Steve
Mostly Harmless
My BJJ school takes kids starting at 3. Of course, it falls firmly into what sl4drew mentioned early in the thread. The program is age appropriate. At 3-5, they mostly practice tumbling, get lots of exercise and learn some very basic stuff. The older kids start working self defense and incorporate some sparring.Here is something else to ponder. I'd be willing to bet that if I pulled out the phone book, and called a dozen schools, asking what age they take kids, I'd be willing to bet all of them would say 4yrs old. So, instead of taking kids at such a young age, what about upping the age? Instead of 4, take them, at say, 10. So, for the 'commercial' school owner, does anyone feel that this would hinder them? We're only talking a 6yr difference here, and we're still taking kids, just not as young.
It's commercially viable, has lots of room for kids to advance and receive recognition, but at the same time maintains standards. Everyone wins.
I've said before, I think kids learn a lot more valuable life lesson WORKING for and earning something based upon merit than based upon seniority/longevity. While tenacity should be praised, rank and advancement should be based upon ability and achievement.
Standards and age specific programs are not mutually exclusive, however. It's possible to have both.