Posts by Dana Smith2

It might seem fun to dive into these statistics and try to draw some comparisons, but honestly, I think they're pretty much irrelevant.
At the end of the day, if someone actually wants to learn, they’ll find a way to do it regardless of which school they attend.
My daughter could have easily enrolled in a much more prestigious institution than the one she chose—but after a bit of back-and-forth with us, we decided it made more sense for her to go where it's just more practical.

I don't think it's wise to get too caught up in all these different theories and "conspiracies."

For those folks living on the west side of town, there’s also an option over in Cleveland

https://www.strukovnasamobor.com/%C5...h.2arjmu1twf0j

I think I might have gotten my grades mixed up—all those Bs and As are starting to blur together.
Still, you need ten points less than what they require at NASA, so if you didn't make the cut there, you've still got an option here.

Kate Jackson4 said:Kate Jackson4, I feel your pain. It’s the same story here in NYC; take NASA, for instance. Last year, you needed a 76.11 just to qualify as a computer technician.

If we weren't living in NYC, 50 points would probably be plenty... 🤣

NASA has always been viewed as a step above the standard technical schools—kind of like a hybrid between a vocational school and a prep academy.

If I recall correctly, you could probably land a spot at a US Army facility in Chicago with maybe 55 or 56 points, but let's be honest—the environment there isn't nearly as stimulating as what you'd find at NASA.
Whatever, I guess that's why NASA can afford to be so picky about their requirements.

proab said:I don't see the point. It’s not like I thought there wouldn't be someone else there—I don't need to "keep it in mind" as some specific task. I have no reason to comment on or even mention things that are just obvious.

The point is that there will always be idiots out there, and you just have to learn how to deal with them.
To me, it also feels like you're being a bit hysterical—maybe I'm wrong, and I certainly hope you aren't passing that negative vibe onto the kid, but rather pulling back and guiding them in the right direction instead.

nimbleviper3 said:Back in my day, maybe two or three students per grade would hit a 4.0 GPA.
At most, you'd have 7 or 8 honor roll kids in a class of 36.
The "really good" ones? Maybe ten, tops.
As for the decent but average ones, maybe one or two.

It's hard to believe today's kids are actually smarter than we were...

Only three students with a 4.0 in a class of 36?
That's pretty much how it is here now, too. In a grade of about 100 kids, you might have seven of them hitting a 4.0.
Though, honestly, I suspect some of those grades are handed out as favors. For instance, I know for a fact mine wasn't earned in Art class.

And apparently, some people were flagged against their will too.

https://www.nytimes.com/tech/new-cybersecurity-threats-and-data-leaks-912293

My daughter recently checked out that high school over in the suburbs, and I have to say, she really loved the place.
They’ve bumped up the entrance requirement to 70 points.
So, that’s pretty much it—it looks like she’ll probably be staying there for the next few years.

Wait, so it’s tomorrow?
To be fair, the school looks great. It’s brand new—so I suppose you couldn't really expect anything else.

The open house at the NYC high school is happening the day after tomorrow.
In case anyone is actually interested, you might want to swing by and check it out.

http://gimnazija-dvanaesta-zg.skole....=1848#mod_news

mellowskipper said:Well, that was pure irony. In some small town, you could scrape together enough points to hit the threshold for a high-tier prep school, but in Washington, D.C., those same points might only get you into a vocational trade school. I suppose you really need a perfect 4.0 to even be considered for a serious academy.
And yet, everyone ends up right back where they started.
Obviously, not everyone goes off to MIT or a top research university, but a fair amount of them do.

A friend's daughter actually pulled this off. It wasn't even at a major prep school, but it counts.
She couldn't get into her first choice in Washington, D.C., so she ended up enrolling in the exact same program at a school outside the city. She spent a year living in a dorm, and after that, she finally transferred back to the school in Washington, D.C. that her middle school grades wouldn't have allowed her to enter initially.
From there, she went on to finish a specialized college degree—did everything by the book—and landed a solid job in her field without any issues.

Susan James said:Exactly. And it isn't just about sports or music; there's this growing trend of private tutoring for math, robotics, and coding. Parents are more than willing to pay for it because they know the public school system isn't offering those programs, and honestly, it probably never will—certainly not at that high of a quality.
It's frustrating.

And then you have news outlets like CNN spinning stories claiming this is only meant for certain neighborhoods.
I don't think kids will drop out of school en masse—after all, social circles matter a lot at that age—but these specialized curriculum choices are definitely going to create a divide.

It’s pretty much the same situation we deal with. My son goes to a chess club, and he was paying $50 a month for just three sessions.
Since there's a private club available, I wanted to sign him up there because he actually loves playing, even if he doesn't have many friends to play with.
The school version—just 45 minutes a week—was costing us $100 per month.

Then there's this one teacher who technically has chess on her schedule, but she doesn't actually follow through with it, though that’s a whole different issue altogether...

This whole experiment is headed for a total disaster.
I’ve been sitting here counting up the schools in my neighborhood—I think I hit about ten of them just now.
Out of those ten, not a single one actually meets the requirements for full-day programming. Which basically means we’d need to build at least ten more schools from scratch.
And that’s just looking at one single neighborhood in Washington, D.C.
Even if they somehow managed to scrape together the funding for it, there simply aren't enough workers available to get all that construction done within a four-year window.

I just heard on the news that 38 schools have signed up for the pilot program so far.
They’ve still got until the end of the week to hit their target quota, I guess.

In my opinion, PISA tests aren't a true reflection of what students actually know.
The questions are often so poorly defined—it's almost like they're designed to trick kids into getting things wrong.
Since these aren't graded assignments, I guess there isn't much incentive for them to really focus or try.

If teachers went through those types of problems with their students a few times before the actual test, the scores would probably improve. But honestly, I think that would just be massaging the numbers rather than measuring real knowledge.

Am I reading this correctly?
So, elementary school teachers—grades 1 through 4—are expected to be on campus from 7:30 AM to 3:30 PM, only to head home and spend their evenings grading tests and prepping lesson plans for the next day.
And I suppose they’re getting a 25% raise to cover all that extra work?

I honestly don't see this gaining any real traction in the short term. It feels more like a pre-election stunt—though, I suppose, it might work for those looking to run an experimental pilot program first.
It’ll be interesting to watch how parents react when their kids finish the school year without that perfect 4.0 GPA.

For what it's worth, my colleagues over at my firm—in the actual private sector—have been pushing for full-day schooling and shorter summer breaks for years. They'd probably split the breaks up however they wanted: maybe one stretch from July 1st to the 20th, another from the 20th to mid-August, and then a final stretch leading into September. Just whatever fits their schedule best.
And naturally, you just know those kids will still end up with a 4.0.

jadetinker85 said:I was reading recently about how kids in Norway tell their parents when asked what they did at school: "I played." Learning happens through play.
Meanwhile, our kids in elementary school are already being worn down by nothing but averages and grades.

I’m not really buying into this whole "learning through gaming" craze. I guess some people find it useful, but personally, I'm just not a fan of that approach.
So, my little girl was attending this English language program where they actually focused on practical stuff—writing, speaking, homework and all that. Then that bandit went and completely trashed everything—he basically banned schools from using the local community center facilities. We ended up having to move her over to some other fancy private school just to keep her on track.
There wasn't much actual writing involved in that one—no formal assignments or anything like that. Instead, everything was driven through games, watching movies, and stuff like that.
Take a guess where she learned that.

I have a fourth grader at home, and honestly, I don't see much evidence that they're actually studying hard or even feeling particularly overwhelmed. Now, I’m not going to be a snob about it—I won't just assume it's because they're some kind of little genius.
An eighth grader definitely has more studying to get through—but I don't think it's ever been such an overwhelming load that they can't find time to hang out with friends.
There are definitely things within the school system that need to be overhauled—I mean, obviously—but I don't really see evidence that elementary school kids here in the States are being overloaded yet.

Scott Booth said:Around here, they’ve already started "importing" staff from neighboring states.

Before implementing an all-day school schedule, the government really ought to ensure that every single child has access to a qualified, dedicated teacher for every subject—and I'm not just talking about the sciences. Otherwise, we're just turning our students into pawns in various political education games.

That bolded part is just unrealistic.
I agree that’s how things *should* work, but I highly doubt it’s actually like that anywhere else in the world.
I mean, even in the private sector, you don't see that kind of consistency.

We have to take this one step at a time if we ever want to get anywhere.

Joshua Gray75 said:Oh, they know... to an extent.
But if only a handful of people reach out to them—then it's just "fine"...

However, once a massive crowd starts "bothering" them—that's when those same opposition parties might start looking for ways to score points for future elections... and then the administration will start thinking they need to rack up some points too... which is when you can actually expect something to happen.

That said, nobody should actually be giving in. Movement restrictions should stay—it's just a matter of defining the boundaries "spatially"—rather than by "municipality."
For instance, movement—within a certain radius 6.2 miles from one's home address. You could travel to the nearest major shopping center—once a week.
(... and so on... )

On the other hand—personally, I would restrict movement within Washington, D.C. It has the highest population—which means the most infections... what does someone like Stephanie need to do to get from Central Park to Times Square? Or vice versa.

But if something like that were implemented—then perhaps (and I say perhaps) New Yorkers would finally understand what it means when you can't go a few miles away just because it's a different municipality. Right now, it's easy for them to say "stay home"—when they live within spitting distance of a Walmart/Sprouts/Lidl/Target...

(though then they'll likely start making excuses: "but our elderly parents live over there..." right... as if nobody living outside of NYC doesn't have elderly parents in some other town whom they can't visit without a permit...)

I'm from D.C., and I completely agree with the bolded part of your post. Besides, that's how I've been living for over two weeks now. I don't see any issues with it, especially in a place like D.C. where every neighborhood has its own local grocery store or pharmacy.

I read the article and I honestly don't see the issue here.
Why exactly do you think this isn't going to work?
It seems like the same setup we've had before—just with more data points and better coordination between the agencies issuing the permits (at least, in theory).