Redshirting August boy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

Your feelings on this are irrelevant. Either make a case with real data or quit complaining.

Why arent they irrevelant? Because they oppose your convenient world view?

Because your feelings aren't supported by fact. How inconvenient for your world view.

The point that redshirting summer birthdays shifts who is the youngest in the class does not need to be "supported by fact" because it is fact!

So what? Someones has to be the youngest. And that can be good for the youngest to be around older peers.

Right, and I said that because the summer birthday kids all redshirt making themselves the oldest (advantage), the collateral damage of that decision falls on the May and April birthdays who then become the youngest by default (disadvanatge). So... when summer birthdays are redshirted they benefit at the expense of the May and April kids who now are the youngest in their cohort. So then the argument that it shifts the disadvantage (being the youngest in the case of this thread) stands. That was the whole point of this debate, someone claimed in an earlier post that their decision to redshirt doesnt hurt anyone and I am arguing that it does.

If it is good to be the youngest around older peers, then no one should need to redshirt in the first place. Choose your side of the argument.

I was one of those youngest with a late spring birthday. I never thought that I was "young" and I had no such issues. I was at no disadvantage. To the contrary I was extremely competitive with my peers which only helped me in the long run. You can argue all day long but unless you pony up some facts "because I said so" isn't very convincing and isn't going to change minds.

I am not trying to "change minds", I am just calling out the hypocrisy and double standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

Your feelings on this are irrelevant. Either make a case with real data or quit complaining.

Why arent they irrevelant? Because they oppose your convenient world view?

Because your feelings aren't supported by fact. How inconvenient for your world view.

The point that redshirting summer birthdays shifts who is the youngest in the class does not need to be "supported by fact" because it is fact!

So what? Someones has to be the youngest. And that can be good for the youngest to be around older peers.

Right, and I said that because the summer birthday kids all redshirt making themselves the oldest (advantage), the collateral damage of that decision falls on the May and April birthdays who then become the youngest by default (disadvanatge). So... when summer birthdays are redshirted they benefit at the expense of the May and April kids who now are the youngest in their cohort. So then the argument that it shifts the disadvantage (being the youngest in the case of this thread) stands. That was the whole point of this debate, someone claimed in an earlier post that their decision to redshirt doesnt hurt anyone and I am arguing that it does.

If it is good to be the youngest around older peers, then no one should need to redshirt in the first place. Choose your side of the argument.

I was one of those youngest with a late spring birthday. I never thought that I was "young" and I had no such issues. I was at no disadvantage. To the contrary I was extremely competitive with my peers which only helped me in the long run. You can argue all day long but unless you pony up some facts "because I said so" isn't very convincing and isn't going to change minds.

Right then no need to redshirt at all if being young is so great.

I'm glad you've come around and can move on from this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

Your feelings on this are irrelevant. Either make a case with real data or quit complaining.

Why arent they irrevelant? Because they oppose your convenient world view?

Because your feelings aren't supported by fact. How inconvenient for your world view.

The point that redshirting summer birthdays shifts who is the youngest in the class does not need to be "supported by fact" because it is fact!

So what? Someones has to be the youngest. And that can be good for the youngest to be around older peers.

Right, and I said that because the summer birthday kids all redshirt making themselves the oldest (advantage), the collateral damage of that decision falls on the May and April birthdays who then become the youngest by default (disadvanatge). So... when summer birthdays are redshirted they benefit at the expense of the May and April kids who now are the youngest in their cohort. So then the argument that it shifts the disadvantage (being the youngest in the case of this thread) stands. That was the whole point of this debate, someone claimed in an earlier post that their decision to redshirt doesnt hurt anyone and I am arguing that it does.

If it is good to be the youngest around older peers, then no one should need to redshirt in the first place. Choose your side of the argument.

I was one of those youngest with a late spring birthday. I never thought that I was "young" and I had no such issues. I was at no disadvantage. To the contrary I was extremely competitive with my peers which only helped me in the long run. You can argue all day long but unless you pony up some facts "because I said so" isn't very convincing and isn't going to change minds.

Right then no need to redshirt at all if being young is so great.

The whole point of the debate is that is good for some kids and bad for others. Parents know their kids best and are therefore best positioned to decide whether or not to redshirt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

No, this portion of the debate began from the statement above where a parent claims that redshirting their summer birthday kid did not put "anyone at a disadvantage anymore than a September/October kids" and I was correcting this misstatement. It shifts the disadvantage to the Apr/May kids. It is what it is, but this is fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

No, this portion of the debate began from the statement above where a parent claims that redshirting their summer birthday kid did not put "anyone at a disadvantage anymore than a September/October kids" and I was correcting this misstatement. It shifts the disadvantage to the Apr/May kids. It is what it is, but this is fact.

That there is a disadvantage is not a fact. No matter how many times you repeat it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

This statement above

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

No, this portion of the debate began from the statement above where a parent claims that redshirting their summer birthday kid did not put "anyone at a disadvantage anymore than a September/October kids" and I was correcting this misstatement. It shifts the disadvantage to the Apr/May kids. It is what it is, but this is fact.

That there is a disadvantage is not a fact. No matter how many times you repeat it.

If there is no disadvantage, then why redshirt? Then there is no need to do so- once again, double standard!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

No, this portion of the debate began from the statement above where a parent claims that redshirting their summer birthday kid did not put "anyone at a disadvantage anymore than a September/October kids" and I was correcting this misstatement. It shifts the disadvantage to the Apr/May kids. It is what it is, but this is fact.

That there is a disadvantage is not a fact. No matter how many times you repeat it.

If there is no disadvantage, then why redshirt? Then there is no need to do so- once again, double standard!

It's not about advantages or disadvantages. It's what's about what is developmentally appropriate. Kids mature and develop on a spectrum, not a rigid 12 month timeline. Some kids need more time, some don't. Teacher, parents and doctors are best able to make the decision about what is best for an individual child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

No, this portion of the debate began from the statement above where a parent claims that redshirting their summer birthday kid did not put "anyone at a disadvantage anymore than a September/October kids" and I was correcting this misstatement. It shifts the disadvantage to the Apr/May kids. It is what it is, but this is fact.

Maturity issues often manifest as being wiggly, disruptive and uncooperative, if not complete emotional meltdowns or tantrums. Putting a kid in kindergarten who is not ready puts everyone at a disadvantage because they're disruptive and monopolize the teacher's time. You don't want them in class with your precious child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

No, this portion of the debate began from the statement above where a parent claims that redshirting their summer birthday kid did not put "anyone at a disadvantage anymore than a September/October kids" and I was correcting this misstatement. It shifts the disadvantage to the Apr/May kids. It is what it is, but this is fact.

Maturity issues often manifest as being wiggly, disruptive and uncooperative, if not complete emotional meltdowns or tantrums. Putting a kid in kindergarten who is not ready puts everyone at a disadvantage because they're disruptive and monopolize the teacher's time. You don't want them in class with your precious child.

I am only making one point and it still stands. That could also be the case for a wiggly April or May child!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

No, this portion of the debate began from the statement above where a parent claims that redshirting their summer birthday kid did not put "anyone at a disadvantage anymore than a September/October kids" and I was correcting this misstatement. It shifts the disadvantage to the Apr/May kids. It is what it is, but this is fact.

Maturity issues often manifest as being wiggly, disruptive and uncooperative, if not complete emotional meltdowns or tantrums. Putting a kid in kindergarten who is not ready puts everyone at a disadvantage because they're disruptive and monopolize the teacher's time. You don't want them in class with your precious child.

I am only making one point and it still stands. That could also be the case for a wiggly April or May child!!!

Their parents can redshirt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

What because one child is born a week before the cutoff? How is this child different from a kid born a couple of weeks later? Perhaps the first child was a preemie and the second was born at 41 weeks. This is not an argument worth making.

No she as an individual, but collectively they shifted who was the youngest, which puts those children at a disadvantage. This is an argument worth making.

So provide all the peer-reviewed studies in reputable academic journals proving all these disadvantages. Give us the hard data to support the vehemence of your position. People have been redshirting kids for 50-60 years. If there are egregious harms resulting, there should be several respectable studies proving those harms.

If you can’t provide this, you are just whining.

[Anonymous]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

This literature review looked at relative age affect and found that the youngest in the age group where disadvantaged in several areas. Redshirting shifts and exacerbates real active age affect .

I think that the best solution is to have 6 month age cohorts until middle or high school along with year long schooling to allow a rolling admission. Let Kindergarten entry be open to kids after their 5th birthday but not after their 6th.

As an only child I loved school for the social interaction so my parents enrolled me as soon as my school allowed it. redshirting isn’t something that everyone desires so have that flexibility to allow all options so that parents can do what they feel best meets their individual kids needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

No, this portion of the debate began from the statement above where a parent claims that redshirting their summer birthday kid did not put "anyone at a disadvantage anymore than a September/October kids" and I was correcting this misstatement. It shifts the disadvantage to the Apr/May kids. It is what it is, but this is fact.

Maturity issues often manifest as being wiggly, disruptive and uncooperative, if not complete emotional meltdowns or tantrums. Putting a kid in kindergarten who is not ready puts everyone at a disadvantage because they're disruptive and monopolize the teacher's time. You don't want them in class with your precious child.

I am only making one point and it still stands. That could also be the case for a wiggly April or May child!!!

Their parents can redshirt.

This is not standard practice and highly discourage though outside summer birthdays. Totally different scenario.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really gets to me are the parents who come on here and post, "Why do you care if I redshirt my kid?! What does it matter to you if I didn't want him to be the youngest?" It matters to me because holding back normally developing summer birthday kids puts non-redshirted kids at a disadvantage. Now, instead of being one year younger than the older peers, they are sometimes 15 months younger than the others. Redshirting skews the age, abilities, maturity, and social capacities of a class. I wish schools would set a cut off and hold to it.

But uh, you could also redshirt? Our child’s school effectively requires young boys to redshirt

+1 in our 6 years of private school, my redshirted late august birthday girl has never been the oldest in the class and the youngest kid in any of her class was 11 months younger (to the day). My DD did not pu anyone at a disadvantage anymore than September/October kids do.

She absolutely did put others at a disadvantage. The whole class gets shifted and the disadvantage goes to the kids with the May and April birthdays (and any summer kids whose parents insist on not redshirting). Please face reality, your kid did benefit but at the expense of others.

No, this portion of the debate began from the statement above where a parent claims that redshirting their summer birthday kid did not put "anyone at a disadvantage anymore than a September/October kids" and I was correcting this misstatement. It shifts the disadvantage to the Apr/May kids. It is what it is, but this is fact.

That there is a disadvantage is not a fact. No matter how many times you repeat it.

It is definitely a fact in that PP’s head. Just not in any actual reality.