New TJ principal announced

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hopeful that the new principal can keep the low stress environment without abandoning rigor.

For a change, the new principal has STEM background. Merit is back, beginning with the new principal.

Bonitatibus has a computer science background.

Maybe for a change you can try to post something truthful?

She has a what?

It says she graduated from indiana university of pennsylvania in communications education.

Nothing about computer science, english or math. I'm not saying you need a degree to teach those subjects at the high school level but just saying you have a background in computer science doesn't make it so.

I think she is perfectly well qualified to be a principal of a base school but TJ needs a principal that understands gifted education and why it is not a waste of taxpayer money like so many on DCUM seem to think.

If you can say that he “has a STEM background”, then you can say that about her as well.

Both studied STEM in college; both went directly into teaching; both taught math in the past.

He did more STEM in college but that doesn’t mean she did zero.

Does a college student who takes a required distributional course in "physics for poets" count as studying STEM in college by your definition?

She did enough to be qualified to teach math and has mentioned her background in computer science in college.

Is she the STEMiest person out there? No. But she does have a “STEM background” if we are considering his background to be a “STEM background” (AKA studied and taught STEM topics decades ago).

Looks like you are having a hard time accepting it. But FCPS is letting her go due to poor performance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hopeful that the new principal can keep the low stress environment without abandoning rigor.

For a change, the new principal has STEM background. Merit is back, beginning with the new principal.

Bonitatibus has a computer science background.

Maybe for a change you can try to post something truthful?

She has a what?

It says she graduated from indiana university of pennsylvania in communications education.

Nothing about computer science, english or math. I'm not saying you need a degree to teach those subjects at the high school level but just saying you have a background in computer science doesn't make it so.

I think she is perfectly well qualified to be a principal of a base school but TJ needs a principal that understands gifted education and why it is not a waste of taxpayer money like so many on DCUM seem to think.

That is her background. She taught english and math in maryland for 8 years. I have seen no indication that she has any particular expertise in computer science but maybe she taught a class or got some soret of certificate that isn't popping up on a search.

FCPS has removed her from TJ primarily due to academic decline. Apparently, her lack of STEM background has contributed to it.

Bullcrap. He’s pretty much the same as her - studied STEM in college and taught math/science many years ago.

With proven qualifications, he's miles apart from her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hopeful that the new principal can keep the low stress environment without abandoning rigor.

The previous principal did an excellent job maintaining high standards while reducing the test prep cheaters, which helped with the toxicity.

Test prep is not cheating.
Studying is not cheating.
Nobody believes that it is.
Not even you.
Only cheating is cheating.
You should stop denigrating the hard work and effort of some kids just because you want opportunity for other kids.

I think Bonitatibus was focused on mental health especially in light of the two suicides during her tenure. I think these may be the first suicides at TJ since its inception and it must have weighed heavy on her as it would on any principal.

The test prep has the questions bank, they teach and train your kid strategy on how to answer it, they expose to your kid what the test would similarity be like.
If you don't like the term of 'cheating' I will call it unfair advantage.

I am agree that studying is not cheating.

Well, this is why I think the PSATs would be the best test to use. The "question banks" are publicly available for free.
Test prep is available on khan academy.

If it is free and the same, nobody will pay $$$ for prep, and the ones that usually do prep is the "wealthy, educated, and understand the game".

You don't understand the game.
Because there is no game, not in the sleazy sense you are talking about.
Just because your kid is stupid doesn't mean the rest of the world is cheating.

Wealthy people pay more for the same thing all the time.
Toyota and a lexus are essentially the same car with different price tags.
A Kohler faucet costs 5 times as much as an off brand facuet made at the exact same factory.
People pay more for things all the time.

Back when people didn't have the internet, in person instruction was the only game in town.
It's what we did, it's what our parents did and we think it's what our kids must do.
For a lot of kids, online learning isn't as good as online learning but the smartest kids adapt well to online learning.
Princeton review and Kaplan doesn't have any secret sauce that khan academy doesn't have access to.

Let’s say you take 300 bright kids:
100 receive 1:1 tutoring twice a week
100 attend in-person, small group courses once a week
100 are given the link to Khan Academy

After 6 months, which group(s) see the biggest gains in test performance?

Who the heck does 6 months of test prep twice a week.
It's like 12 hours max.
Beyond that point you are teaching kids math not how to do well on a math test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hopeful that the new principal can keep the low stress environment without abandoning rigor.

For a change, the new principal has STEM background. Merit is back, beginning with the new principal.

Bonitatibus has a computer science background.

Maybe for a change you can try to post something truthful?

She has a what?

It says she graduated from indiana university of pennsylvania in communications education.

Nothing about computer science, english or math. I'm not saying you need a degree to teach those subjects at the high school level but just saying you have a background in computer science doesn't make it so.

I think she is perfectly well qualified to be a principal of a base school but TJ needs a principal that understands gifted education and why it is not a waste of taxpayer money like so many on DCUM seem to think.

If you can say that he “has a STEM background”, then you can say that about her as well.

Both studied STEM in college; both went directly into teaching; both taught math in the past.

He did more STEM in college but that doesn’t mean she did zero.

Does a college student who takes a required distributional course in "physics for poets" count as studying STEM in college by your definition?

She did enough to be qualified to teach math and has mentioned her background in computer science in college.

Is she the STEMiest person out there? No. But she does have a “STEM background” if we are considering his background to be a “STEM background” (AKA studied and taught STEM topics decades ago).

DP
This is a stupid conversation.
She isn't being replaced because she isn't the head of the math department.
She is being replaced because she has lost the confidence of the faculty, students and parents.

She had to deal with 2 student suicides when she first got there and she went balls to the wall on trying to reduce the stress level.
She adopted Challenge Success in an effort to find a way to decouple rigor and workload, promoting the importance of sleep, managing expectations. https://tjhsst.fcps.edu/resources/challenge-success-program-tjhsst
You see a lot of the language from challenge success in the way she talks. GPA vs GPS, you are more than your GPA, etc.
And when the board suggested reducing the merit filter, she went along with it.
Maybe she thought it would reduce stress but it was discriminatory against the majority of the students and families at TJ and everyone knew it.
People never forgave her for her role in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hopeful that the new principal can keep the low stress environment without abandoning rigor.

For a change, the new principal has STEM background. Merit is back, beginning with the new principal.

Bonitatibus has a computer science background.

Maybe for a change you can try to post something truthful?

She has a what?

It says she graduated from indiana university of pennsylvania in communications education.

Nothing about computer science, english or math. I'm not saying you need a degree to teach those subjects at the high school level but just saying you have a background in computer science doesn't make it so.

I think she is perfectly well qualified to be a principal of a base school but TJ needs a principal that understands gifted education and why it is not a waste of taxpayer money like so many on DCUM seem to think.

If you can say that he “has a STEM background”, then you can say that about her as well.

Both studied STEM in college; both went directly into teaching; both taught math in the past.

He did more STEM in college but that doesn’t mean she did zero.

Does a college student who takes a required distributional course in "physics for poets" count as studying STEM in college by your definition?

She did enough to be qualified to teach math and has mentioned her background in computer science in college.

Is she the STEMiest person out there? No. But she does have a “STEM background” if we are considering his background to be a “STEM background” (AKA studied and taught STEM topics decades ago).

Looks like you are having a hard time accepting it. But FCPS is letting her go due to poor performance.

They didn’t let her go. She received a promotion.

I have no problem with the transition - Mukai sounds great. I just hate liars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hopeful that the new principal can keep the low stress environment without abandoning rigor.

The previous principal did an excellent job maintaining high standards while reducing the test prep cheaters, which helped with the toxicity.

Test prep is not cheating.
Studying is not cheating.
Nobody believes that it is.
Not even you.
Only cheating is cheating.
You should stop denigrating the hard work and effort of some kids just because you want opportunity for other kids.

I think Bonitatibus was focused on mental health especially in light of the two suicides during her tenure. I think these may be the first suicides at TJ since its inception and it must have weighed heavy on her as it would on any principal.

The test prep has the questions bank, they teach and train your kid strategy on how to answer it, they expose to your kid what the test would similarity be like.
If you don't like the term of 'cheating' I will call it unfair advantage.

I am agree that studying is not cheating.

Well, this is why I think the PSATs would be the best test to use. The "question banks" are publicly available for free.
Test prep is available on khan academy.

If it is free and the same, nobody will pay $$$ for prep, and the ones that usually do prep is the "wealthy, educated, and understand the game".

You don't understand the game.
Because there is no game, not in the sleazy sense you are talking about.
Just because your kid is stupid doesn't mean the rest of the world is cheating.

Wealthy people pay more for the same thing all the time.
Toyota and a lexus are essentially the same car with different price tags.
A Kohler faucet costs 5 times as much as an off brand facuet made at the exact same factory.
People pay more for things all the time.

Back when people didn't have the internet, in person instruction was the only game in town.
It's what we did, it's what our parents did and we think it's what our kids must do.
For a lot of kids, online learning isn't as good as online learning but the smartest kids adapt well to online learning.
Princeton review and Kaplan doesn't have any secret sauce that khan academy doesn't have access to.

Let’s say you take 300 bright kids:
100 receive 1:1 tutoring twice a week
100 attend in-person, small group courses once a week
100 are given the link to Khan Academy

After 6 months, which group(s) see the biggest gains in test performance?

Are we talking about the PSAT?

If the kids are 99th percentile bright, then they would earn high scores on the PSAT without any prep. Any or none of the options would be sufficient.

If the kids are simply bright, then either of the last two options could be better, depending on the kid. If the kid is self-directed enough, they'd likely do better with Khan academy than the group courses. They will have more freedom to focus on areas of weakness and won't have to sit through material that they already know. If the kid is not self directed, the courses would be better since they likely wouldn't bother doing the Khan academy stuff. As an example, my kid took the PSAT completely cold in 10th grade and got a 1450/1520. They got a workbook, lightly studied, and raised that score to a 1500/1520 for the 11th grade PSAT. Nothing more than that is needed for a smart kid.

So why do people pay for the tutoring or classes? They have some level of FOMO and want to cover all bases. They are wealthy enough that the money is insignificant. They know their kids won't do the work on their own. They don't have the bandwidth to keep the kid on track. They believe the hype and think the courses will make a significant change. They don't want to regret not doing classes if their kid ends up just barely under any of the cutoffs. Any and all of these could be reasons why people pay for PSAT prep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hopeful that the new principal can keep the low stress environment without abandoning rigor.

The previous principal did an excellent job maintaining high standards while reducing the test prep cheaters, which helped with the toxicity.

Test prep is not cheating.
Studying is not cheating.
Nobody believes that it is.
Not even you.
Only cheating is cheating.
You should stop denigrating the hard work and effort of some kids just because you want opportunity for other kids.

I think Bonitatibus was focused on mental health especially in light of the two suicides during her tenure. I think these may be the first suicides at TJ since its inception and it must have weighed heavy on her as it would on any principal.

The test prep has the questions bank, they teach and train your kid strategy on how to answer it, they expose to your kid what the test would similarity be like.
If you don't like the term of 'cheating' I will call it unfair advantage.

I am agree that studying is not cheating.

Well, this is why I think the PSATs would be the best test to use. The "question banks" are publicly available for free.
Test prep is available on khan academy.

If it is free and the same, nobody will pay $$$ for prep, and the ones that usually do prep is the "wealthy, educated, and understand the game".

You don't understand the game.
Because there is no game, not in the sleazy sense you are talking about.
Just because your kid is stupid doesn't mean the rest of the world is cheating.

Wealthy people pay more for the same thing all the time.
Toyota and a lexus are essentially the same car with different price tags.
A Kohler faucet costs 5 times as much as an off brand facuet made at the exact same factory.
People pay more for things all the time.

Back when people didn't have the internet, in person instruction was the only game in town.
It's what we did, it's what our parents did and we think it's what our kids must do.
For a lot of kids, online learning isn't as good as online learning but the smartest kids adapt well to online learning.
Princeton review and Kaplan doesn't have any secret sauce that khan academy doesn't have access to.

Let’s say you take 300 bright kids:
100 receive 1:1 tutoring twice a week
100 attend in-person, small group courses once a week
100 are given the link to Khan Academy

After 6 months, which group(s) see the biggest gains in test performance?

The kids with the highest IQ and the dedication to studying will do the best no matter which method of studying they use. If 1:1 tutoring would get all kids to the 1,500-1,600 range in SATs you would see every rich kid scoring in that range. That just isn’t the case. Kids who are dedicated to studying do better. You can’t take a rich kid with a low IQ scoring a 900 on the SAT and give that kid 1:1 private tutoring and think that kid will somehow become a genius. Just like a genius/high IQ kid is going to score much higher no matter what method of studying they use. The same material is all free. The type of kid that will be successful at TJ is the type of kid that will also score high on their SAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hopeful that the new principal can keep the low stress environment without abandoning rigor.

For a change, the new principal has STEM background. Merit is back, beginning with the new principal.

Bonitatibus has a computer science background.

Maybe for a change you can try to post something truthful?

She has a what?

It says she graduated from indiana university of pennsylvania in communications education.

Nothing about computer science, english or math. I'm not saying you need a degree to teach those subjects at the high school level but just saying you have a background in computer science doesn't make it so.

I think she is perfectly well qualified to be a principal of a base school but TJ needs a principal that understands gifted education and why it is not a waste of taxpayer money like so many on DCUM seem to think.

That is her background. She taught english and math in maryland for 8 years. I have seen no indication that she has any particular expertise in computer science but maybe she taught a class or got some soret of certificate that isn't popping up on a search.

What is his “STEM background”? College studies and teaching math/science.

A lot of overlap there with what she did.

If you can claim it for him, then you can claim it for her, even if a lesser degree.

He also attended a STEM high school….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hopeful that the new principal can keep the low stress environment without abandoning rigor.

For a change, the new principal has STEM background. Merit is back, beginning with the new principal.

Bonitatibus has a computer science background.

Maybe for a change you can try to post something truthful?

She has a what?

It says she graduated from indiana university of pennsylvania in communications education.

Nothing about computer science, english or math. I'm not saying you need a degree to teach those subjects at the high school level but just saying you have a background in computer science doesn't make it so.

I think she is perfectly well qualified to be a principal of a base school but TJ needs a principal that understands gifted education and why it is not a waste of taxpayer money like so many on DCUM seem to think.

If you can say that he “has a STEM background”, then you can say that about her as well.

Both studied STEM in college; both went directly into teaching; both taught math in the past.

He did more STEM in college but that doesn’t mean she did zero.

Does a college student who takes a required distributional course in "physics for poets" count as studying STEM in college by your definition?

She did enough to be qualified to teach math and has mentioned her background in computer science in college.

Is she the STEMiest person out there? No. But she does have a “STEM background” if we are considering his background to be a “STEM background” (AKA studied and taught STEM topics decades ago).

Looks like you are having a hard time accepting it. But FCPS is letting her go due to poor performance.

They didn’t let her go. She received a promotion.

I have no problem with the transition - Mukai sounds great. I just hate liars.

Moved to a back office role, no one hears about or cares. Just glad TJ is turning the corner with qualified leadership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hopeful that the new principal can keep the low stress environment without abandoning rigor.

For a change, the new principal has STEM background. Merit is back, beginning with the new principal.

Bonitatibus has a computer science background.

Maybe for a change you can try to post something truthful?

She has a what?

It says she graduated from indiana university of pennsylvania in communications education.

Nothing about computer science, english or math. I'm not saying you need a degree to teach those subjects at the high school level but just saying you have a background in computer science doesn't make it so.

I think she is perfectly well qualified to be a principal of a base school but TJ needs a principal that understands gifted education and why it is not a waste of taxpayer money like so many on DCUM seem to think.

That is her background. She taught english and math in maryland for 8 years. I have seen no indication that she has any particular expertise in computer science but maybe she taught a class or got some soret of certificate that isn't popping up on a search.

FCPS has removed her from TJ primarily due to academic decline. Apparently, her lack of STEM background has contributed to it.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that she was "removed" from TJ via some choice by FCPS. None at all. The premise of your statement is flawed and therefore the statement is valueless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hopeful that the new principal can keep the low stress environment without abandoning rigor.

For a change, the new principal has STEM background. Merit is back, beginning with the new principal.

Bonitatibus has a computer science background.

Maybe for a change you can try to post something truthful?

She has a what?

It says she graduated from indiana university of pennsylvania in communications education.

Nothing about computer science, english or math. I'm not saying you need a degree to teach those subjects at the high school level but just saying you have a background in computer science doesn't make it so.

I think she is perfectly well qualified to be a principal of a base school but TJ needs a principal that understands gifted education and why it is not a waste of taxpayer money like so many on DCUM seem to think.

If you can say that he “has a STEM background”, then you can say that about her as well.

Both studied STEM in college; both went directly into teaching; both taught math in the past.

He did more STEM in college but that doesn’t mean she did zero.

Does a college student who takes a required distributional course in "physics for poets" count as studying STEM in college by your definition?

She did enough to be qualified to teach math and has mentioned her background in computer science in college.

Is she the STEMiest person out there? No. But she does have a “STEM background” if we are considering his background to be a “STEM background” (AKA studied and taught STEM topics decades ago).

Looks like you are having a hard time accepting it. But FCPS is letting her go due to poor performance.

They didn’t let her go. She received a promotion.

I have no problem with the transition - Mukai sounds great. I just hate liars.

Moved to a back office role, no one hears about or cares. Just glad TJ is turning the corner with qualified leadership.

DP. She applied for a job with a much more expansive role, to include hiring the principal of TJ, at a much higher salary, and won the job.

That reality may not fit your narrative, but it's the reality. If she hadn't applied for the job that she currently holds, she would still be the principal at TJ and FCPS, for better or worse, would still be happy with her.

Doesn't mean that Mukai won't do a great job (I believe that he will), but you're grasping at straws to pretend that she was somehow "let go" or "replaced".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hopeful that the new principal can keep the low stress environment without abandoning rigor.

The previous principal did an excellent job maintaining high standards while reducing the test prep cheaters, which helped with the toxicity.

Test prep is not cheating.
Studying is not cheating.
Nobody believes that it is.
Not even you.
Only cheating is cheating.
You should stop denigrating the hard work and effort of some kids just because you want opportunity for other kids.

I think Bonitatibus was focused on mental health especially in light of the two suicides during her tenure. I think these may be the first suicides at TJ since its inception and it must have weighed heavy on her as it would on any principal.

The test prep has the questions bank, they teach and train your kid strategy on how to answer it, they expose to your kid what the test would similarity be like.
If you don't like the term of 'cheating' I will call it unfair advantage.

I am agree that studying is not cheating.

Well, this is why I think the PSATs would be the best test to use. The "question banks" are publicly available for free.
Test prep is available on khan academy.

If it is free and the same, nobody will pay $$$ for prep, and the ones that usually do prep is the "wealthy, educated, and understand the game".

You don't understand the game.
Because there is no game, not in the sleazy sense you are talking about.
Just because your kid is stupid doesn't mean the rest of the world is cheating.

Wealthy people pay more for the same thing all the time.
Toyota and a lexus are essentially the same car with different price tags.
A Kohler faucet costs 5 times as much as an off brand facuet made at the exact same factory.
People pay more for things all the time.

Back when people didn't have the internet, in person instruction was the only game in town.
It's what we did, it's what our parents did and we think it's what our kids must do.
For a lot of kids, online learning isn't as good as online learning but the smartest kids adapt well to online learning.
Princeton review and Kaplan doesn't have any secret sauce that khan academy doesn't have access to.

Let’s say you take 300 bright kids:
100 receive 1:1 tutoring twice a week
100 attend in-person, small group courses once a week
100 are given the link to Khan Academy

After 6 months, which group(s) see the biggest gains in test performance?

Who the heck does 6 months of test prep twice a week.
It's like 12 hours max.
Beyond that point you are teaching kids math not how to do well on a math test.

Who? All of the people who sign up for these $$$ options. Want me to list them out again?

Teaching math (& grammar, etc.) is certainly part of many of these programs.

So...who would see the biggest gains in test performance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hopeful that the new principal can keep the low stress environment without abandoning rigor.

The previous principal did an excellent job maintaining high standards while reducing the test prep cheaters, which helped with the toxicity.

Test prep is not cheating.
Studying is not cheating.
Nobody believes that it is.
Not even you.
Only cheating is cheating.
You should stop denigrating the hard work and effort of some kids just because you want opportunity for other kids.

I think Bonitatibus was focused on mental health especially in light of the two suicides during her tenure. I think these may be the first suicides at TJ since its inception and it must have weighed heavy on her as it would on any principal.

The test prep has the questions bank, they teach and train your kid strategy on how to answer it, they expose to your kid what the test would similarity be like.
If you don't like the term of 'cheating' I will call it unfair advantage.

I am agree that studying is not cheating.

Well, this is why I think the PSATs would be the best test to use. The "question banks" are publicly available for free.
Test prep is available on khan academy.

If it is free and the same, nobody will pay $$$ for prep, and the ones that usually do prep is the "wealthy, educated, and understand the game".

You don't understand the game.
Because there is no game, not in the sleazy sense you are talking about.
Just because your kid is stupid doesn't mean the rest of the world is cheating.

Wealthy people pay more for the same thing all the time.
Toyota and a lexus are essentially the same car with different price tags.
A Kohler faucet costs 5 times as much as an off brand facuet made at the exact same factory.
People pay more for things all the time.

Back when people didn't have the internet, in person instruction was the only game in town.
It's what we did, it's what our parents did and we think it's what our kids must do.
For a lot of kids, online learning isn't as good as online learning but the smartest kids adapt well to online learning.
Princeton review and Kaplan doesn't have any secret sauce that khan academy doesn't have access to.

Let’s say you take 300 bright kids:
100 receive 1:1 tutoring twice a week
100 attend in-person, small group courses once a week
100 are given the link to Khan Academy

After 6 months, which group(s) see the biggest gains in test performance?

Are we talking about the PSAT?

If the kids are 99th percentile bright, then they would earn high scores on the PSAT without any prep. Any or none of the options would be sufficient.

If the kids are simply bright, then either of the last two options could be better, depending on the kid. If the kid is self-directed enough, they'd likely do better with Khan academy than the group courses. They will have more freedom to focus on areas of weakness and won't have to sit through material that they already know. If the kid is not self directed, the courses would be better since they likely wouldn't bother doing the Khan academy stuff. As an example, my kid took the PSAT completely cold in 10th grade and got a 1450/1520. They got a workbook, lightly studied, and raised that score to a 1500/1520 for the 11th grade PSAT. Nothing more than that is needed for a smart kid.

So why do people pay for the tutoring or classes? They have some level of FOMO and want to cover all bases. They are wealthy enough that the money is insignificant. They know their kids won't do the work on their own. They don't have the bandwidth to keep the kid on track. They believe the hype and think the courses will make a significant change. They don't want to regret not doing classes if their kid ends up just barely under any of the cutoffs. Any and all of these could be reasons why people pay for PSAT prep.

You don't get to pick the study habits/motivation/backgrounds of the 100 bright kids. Just a mix of 100 bright kids, specifically 8th graders.

On average, how would those cohorts generally fare based on the prep they received?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hopeful that the new principal can keep the low stress environment without abandoning rigor.

For a change, the new principal has STEM background. Merit is back, beginning with the new principal.

Bonitatibus has a computer science background.

Maybe for a change you can try to post something truthful?

She has a what?

It says she graduated from indiana university of pennsylvania in communications education.

Nothing about computer science, english or math. I'm not saying you need a degree to teach those subjects at the high school level but just saying you have a background in computer science doesn't make it so.

I think she is perfectly well qualified to be a principal of a base school but TJ needs a principal that understands gifted education and why it is not a waste of taxpayer money like so many on DCUM seem to think.

If you can say that he “has a STEM background”, then you can say that about her as well.

Both studied STEM in college; both went directly into teaching; both taught math in the past.

He did more STEM in college but that doesn’t mean she did zero.

Does a college student who takes a required distributional course in "physics for poets" count as studying STEM in college by your definition?

She did enough to be qualified to teach math and has mentioned her background in computer science in college.

Is she the STEMiest person out there? No. But she does have a “STEM background” if we are considering his background to be a “STEM background” (AKA studied and taught STEM topics decades ago).

Looks like you are having a hard time accepting it. But FCPS is letting her go due to poor performance.

They didn’t let her go. She received a promotion.

I have no problem with the transition - Mukai sounds great. I just hate liars.

Moved to a back office role, no one hears about or cares. Just glad TJ is turning the corner with qualified leadership.

Bonitatibus is qualified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am hopeful that the new principal can keep the low stress environment without abandoning rigor.

For a change, the new principal has STEM background. Merit is back, beginning with the new principal.

Bonitatibus has a computer science background.

Maybe for a change you can try to post something truthful?

She has a what?

It says she graduated from indiana university of pennsylvania in communications education.

Nothing about computer science, english or math. I'm not saying you need a degree to teach those subjects at the high school level but just saying you have a background in computer science doesn't make it so.

I think she is perfectly well qualified to be a principal of a base school but TJ needs a principal that understands gifted education and why it is not a waste of taxpayer money like so many on DCUM seem to think.

That is her background. She taught english and math in maryland for 8 years. I have seen no indication that she has any particular expertise in computer science but maybe she taught a class or got some soret of certificate that isn't popping up on a search.

FCPS has removed her from TJ primarily due to academic decline. Apparently, her lack of STEM background has contributed to it.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that she was "removed" from TJ via some choice by FCPS. None at all. The premise of your statement is flawed and therefore the statement is valueless.

+1

RWNJ lies