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.
Friday, 30 September 2011
Thursday, 15 September 2011
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.
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.
Friday, 9 September 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)