Actually no at my school we have Java and AP Computer Science AB, neither of which I teach. The teacher is constantly recruiting for his computer science classes so that he doesn't get split between CS (his main interest) and teaching mathematics classes (my interest).
The Business department has computer literacy, computer applications, whatever the typing class is called, etc. I think they're the more popular classes because many kids at my school don't want the challenge of actually taking CS.
I hope the blazing sun knight and blackguard bring something unique. Right now, the tanking classes play a lot the same. I am, however, pleased with how they're implemented for PVP. Generally, tanks in pvp can be safely ignored because they do little damage as a tradeoff for being so durable. In WAR, it seems that the longer you leave a tank alive, the more powerful it gets.
In the case of the fifth amendment, the right is one of not incriminating oneself. The amendment does not allow a person, upon invoking their fifth amendment rights, to have the case and all other pending cases dismissed.
In the case of State's Evidence, immunity is granted in exchange for information that can be used to fight more serious crime. Here, the telecoms have obtained immunity in exchange for keeping information secret.
In our district, this is impossible as the districtwide tests are constructed by groups of teachers, and revised every year by groups of teachers. Some people know those tests like the back of their hands.
We'd need some kind of independent authority to come up with the tests like the College Board or some shit, and then set about studying all the past tests. I am in my first year of teaching AP Calculus 1, and I resent every second I have to spend on test taking strategy. Still, I guess it's better than if the test was known ahead of time and I was expected to spend more time on test taking. I'm torn between applauding that and opposing the privatization of certain portions of our curriculum. We're feeding the college board lots of money each year in the form of the fee students pay at our nonstop encouragement. I don't like selling my kids to the college board.
When there's an exam and a reward for doing well on the exam, people will get more money for teaching to the test than they would otherwise. Even if teachers don't want to do this to their students, there are forces greater than teachers directing education. For example, the Honors Algebra 2 curriculum includes a section on algebraic proofs. Commutative property, additive identity, inverse, stuff like that. The curriculum includes this but the district-produced midterm and final exam have no mention of any of that. One question I think on one test where you have to identify the property shown. As a result, the supervisors direct us not to emphasize it or even to skip it completely in favor of teaching more material that will appear on the SAT. Meanwhile the geometry teachers report great benefits to their students from having done some algebraic proofs with me before they spend more time on them in geometry. My kids don't do as well on the midterm as they would if I taught to those tests, and I do get taken to task for it, but I'm more concerned with their math education.
I'm kind of venting, but the upshot is that tying funding to some kind of measurement tool means that everyone is only going to do the things that are measured.
Frankly, a narrow focus on teaching mathematics is partly to blame for low attainment in mathematics. Studies show that better schoolwide physical education programs increase student achievement in the academic areas. I'm not talking about expanding extracurricular sports, I mean curricular phys ed programs that appeal to students and get them moving and exercising. There are also benefits to academic achievement from, say, learning an instrument or from studying martial arts.
This school year, I've been trying to incorporate some history of mathematics in my Algebra 2 and Calculus 1 classes, because it struck me that what we're doing is really math history. It's not like we're doing new math, just revisiting old results.
Back when I taught middle school in the late 90's, I used to hear a lot about creating interdisciplinary activities, projects, collaborating with teachers of other subjects. Maybe it's high school, maybe it's the education reform pendulum, or maybe it's the statewide tests, but I hardly if ever hear about that anymore.
Not to disagree, but it's very hard sometimes to know what to do with students who are smarter than I am. It's happened twice to me in 11 years that I've had students who are at or above my level and actually display it. Maybe I've had many students with better raw intelligence than I have but they have had the curiosity beaten out of them at school or home, or they're lazy or assheads. But when you do have those kids who are smarter, it becomes tricky. You have to:
Find a way to work with them at a level above your level
set your ego aside
avoid the authoritarian impulse that's so common in schools where the teacher has an inherent superiority that must not be challenged
not easy at all.
Usually, these kids do have something to learn from me, whether it's mathematics or not. Some of them just have to learn not to be assheads so they can realize their potential when they get to a more advanced setting, instead of pissing off (and on) people who are trying to help them.
Yeah if we could just fire teachers on a whim everything would be much better. In my school district, women mysteriously start getting bad evaluations around and after they turn 40. Let's untie the administration's hands so they can deal with this issue of female teacher aging.
Comparison to other countries is meaningless unless they start including all school age children in their tests of academic achievement.
Also, any school district that thinks they can address the needs of gifted and talented students with a separate facility is stupid or running a scam like you're talking about. GT is special education in just the same way as the rest of special ed and requires a very individualized approach, not a special school.
My student athletes have people skills all up and down the spectrum. Some of them do learn valuable lessons from sports such as how to take a loss and learn from it, how to work on a team, how to lead others to pursue a goal. Others are just playing a sport so they can hit people. Or else they learn above all an us-them mentality in which they always deserve to win, regardless of which team played better. I don't think your theory is correct that playing sports corresponds to having useful people skills.
Teaching is a thankless job with little to no incentive beyond the calling to teach. You have some weird cynical idea that teachers join the profession to milk as much as they can out of the system and have unionized to further that goal. Sit around all you want complaining about how students are getting exploited to line teachers' pockets. If some certain base level of representation and compensation isn't guaranteed by unions you see shit like in Georgia where education is so crappy that I can't even call it substandard, and I mean for students. People without children in the schools were upset that they had to pay for someone else's child so now they don't, and school funding is piss poor. In fact look at the National Right to Work Foundation map of the US and see if the weak unions are leading to bold new visions in education or if they're just shafting teachers and by extension students.
You seem to prefer a situation where people have to be able to afford to take a job teaching because they have some other independent means of sustaining their lives.
In fact, if you did decide to use cans and string, you could give them a task to complete that would reveal the problems with that system. Then you talk about what you do to fix it.
I think you need an analogy, and to make it work for elementary school children, they need to be the ones extending your analogy beyond the basic description. A good visual aid could be cans and string. If everyone in the room has a can (which you don't need to happen for your purposes, esp in 20 minutes) then it's easy to see how:
The strings between cans can get physically tangled.
If the strings are in contact, people's conversations get messed up.
How do you plan a surprise party if everyone can hear everything?
What if you forget something someone told you and want to hear it again?
The more of these complications they come up with (as opposed to you listing them) the better for their understanding.
Obviously this has limitations, or may not be sophisticated enough for the students. I don't really know. They may be pretty familiar with computers depending on their age and home life, but really people don't understand the network as an abstraction. But personally if I were teaching this (I teach high school) I would try to find some analogy and get them to extend it beyond the basics.
Also, there's a very wide range of cognitive development in the early grades. One presentation probably won't work for all grade levels. I couldn't tell what grade level you were addressing.
This is certainly not the case. The three letter agencies are increasingly staffed with contractors from private firms. The idea of selling intelligence collection to the private sector has been gaining ground since GHW Bush years, and really took off after 9/11. At that time, the government found that they had laid off all the analysts who could do the kind of cold war work they needed, and had to rehire them at several times their old rate. Estimates put the number of contractors at CIA (for example) at 70% of the budget. The budget is, of course, highly classified and we can't know for certain.
That's neither here nor there, but companies like Verizon wouldn't say no to a fat payday like they've been getting. In the name of corporate responsibility? Responsibility to anyone but their shareholders? If there hadn't been huge sums of money involved, Verizon wouldn't have cooperated with warrantless wiretapping programs in the first place.
As recently as last year, a study group comprised of executives from Booz Allen Hamilton, SAIC, and other intelligence contractors reached the conclusion that foreign and domestic intelligence operations need to be more interconnected than they have been in the past. Surprise, surprise, since it means they'll get a lot more work from the govt.
Music videos as a form have a lot of unnecessary crap in them. For example, Crash Here Tonight could just be the image of Toby Keith and co. playing the song, but instead he gets Heather Locklear to be in it. Different target audiences perceive success differently.
It sounds like you want a single player game. I'm kind of in the same boat as you.
The only item in your list that requires other people is the market forces portion, but even that could be pretty easily simulated for the purposes of a roleplaying game. I think the players you met in WOW were mostly trying to ignore the game world in favor of advancing their characters. It makes no difference whether you're inhabiting a breathing world if you run past it all as fast as you can.
I can't imagine there's no room for a Quark's restaurant these days. The thing is, if they decide to open that someplace else, I would never hear about it. The restaurant could very likely stand on its own without the ride before it. I'm trying to think of the city that would be most likely to bring such a restaurant enough traffic.
It's because the word "evolution" is used ambiguously to refer to both the observable fact of evolution and I guess the theory of natural selection. The fact that biological species evolve can be observed in bacteria or fruit flies. There can be different theories to explain these observations of evolution. No theory that denies the observed facts can have much credibility. Other posters have pointed out that the only theories that say evolution does not occur are found in religion, which demands they be accepted without proof.
I said "paraphrasing" because not everyone uses those exact words, but some do. Wait were you there?
You're the one projecting your view of the situation onto people. As an experiment, start talking about what goes on in slaughterhouses next time you're eating some of it. Describe the pain and suffering. Unless you take the Cartesian view that animals are simply cleverly constructed robots that don't feel those things.
For a better presentation of the moral failure, read "Hard to Swallow" by B. R. Myers.
The incidence of Mad Cow Disease in humans is just what Malcolm X would call "chickens coming home to roost."
It's very interesting to see so much moral outrage in defense of an industry that engages in heinous acts daily. The argument for eating meat is that the pleasure humans derive from animal flesh is more important than the pain and suffering caused by the methods used to obtain it. Survival is no longer relevant to the discussion. Maybe people see no moral issue there, but it's more likely that people see the moral issue and ignore it. I've talked about this with a great many people, and the vast majority simply stop me with, "oh I'd rather not know about that because then I'd feel bad about eating meat." I'm paraphrasing. This after they bring it up and ask me the questions. I never bring this shit up anymore, in real life.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually no at my school we have Java and AP Computer Science AB, neither of which I teach. The teacher is constantly recruiting for his computer science classes so that he doesn't get split between CS (his main interest) and teaching mathematics classes (my interest).
The Business department has computer literacy, computer applications, whatever the typing class is called, etc. I think they're the more popular classes because many kids at my school don't want the challenge of actually taking CS.
The game was so much more fun with a staff and some neat hand-to-hand action than it was with guns.
I hope the blazing sun knight and blackguard bring something unique. Right now, the tanking classes play a lot the same. I am, however, pleased with how they're implemented for PVP. Generally, tanks in pvp can be safely ignored because they do little damage as a tradeoff for being so durable. In WAR, it seems that the longer you leave a tank alive, the more powerful it gets.
In the case of the fifth amendment, the right is one of not incriminating oneself. The amendment does not allow a person, upon invoking their fifth amendment rights, to have the case and all other pending cases dismissed.
In the case of State's Evidence, immunity is granted in exchange for information that can be used to fight more serious crime. Here, the telecoms have obtained immunity in exchange for keeping information secret.
No, you're thinking of Discord Action Bars.
In our district, this is impossible as the districtwide tests are constructed by groups of teachers, and revised every year by groups of teachers. Some people know those tests like the back of their hands.
We'd need some kind of independent authority to come up with the tests like the College Board or some shit, and then set about studying all the past tests. I am in my first year of teaching AP Calculus 1, and I resent every second I have to spend on test taking strategy. Still, I guess it's better than if the test was known ahead of time and I was expected to spend more time on test taking. I'm torn between applauding that and opposing the privatization of certain portions of our curriculum. We're feeding the college board lots of money each year in the form of the fee students pay at our nonstop encouragement. I don't like selling my kids to the college board.
When there's an exam and a reward for doing well on the exam, people will get more money for teaching to the test than they would otherwise. Even if teachers don't want to do this to their students, there are forces greater than teachers directing education. For example, the Honors Algebra 2 curriculum includes a section on algebraic proofs. Commutative property, additive identity, inverse, stuff like that. The curriculum includes this but the district-produced midterm and final exam have no mention of any of that. One question I think on one test where you have to identify the property shown. As a result, the supervisors direct us not to emphasize it or even to skip it completely in favor of teaching more material that will appear on the SAT. Meanwhile the geometry teachers report great benefits to their students from having done some algebraic proofs with me before they spend more time on them in geometry. My kids don't do as well on the midterm as they would if I taught to those tests, and I do get taken to task for it, but I'm more concerned with their math education.
I'm kind of venting, but the upshot is that tying funding to some kind of measurement tool means that everyone is only going to do the things that are measured.
Frankly, a narrow focus on teaching mathematics is partly to blame for low attainment in mathematics. Studies show that better schoolwide physical education programs increase student achievement in the academic areas. I'm not talking about expanding extracurricular sports, I mean curricular phys ed programs that appeal to students and get them moving and exercising. There are also benefits to academic achievement from, say, learning an instrument or from studying martial arts.
This school year, I've been trying to incorporate some history of mathematics in my Algebra 2 and Calculus 1 classes, because it struck me that what we're doing is really math history. It's not like we're doing new math, just revisiting old results.
Back when I taught middle school in the late 90's, I used to hear a lot about creating interdisciplinary activities, projects, collaborating with teachers of other subjects. Maybe it's high school, maybe it's the education reform pendulum, or maybe it's the statewide tests, but I hardly if ever hear about that anymore.
Not to disagree, but it's very hard sometimes to know what to do with students who are smarter than I am. It's happened twice to me in 11 years that I've had students who are at or above my level and actually display it. Maybe I've had many students with better raw intelligence than I have but they have had the curiosity beaten out of them at school or home, or they're lazy or assheads. But when you do have those kids who are smarter, it becomes tricky. You have to:
not easy at all.
Usually, these kids do have something to learn from me, whether it's mathematics or not. Some of them just have to learn not to be assheads so they can realize their potential when they get to a more advanced setting, instead of pissing off (and on) people who are trying to help them.
Yeah if we could just fire teachers on a whim everything would be much better. In my school district, women mysteriously start getting bad evaluations around and after they turn 40. Let's untie the administration's hands so they can deal with this issue of female teacher aging.
Comparison to other countries is meaningless unless they start including all school age children in their tests of academic achievement.
Also, any school district that thinks they can address the needs of gifted and talented students with a separate facility is stupid or running a scam like you're talking about. GT is special education in just the same way as the rest of special ed and requires a very individualized approach, not a special school.
My student athletes have people skills all up and down the spectrum. Some of them do learn valuable lessons from sports such as how to take a loss and learn from it, how to work on a team, how to lead others to pursue a goal. Others are just playing a sport so they can hit people. Or else they learn above all an us-them mentality in which they always deserve to win, regardless of which team played better. I don't think your theory is correct that playing sports corresponds to having useful people skills.
Teaching is a thankless job with little to no incentive beyond the calling to teach. You have some weird cynical idea that teachers join the profession to milk as much as they can out of the system and have unionized to further that goal. Sit around all you want complaining about how students are getting exploited to line teachers' pockets. If some certain base level of representation and compensation isn't guaranteed by unions you see shit like in Georgia where education is so crappy that I can't even call it substandard, and I mean for students. People without children in the schools were upset that they had to pay for someone else's child so now they don't, and school funding is piss poor. In fact look at the National Right to Work Foundation map of the US and see if the weak unions are leading to bold new visions in education or if they're just shafting teachers and by extension students.
You seem to prefer a situation where people have to be able to afford to take a job teaching because they have some other independent means of sustaining their lives.
and then also I just read the title again and saw it was 4th graders
In fact, if you did decide to use cans and string, you could give them a task to complete that would reveal the problems with that system. Then you talk about what you do to fix it.
I think you need an analogy, and to make it work for elementary school children, they need to be the ones extending your analogy beyond the basic description. A good visual aid could be cans and string. If everyone in the room has a can (which you don't need to happen for your purposes, esp in 20 minutes) then it's easy to see how:
The more of these complications they come up with (as opposed to you listing them) the better for their understanding. Obviously this has limitations, or may not be sophisticated enough for the students. I don't really know. They may be pretty familiar with computers depending on their age and home life, but really people don't understand the network as an abstraction. But personally if I were teaching this (I teach high school) I would try to find some analogy and get them to extend it beyond the basics.
Also, there's a very wide range of cognitive development in the early grades. One presentation probably won't work for all grade levels. I couldn't tell what grade level you were addressing.
This is certainly not the case. The three letter agencies are increasingly staffed with contractors from private firms. The idea of selling intelligence collection to the private sector has been gaining ground since GHW Bush years, and really took off after 9/11. At that time, the government found that they had laid off all the analysts who could do the kind of cold war work they needed, and had to rehire them at several times their old rate. Estimates put the number of contractors at CIA (for example) at 70% of the budget. The budget is, of course, highly classified and we can't know for certain.
That's neither here nor there, but companies like Verizon wouldn't say no to a fat payday like they've been getting. In the name of corporate responsibility? Responsibility to anyone but their shareholders? If there hadn't been huge sums of money involved, Verizon wouldn't have cooperated with warrantless wiretapping programs in the first place.
As recently as last year, a study group comprised of executives from Booz Allen Hamilton, SAIC, and other intelligence contractors reached the conclusion that foreign and domestic intelligence operations need to be more interconnected than they have been in the past. Surprise, surprise, since it means they'll get a lot more work from the govt.
Read Spies for Hire by Tim Shorrock.
Music videos as a form have a lot of unnecessary crap in them. For example, Crash Here Tonight could just be the image of Toby Keith and co. playing the song, but instead he gets Heather Locklear to be in it. Different target audiences perceive success differently.
It sounds like you want a single player game. I'm kind of in the same boat as you.
The only item in your list that requires other people is the market forces portion, but even that could be pretty easily simulated for the purposes of a roleplaying game. I think the players you met in WOW were mostly trying to ignore the game world in favor of advancing their characters. It makes no difference whether you're inhabiting a breathing world if you run past it all as fast as you can.
Reopen Quark's!
I can't imagine there's no room for a Quark's restaurant these days. The thing is, if they decide to open that someplace else, I would never hear about it. The restaurant could very likely stand on its own without the ride before it. I'm trying to think of the city that would be most likely to bring such a restaurant enough traffic.
I found a source for this. That will come in handy if folks need to present this info to others.
It's because the word "evolution" is used ambiguously to refer to both the observable fact of evolution and I guess the theory of natural selection. The fact that biological species evolve can be observed in bacteria or fruit flies. There can be different theories to explain these observations of evolution. No theory that denies the observed facts can have much credibility. Other posters have pointed out that the only theories that say evolution does not occur are found in religion, which demands they be accepted without proof.
Here's the long answer by Stephen J. Gould.
I said "paraphrasing" because not everyone uses those exact words, but some do. Wait were you there?
You're the one projecting your view of the situation onto people. As an experiment, start talking about what goes on in slaughterhouses next time you're eating some of it. Describe the pain and suffering. Unless you take the Cartesian view that animals are simply cleverly constructed robots that don't feel those things.
For a better presentation of the moral failure, read "Hard to Swallow" by B. R. Myers.
The incidence of Mad Cow Disease in humans is just what Malcolm X would call "chickens coming home to roost."
It's very interesting to see so much moral outrage in defense of an industry that engages in heinous acts daily. The argument for eating meat is that the pleasure humans derive from animal flesh is more important than the pain and suffering caused by the methods used to obtain it. Survival is no longer relevant to the discussion. Maybe people see no moral issue there, but it's more likely that people see the moral issue and ignore it. I've talked about this with a great many people, and the vast majority simply stop me with, "oh I'd rather not know about that because then I'd feel bad about eating meat." I'm paraphrasing. This after they bring it up and ask me the questions. I never bring this shit up anymore, in real life.
Consensus? Only among (some?)Christians, who aren't numerous enough to form a consensus for humanity.