keep kids in the sport longer and keep them safer.

I have no clue what level my daughter will be (or even if she will still be in the sport!) in 2013, but I am not worried about it. She will be the same gymnast, with the same skills, with a different "label" attached to her.

 

[gymnut1]

Perhaps it would be better to call them 'compulsory levels 1 to 4' and 'optional levels 1 to 6'

 

[jdf]

You can look at the chart Shawn linked to near the beginning of this thread. The last column is the age minimums. For L10 it is 9yo, L8/9 is 8yo , L4/5/6/7 is 7yo, L1/2/3 are ages 4/5/6 respectively.
IMHO, I think the upper levels (L8/9/10) would be better with at least a year added to the minimum age.

Thanks. since my dd is 12 and on level 6, I think she's safe!

 

[Sunobo]

I wanted to get a kids opinion so I asked my dd (age 10) what she thought. She was a second year level 5 this year so I asked her, "If USAG changed the names of the levels next year and you were a level 5 again but doing the level 6 routine would that bother you"? She asked a couple of questions so she could understand it a little better and then said it wouldn't bother her at all because her routines would change even though her level name wouldn't change. I think if you explain it to the kids they won't really care because it affects everybody equally. When it comes time for the new levels, explain to the kids they have been moved up from level 5 to the new level 5 and those that are repeating will remain in level 5 now being referred to new level 4.

 

[UnoMas]

I wanted to get a kids opinion so I asked my dd (age 10) what she thought. She was a second year level 5 this year so I asked her, "If USAG changed the names of the levels next year and you were a level 5 again but doing the level 6 routine would that bother you"? She asked a couple of questions so she could understand it a little better and then said it wouldn't bother her at all because her routines would change even though her level name wouldn't change. I think if you explain it to the kids they won't really care because it affects everybody equally. When it comes time for the new levels, explain to the kids they have been moved up from level 5 to the new level 5 and those that are repeating will remain in level 5 now being referred to new level 4.

I asked my DD the same thing today. At first she was really upset and said "I'm going to be a level 5 for like 4 years!!!" (she has been known to be a little dramatic). Anyway, her first question was "Will the "new" level 6 still be optionals"? From what I understand, it will be, so I told her that and she seemed satisfied. It is her major goal to make optionals at some point...I think many of the girls hold that goal in high regard.

 

[Valentin]

For those of you interested here is a document proposing the 2013 Men's JO Program check it out

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

For those of you interested here is a document proposing the 2013 Men's JO Program check it out

Thanks for posting!

EDIT: after a brief read through, my response can best be summed up as follows:

huh?