85 posts shown.
Sarah James4 said:From what I know, preschool used to be optional and only lasted for a few hours. The change is that it's longer now and required for everyone. Some kids just never had the chance to attend before.
Sarah James4 said:To me, directed education just doesn't make sense (I'm not saying people who want to be tradespeople or specialists can't succeed, they'd just need different paths and standards)...the rest is just some outdated system from the old industrial era...
Sarah James4 said:To me, directed education just doesn't make sense (I'm not saying people who want to be tradespeople or specialists can't succeed, they'd just need different paths and standards)...the rest is just some outdated system from the old industrial era...
Sarah James4 said:So, if I've got this right, the plan in America is to raise the age limit to 16 or 17. They want to start guiding kids as early as 10 or 11. Honestly, that whole part about directing them at such a young age? It just doesn't sit right with me. It feels pretty weak.
So, yeah. Exactly.
Field reports and data from overseas show that general education levels are lagging and funding is way too low. We really need to extend the standard schooling years. Real research and global examples prove that keeping kids in school longer works much better than pushing Matthew and Anna into trade schools like mechanics or cosmetology when they're only 14.
One of the best moves in this current reform is the mandatory "small school" initiative. It's all about extending education. Good call.
Sarah James4 said:Look, you aren't getting my point. Most 17 and 18-year-olds are still living at home anyway. They're in high school. Even if they go for trade school or a community college program, that takes maybe two or three years with work or internships. They'll eventually move out or find roommates later. As for the university students, most of them stay with their parents too... unless they're in a dorm or splitting an apartment. Nothing really changes. I think you misunderstood me.
By the way, there aren't even any dorms in my town. About 90% of the students here lived with their parents. The rest were students who had enough family money or scholarships to pay for a room, and most of them came from nearby suburbs. Generally speaking, nobody from my generation moved out the second they graduated high school. Most of us stayed put until much later.
Sarah James4 said:Look, you aren't getting my point. Most 17 and 18-year-olds are still living at home anyway. They're in high school. Even if they go for trade school or a community college program, that takes maybe two or three years with work or internships. They'll eventually move out or find roommates later. As for the university students, most of them stay with their parents too... unless they're in a dorm or splitting an apartment. Nothing really changes. I think you misunderstood me.
By the way, there aren't even any dorms in my town. About 90% of the students here lived with their parents. The rest were students who had enough family money or scholarships to pay for a room, and most of them came from nearby suburbs. Generally speaking, nobody from my generation moved out the second they graduated high school. Most of us stayed put until much later.
Sarah James4 said:And now they act like they don't exist...😁 meanwhile the government is paying for college tuition up to age 26.🙂
what
Sarah James4 said:Everything. It tracks you for life. That whole system carries too much baggage. We used to try steering kids starting at 15 and it didn't work then. Now we think using those exact same methods will somehow work on even younger kids...
Why shouldn't someone just decide for themselves at 17 or 18 if they want to be a mechanic or study American Studies?
wanderinggardener12 said:It seems nobody is talking about this latest proposal from the Secretary of Education and the rest of the administration, which makes me wonder if I should even bother starting a thread on it—especially since I don’t have a child directly impacted by these changes right now.
The proposal is headed for debate soon, yet amidst all the chaos currently facing our country, it seems to be slipping through the cracks, barely making a headline.
The Secretary wants to move enrollment entirely online, much like the system they implemented for college students three years ago. On paper, it’s supposed to make life easier for everyone—the kids, the parents, and the high schools themselves.
Under this plan, students can apply for ten different programs across a maximum of five schools. It sounds like a genuine improvement, provided the entire digital infrastructure doesn't collapse under the weight of 50,000 candidates hitting those servers at the exact same moment.
Then there’s the other side of the coin: the overhaul of the grading criteria. They aren't just looking at 7th and 8th-grade marks anymore; they’re pulling in data from 5th and 6th grade too. Previously, it was based on five subjects depending on the school and general GPA, but now they want five subjects plus GPAs calculated down to two decimal places. Furthermore, music and dance school credentials won't grant extra points anymore, and points earned from competitions will be scaled back.
In my view, these shifts could be excellent, provided they aren't applied retroactively. Families and students often develop specific strategies; they calculate their moves carefully. A parent might decide that those extra points from music school are more vital than an average grade in, say, shop class or art, or perhaps they aim for a specialized language academy where a mediocre science grade in 5th grade matters far less than maintaining straight As in history and social studies.
Ultimately, these new regulations will only ramp up the pressure on elementary school teachers. Everyone will be chasing perfect scores in every single subject, which will inevitably lead to even greater grade inflation and a sense of enrollment panic—if not outright hysteria—starting as early as 5th grade.
While the Secretary talks about reducing stress levels by eliminating mid-term grades, he seems to be charging headlong into disaster with an idea that is clearly unprepared or, at the very least, poorly thought out.
wanderinggardener12 said:It seems nobody is talking about this latest proposal from the Secretary of Education and the rest of the administration, which makes me wonder if I should even bother starting a thread on it—especially since I don’t have a child directly impacted by these changes right now.
The proposal is headed for debate soon, yet amidst all the chaos currently facing our country, it seems to be slipping through the cracks, barely making a headline.
The Secretary wants to move enrollment entirely online, much like the system they implemented for college students three years ago. On paper, it’s supposed to make life easier for everyone—the kids, the parents, and the high schools themselves.
Under this plan, students can apply for ten different programs across a maximum of five schools. It sounds like a genuine improvement, provided the entire digital infrastructure doesn't collapse under the weight of 50,000 candidates hitting those servers at the exact same moment.
Then there’s the other side of the coin: the overhaul of the grading criteria. They aren't just looking at 7th and 8th-grade marks anymore; they’re pulling in data from 5th and 6th grade too. Previously, it was based on five subjects depending on the school and general GPA, but now they want five subjects plus GPAs calculated down to two decimal places. Furthermore, music and dance school credentials won't grant extra points anymore, and points earned from competitions will be scaled back.
In my view, these shifts could be excellent, provided they aren't applied retroactively. Families and students often develop specific strategies; they calculate their moves carefully. A parent might decide that those extra points from music school are more vital than an average grade in, say, shop class or art, or perhaps they aim for a specialized language academy where a mediocre science grade in 5th grade matters far less than maintaining straight As in history and social studies.
Ultimately, these new regulations will only ramp up the pressure on elementary school teachers. Everyone will be chasing perfect scores in every single subject, which will inevitably lead to even greater grade inflation and a sense of enrollment panic—if not outright hysteria—starting as early as 5th grade.
While the Secretary talks about reducing stress levels by eliminating mid-term grades, he seems to be charging headlong into disaster with an idea that is clearly unprepared or, at the very least, poorly thought out.
wanderinggardener12 said:It seems nobody is talking about this latest proposal from the Secretary of Education and the rest of the administration, which makes me wonder if I should even bother starting a thread on it—especially since I don’t have a child directly impacted by these changes right now.
The proposal is headed for debate soon, yet amidst all the chaos currently facing our country, it seems to be slipping through the cracks, barely making a headline.
The Secretary wants to move enrollment entirely online, much like the system they implemented for college students three years ago. On paper, it’s supposed to make life easier for everyone—the kids, the parents, and the high schools themselves.
Under this plan, students can apply for ten different programs across a maximum of five schools. It sounds like a genuine improvement, provided the entire digital infrastructure doesn't collapse under the weight of 50,000 candidates hitting those servers at the exact same moment.
Then there’s the other side of the coin: the overhaul of the grading criteria. They aren't just looking at 7th and 8th-grade marks anymore; they’re pulling in data from 5th and 6th grade too. Previously, it was based on five subjects depending on the school and general GPA, but now they want five subjects plus GPAs calculated down to two decimal places. Furthermore, music and dance school credentials won't grant extra points anymore, and points earned from competitions will be scaled back.
In my view, these shifts could be excellent, provided they aren't applied retroactively. Families and students often develop specific strategies; they calculate their moves carefully. A parent might decide that those extra points from music school are more vital than an average grade in, say, shop class or art, or perhaps they aim for a specialized language academy where a mediocre science grade in 5th grade matters far less than maintaining straight As in history and social studies.
Ultimately, these new regulations will only ramp up the pressure on elementary school teachers. Everyone will be chasing perfect scores in every single subject, which will inevitably lead to even greater grade inflation and a sense of enrollment panic—if not outright hysteria—starting as early as 5th grade.
While the Secretary talks about reducing stress levels by eliminating mid-term grades, he seems to be charging headlong into disaster with an idea that is clearly unprepared or, at the very least, poorly thought out.
wanderinggardener12 said:It seems nobody is talking about this latest proposal from the Secretary of Education and the rest of the administration, which makes me wonder if I should even bother starting a thread on it—especially since I don’t have a child directly impacted by these changes right now.
The proposal is headed for debate soon, yet amidst all the chaos currently facing our country, it seems to be slipping through the cracks, barely making a headline.
The Secretary wants to move enrollment entirely online, much like the system they implemented for college students three years ago. On paper, it’s supposed to make life easier for everyone—the kids, the parents, and the high schools themselves.
Under this plan, students can apply for ten different programs across a maximum of five schools. It sounds like a genuine improvement, provided the entire digital infrastructure doesn't collapse under the weight of 50,000 candidates hitting those servers at the exact same moment.
Then there’s the other side of the coin: the overhaul of the grading criteria. They aren't just looking at 7th and 8th-grade marks anymore; they’re pulling in data from 5th and 6th grade too. Previously, it was based on five subjects depending on the school and general GPA, but now they want five subjects plus GPAs calculated down to two decimal places. Furthermore, music and dance school credentials won't grant extra points anymore, and points earned from competitions will be scaled back.
In my view, these shifts could be excellent, provided they aren't applied retroactively. Families and students often develop specific strategies; they calculate their moves carefully. A parent might decide that those extra points from music school are more vital than an average grade in, say, shop class or art, or perhaps they aim for a specialized language academy where a mediocre science grade in 5th grade matters far less than maintaining straight As in history and social studies.
Ultimately, these new regulations will only ramp up the pressure on elementary school teachers. Everyone will be chasing perfect scores in every single subject, which will inevitably lead to even greater grade inflation and a sense of enrollment panic—if not outright hysteria—starting as early as 5th grade.
While the Secretary talks about reducing stress levels by eliminating mid-term grades, he seems to be charging headlong into disaster with an idea that is clearly unprepared or, at the very least, poorly thought out.
wanderinggardener12 said:It seems nobody is talking about this latest proposal from the Secretary of Education and the rest of the administration, which makes me wonder if I should even bother starting a thread on it—especially since I don’t have a child directly impacted by these changes right now.
The proposal is headed for debate soon, yet amidst all the chaos currently facing our country, it seems to be slipping through the cracks, barely making a headline.
The Secretary wants to move enrollment entirely online, much like the system they implemented for college students three years ago. On paper, it’s supposed to make life easier for everyone—the kids, the parents, and the high schools themselves.
Under this plan, students can apply for ten different programs across a maximum of five schools. It sounds like a genuine improvement, provided the entire digital infrastructure doesn't collapse under the weight of 50,000 candidates hitting those servers at the exact same moment.
Then there’s the other side of the coin: the overhaul of the grading criteria. They aren't just looking at 7th and 8th-grade marks anymore; they’re pulling in data from 5th and 6th grade too. Previously, it was based on five subjects depending on the school and general GPA, but now they want five subjects plus GPAs calculated down to two decimal places. Furthermore, music and dance school credentials won't grant extra points anymore, and points earned from competitions will be scaled back.
In my view, these shifts could be excellent, provided they aren't applied retroactively. Families and students often develop specific strategies; they calculate their moves carefully. A parent might decide that those extra points from music school are more vital than an average grade in, say, shop class or art, or perhaps they aim for a specialized language academy where a mediocre science grade in 5th grade matters far less than maintaining straight As in history and social studies.
Ultimately, these new regulations will only ramp up the pressure on elementary school teachers. Everyone will be chasing perfect scores in every single subject, which will inevitably lead to even greater grade inflation and a sense of enrollment panic—if not outright hysteria—starting as early as 5th grade.
While the Secretary talks about reducing stress levels by eliminating mid-term grades, he seems to be charging headlong into disaster with an idea that is clearly unprepared or, at the very least, poorly thought out.
Jacob Martinez54 said:I'm currently working on an Excel sheet where I need a specific cell to display the product of two previous fields. However, the result shouldn't just be a raw calculation; it needs some logic applied:
* if SUM(c25*d25)=0, show 0
* if SUM(c25*d25) * if SUM(c25*d25)>500, show the actual product
Here is how I tried to write it:
= sum(if(sum(c25*d25)=0;0);if(0500;sum(c25*d25)),
The problem is, whenever c25*d25 is greater than 0 but less than 500, it just spits out 0 instead of 500.
Where did I go wrong? It seems my attempt at defining the range 0div>
brighttinker12 said:Can anyone help me out with a formula? I'm trying to build a table where the final column (Balance) automatically adds or subtracts amounts depending on whether it's a deposit or a withdrawal. I've been banging my head against the wall for days now... I've looked everywhere for advice, but nobody seems to get what I'm after. You’d be doing me a massive favor if you could just show me a simple solution. Thanks! Here’s the situation:
Samuel Baker3 said:I've got this one task in Microsoft Excel and I'd really appreciate some help from anyone who knows their stuff.
I want column L to sum up all the numbers entered in column J, but only if the condition in column K is set to "YES." However, if I enter "NO" in column K, I need the value from column H to be subtracted from that total sum in column L.
mistybear522 said:I tried tweaking those settings too, but it didn't make a lick of difference. Honestly, I’m starting to think the issue lies within the printer itself. I have an HP Brother HL-L2350DW, and this thing insists on having the paper aligned to the left side during the feed process. When I slide an envelope over to the left, it grabs it just fine and prints perfectly; however, if I center it or nudge it to the right, the printer acts like there isn't even any paper in the tray. Is it possible the software is sending a command for right-alignment? Because when I tried printing an envelope using standard letter-sized paper, the text positioning actually came out great...
Ah, great. Now I've just gone and made things even more complicated for you. 😁 The core issue remains unresolved...
mistybear522 said:Hey everyone! I just finished getting some custom envelopes printed for my small business, complete with my logo and address. Now, I'm trying to set up a template in Word so I can easily print out recipient names and addresses. It sounds like such a simple task, right? But for some reason, I just can't get the formatting to behave the way I want.
Anthony Perez55 said:Can anyone weigh in on this?
I tried searching Google, but I didn't find much, and honestly, I'm a bit pressed for time right now—it’s just easier to ask for help here!
bluecyclist64 said:Not a chance... 👎
Gates can go jump in a lake...😠
bluecyclist64 said:So, here’s the deal:
whenever I'm working in Word, I hit Ctrl+S every so often just to save my progress.
bluecyclist64 said:But a few times now, the Save as dialog box pops up instead, and I can't save over the original file because it's marked as Read-Only.
bluecyclist64 said:I'm forced to save it as a completely new file every single time.
Dana Diaz8 says:
Why does Google Sheets round my numbers?
Betty Hayes10 said:Hey there,
Can anyone tell me if this was put together in PowerPoint? And more importantly, how did they pull it off?
electricotter6 said:I’m trying to wrap my head around why the search function just quit on me in New York City. It was working flawlessly one day, and then—boom—nothing. Now it's completely dead, and I desperately need it to get through my workday. Does anyone have any actual ideas or specific steps to fix this? I'd really appreciate some help.
rustyrider99 said:It’s all getting way too complicated for me. How am I supposed to switch everything from American to English—both the Windows language and the Office settings?
Betty Hayes10 said:Can someone please clear something up for me? What’s actually the difference between a "theme" and a "template" in PowerPoint?