Free Bizpost To Be Upgraded

Even beyond this, school is repetitive. I learned the same Civil War facts in fifth, eighth, and eleventh grade. I think I read The Giver in multiple English classes. And this is just the stuff it’s embarrassing to have repeated. The actually important skills - how to write essays, how to cite sources - get deliberately repeated year after year. (I still have no idea how to cite a source properly, except a vague memory that something called “MLA Format” was very important, and that there might have been another thing called “Chicago Style” unless I am confusing it with pizza. When I actually need to cite something, I hit the “Cite” button on the top right of PubMed and do whatever it says.) So my prediction is that an average student could miss a year or two of school without major long-term effects. Their standardized test score would be lower at the end of the two years they missed than some other student who had been in school the whole time. But after a short period they would equalize again. I don’t think you need to burn yourself out working overtime to send your kid to a private school, I don’t think you need to risk your immunocompromised kid’s health to send her to the classroom, I think you can just chill. I want to present some of the evidence that makes me think this.

Wayne County

Dylan Siwicki

Detroit Metropolitan Area

Detroit

Michigan

Even beyond this, school is repetitive. I learned the same Civil War facts in fifth, eighth, and eleventh grade. I think I read The Giver in...

ROYAL OAK, MI — A lawsuit looking to put the brakes on Royal Oak's civic center development was thrown out Tuesday by Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Cheryl Matthews. Downtown business owners that brought the suit failed to prove the project, which calls for an office building, a new city hall and police station and a parking deck, would harm them, Matthews ruled, according to a Daily Tribune report. <blockquote>"The business owners "have not shown that they are entitled to standing as taxpayers because they have failed to make a clear statement of their prospective damages," Matthews wrote in her opinion.</blockquote> <blockquote>"Don Nahat, CEO and owner of Corp One, said he and the other business owners plan to appeal the decision. "They are going to devastate our businesses by putting in this project. We are people who are fighting for our business's lives, some of which have been here for over 40 years."</blockquote> <blockquote><a href="http://www.dailytribune.com/general-news/20171108/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-against-royal-oaks-56m-civic-center-project-appeal-expected" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">For more, go to the Daily Tribune.</a></blockquote>Rendering courtesy of the city of Royal Oak

ROYAL OAK, MI — A lawsuit looking to put the brakes on Royal Oak’s civic center development was thrown out Tuesday by Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Cheryl Matthews. Downtown business owners that brought the suit failed to prove the project, which calls for an office building, a new city hall and police station and a parking deck, would harm them, Matthews ruled, according to a Daily Tribune report.

<blockquote>“The business owners “have not shown that they are entitled to standing as taxpayers because they have failed to make a clear statement of their prospective damages,” Matthews wrote in her opinion.</blockquote> <blockquote>“Don Nahat, CEO and owner of Corp One, said he and the other business owners plan to appeal the decision. “They are going to devastate our businesses by putting in this project. We are people who are fighting for our business’s lives, some of which have been here for over 40 years.”</blockquote> <blockquote><a href="http://www.dailytribune.com/general-news/20171108/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-against-royal-oaks-56m-civic-center-project-appeal-expected" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">For more, go to the Daily Tribune.</a></blockquote>Rendering courtesy of the city of Royal Oak

Oakland County

Royal Oak

Civic Center Project Lawsuit Dismissed

The suit was brought by downtown business owners, who claimed that the development would hurt them.