11 year old primary children's transition

[russellhltn]

I can't say that I'm a real fan of the way things have been phrased. The Handbook is written as "age on January 1", while the new advancement policy says "the year the child turns". So, what happens to a child born on January 1? On their 10th birthday, they'd attend Valiant 10. On their 11th, there is no Valiant 11, but they don't turn 12 until next year. (Leave it to a programmer to point out corner cases.)

[wwoodford]

And here is the link to the letter and FAQ

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/multimed ... y-2019.pdf

[sbradshaw]

I can't say that I'm a real fan of the way things have been phrased. The Handbook is written as "age on January 1", while the new advancement policy says "the year the child turns". So, what happens to a child born on January 1? On their 10th birthday, they'd attend Valiant 10. On their 11th, there is no Valiant 11, but they don't turn 12 until next year. (Leave it to a programmer to point out corner cases.)

I think it's more clear to say "the year the child turns" than "age on January 1". "Age on January 1" technically could be different depending on the time of day, but with "year the child turns", it doesn't matter what time or day they were born. Also, I intuitively think "next year I'll be turning __" more readily than "next year I'll be __ on January 1".

[russellhltn]

I think it's more clear to say "the year the child turns" than "age on January 1".

I understand the point, but you've got an additional complication. Currently, a child joins Valiant 10 when they are 10 on January 1st. But to adopt the new phrasing, it now becomes "The year the child turns 11, they join Valiant 10".

"Age on January 1" technically could be different depending on the time of day, but with "year the child turns", it doesn't matter what time or day they were born.

I see that as less of a concern. I think traditionally, most people celebrate their birthday based on the day, not the hour. As far as I'm aware, a birthday is a birthday, even if it was a 11:59 PM delivery. If there's any doubt, you go by their legal date of birth - which is just that: a date. Not a date/time. (On most any document I've seen other than the birth certificate.) So, unless we're going to overhaul all the class names to remove numbers (ugh), I'd think the traditional "age on January 1" is preferable.

Ah, if only we got to help write the Handbook.

[scgallafent]

A child who is 10 years old on January 1 is still in the Valiant 10 class. The traditional "age on January 1" stays the same.

The children born on January 1 are in a weird situation. They will be in the Valiant 10 class for two years (from their 10th birthday until the day before their 12th birthday). We (and the presiding councils who make these decisions) are aware of that issue. For now, it is what it is.

[russellhltn]

The children born on January 1 are in a weird situation. They will be in the Valiant 10 class for two years (from their 10th birthday until the day before their 12th birthday). We (and the presiding councils who make these decisions) are aware of that issue. For now, it is what it is.

In that situation, I suspect this line from the FAQ will come into play:

Some children or youth may not move between organizations, classes, or quorums according to the typical schedule due to personal circumstances. The bishop and parents counsel together to decide what is in the best interest of each child or youth.

I'm amused at this:

7. Must the transition date for age-group progression always be January?
No. In areas of the world where January is not a natural transition date, areas may implement these changes based on the local transition date now followed.

I think this is intended for places that use a different calendar such that January 1 doesn't have the same meaning. (Example: Chinese New Year)
However, I wonder how many leaders in the US will rationalize to say the school year is the "natural transition date". (It certainly is for youth transitioning to EQ/RS.)

[scgallafent]

Although parents and bishops may decide they want to take a different approach, that will not affect the rules for temple recommends or Aaronic Priesthood ordinations A youth who turns 11 on January 1, 2019, will be eligible for a temple recommend and priesthood ordination on January 1, 2020, even if the parents and bishop decide to have that youth attend the deacons quorum or beehive class.

[russellhltn]

Although parents and bishops may decide they want to take a different approach, that will not affect the rules for temple recommends or Aaronic Priesthood ordinations A youth who turns 11 on January 1, 2019, will be eligible for a temple recommend and priesthood ordination on January 1, 2020, even if the parents and bishop decide to have that youth attend the deacons quorum or beehive class.

Yes, I see that in the FAQ. But given that "Generally, youth in a class or quorum may enjoy the privileges that are appropriate for that class or quorum." as well as "All Mia Maids and teachers may be invited to participate in ministering and may have ministering assignments. They need not wait for their 14th birthdays.", I predict we'll see future posts here caused by premature ordinations. No doubt, LCR will reject such ordinations, but I suspect by then the deed has been done. I do hope that the presiding councils find a way to prevent the rule gap for Jan 1 birthdays.

[lajackson]

In that situation, I suspect this line from the FAQ will come into play:

Some children or youth may not move between organizations, classes, or quorums according to the typical schedule due to personal circumstances. The bishop and parents counsel together to decide what is in the best interest of each child or youth.

I see the provision of that FAQ to allow for the delayed movement of a young person to YM/YW. I can see where the parents and bishop of a child who has a birthday toward the end of the year may feel it better to wait until the next year to advance the child.

And in effect, the new rules force a transition delay for someone born on January 1st.

This reminds me of the time many years ago when I was in the Old Testament class in Sunday School three years in a row.

[russellhltn]

I see the provision of that FAQ to allow for the delayed movement of a young person to YM/YW.

Good eye. I didn't see that "delayed" part. Once pointed out, it's there, but could be easily overlooked.

This reminds me of the time many years ago when I was in the Old Testament class in Sunday School three years in a row.

Class got stuck in Isaiah?