If I could be one living person for a day famous or not, who would I be?

If I could be one person, famous or not for one day I would be Taylor Swift. Taylor Swift is a singer and song writer since the age of 12, she's also been in movies, commercials, and on magazines. She has many fans that are supportive, and she's a very confident and genuine person. The reason I would want to be Taylor Swift is because, first of all she's my role model, I look up to her and she's an amazing person, and very inspirational. She's very hard working and very busy which makes her life even more interesting. She also has more than 8 million fans worldwide who look up to her, and on top of all that Taylor's extremely beautiful. So if I could be her for a day I think it would be fun.

My day as Taylor Swift would start like this, I would be staying in a hotel in LA, wake up at 6am take a shower, have breakfast, brush my teeth the usual things a person does in the morning. Around 7am I would head down to the recording studio where i would record a few songs since I haven't put out an album in about a year. Since recording in the studio takes a while I would leave around 12pm and greet some fans waiting for me outside the studio or around my hotel. After all the greeting and signing autographs I would go back to my hotel and follow back all my dedicated fans on twitter, and respond to all my letters I receive from fans. After the long hours of following back fans, and writing back to them, I would wash up and get ready for a family dinner at 5 star restaurant located in downtown LA called "Cafe La Boheme."When the nice dinner with my family is done I would head back to the hotel and get a good nights sleep.

After being Taylor Swift for a day, I do not think I'd be able to keep up with her celebrity success as a singer, song writer, and an inspiration to many fans, and still try to have a normal life, it's much harder than it seems. Taylor's very dedicated to what she does and she spends most of her day working and travelling. I don't even know how she has time for her family, or herself. Which is why it was fun for a day, but it's not something I could do everyday.

Snakes in Toilets summary/opinion

     Late Tuesday night, on October the 24th Ramdat Punwassie was in his 7 story apartment at 220 Woolner Ave. near Jane Street, and St.Clair Avenue West. He was going into the washroom and when he opened the lid to his toilet seat he found a snake in it. He immediately called 911. The same week another incident happened with a snake, in the same apartment.

If this happened to me, and I opened the toilet seat and found a snake in it I would freak out! I would freak out because I dislike reptiles, they're cool to look at in cages or tanks but if one's in front of me I would probably scream and run away. I freak out even if I see spiders, so anything bigger than a spider especially coming out of my toilet, I'd call 911 right away!

What i believe Nelly Furtado should have done with the million dollars from Quaddafi.

 I believe that Nelly Furtado did what was best. I think she did the right thing in giving the money to a charity and not back to Libya. First of all, Furtado was paid by the Quaddafi clan to sing for the family of the Libyan dictator Quaddafi. Therefore it's her money which means she could do whatever she wanted with it. Also, even though Quaddafi was a very cruel leader and the money given to Furtado was from the people in Libya doesn't mean it was wrong of her to take it because she was paid to do a certain thing which was preform for the Quaddafi family, and in return she got 1 million dollars. Another reason is, if Furtado gave it back to the new interim government of Libya they wouldn't necessarily use that money to help the people of Libya, they'd just keep the money for something else. And in the end the money didn't go to a bad cause either. It went to the charity "Free The Children."

 Also, Libya has a new interim government and the people of Libya will eventually get help from other countries. If  Quaddafi kept that money he'd have only used it for something non-helpful, so Furtado simply took the money and thought it through and put it towards a great cause. So i believe Furtado did do the right thing by giving the money away to charity instead of back to Libya.

How is this a public school system summary.

The article written by, Chris Selley talks about the differences between wealthy and poor schools. First of all wealthier schools raise more money from parents than public schools full or poor kids. Wealthier public schools that do massive fundraising raise up to $500 and even $1000 per student in one year. One of the main recommendations is banning parental donations to public schools, as long as the government will pay for all the funds. Another option is that they'd be better off leading with their plan B, which is pooling all parental donations and distributing them evenly throughout all the other schools so each school has the same amount of money. Also some schools exclude students from participating in any school activity or event based on the ability to pay, some activities or events may require some recovery of the cost for participation.

The top 10 fundraisers brought in $515 per student and got an average of 8.75 out of 10 rating. Where the top 10 schools in the Fraser Institute rankings all ranked 10 or 9.9 for raising an average of $164.45  per student. Also the bottom 10 fundraisers brought in $17 per student, and an averaged a 5.3 rating out of 10. When the bottom 10 schools in the Fraser Institute rankings had an average rating of 2.3 brought an average of $58.64 per student. Therefor there is by no means a connection between fundraising and academic achievement, as the top 10 ranked schools show. The most they raised was $234.86 per student, where 73 other schools raised more than that, and only 1 of the 10-out-of-10 schools was among the bottom 10 in TDSB fundraisers.

To me this shows that the schools with poorer kids can't pay for some school activities and events or certain things at school, like fundraisers because they don't have the money. Like in one year some schools can only raise up to $17 per student, where wealthier schools raise much more. This also gives me an idea that maybe some of the kids can't pay for certain things like fundraisers because they're living  in a bad neighbourhood, or maybe they're parent(s) can't pay for certain things because they either might not have a job, or have other things to pay for like basic needs for their families. Where as the wealthier schools are more fortunate and raise between $500 and $1000 per person in one year, which shows that these students are able to pay for certain things like school activities and events because their families can afford them. Also they probably live in a better neighbourhood than the poorer kids and they're parent(s) most likely have a decent job where they get paid a good amount of money.

In this case i don't think it's fair at all that some people might not be able to afford certain things therefore they're not allowed to participate in some activities, where the people who can afford certain things can. Also the fundraiser rankings show that some schools rankings are not accurate, or are unfair because some schools who earned more money than other schools we're rated lower then they were supposed to be which is wrong. People have always debated the importance of unequalness, but nobody denies the importance of education; in other words we debate on what's unfair but we should not debate on whether or not kids should get a proper education, and be included in school activities no matter how much money they have.

Would e-learning work in an elementary school?

E-learning would not work in an elementary school. First of all, the grades in an elementary school usually range between grade 1 through 8 which means e-learning would only most likely be used for the intermediate grades (which are grades 7 and 8), because they'd have a better understanding of it and how to basically do school online rather than the younger grades. Even though older grades might have a better understanding about e-learning and how it works, I don't necessarily thing it would be as good as being in a class only because it's basically a school online.

The problems with e-learning being an online school is that an elementary school for one, being at the ages from 6-14 it would be best to be around other students where you can ask questions out loud, state opinions, listen to answers, and do things orally and as a class instead of just getting information by using a computer, and having strangers give you answers. Also it's much longer and sometimes harder to find information over the Internet, then to have a teacher actually say things to you and explain them to you properly so you get a better understanding. Where the Internet sometimes doesn't explain things or clarify them properly. One more thing is that sometimes a computer can be distracting with online websites for example: Facebook, Twitter, MSN,Tumblr,YouTube etc. And if i was on a computer for class I wouldn't be able to resist listening to music, which could sometimes get distracting, or lead to even more distracting things. While in a normal class you aren't able to do any of that because you'll probably get into trouble which helps you focus on your work. And last but not least, I am in elementary school and I could never see my school or myself doing e-learning at my age. I'd much rather be in a classroom doing work and listening to a teacher then just doing everything on the computer to me it's boring and takes more time. So e-learning would not work in an elementary school.