Schools as Organisations Essay Example for Free

Schools as Organisations Essay Outcome 1 1. 3) Explain the post 16 options for young people and adults. The opportunities for pupils aged 16 and over have traditionally been either to leave school and start employment, or to stay and continue with their education. Although many pupils do still choose one of these options, it is likely there will be more opportunities available as there has been an increased government focus on and funding of education for 14 to 19 year olds, and in particular a focus on reducing the number of young people not in education, and employment or training post 16. Under the old labour government it was that by the end of the September of the year that each young person leaves compulsory education, they will have a place in further learning available. The September guarantee was implemented nationally in 2007 and was later extended so that 17 year olds who have completed a short course or have chosen to leave the activity they selected on completing school will have the opportunity to extend their learning. The September guarantee Under the last labour government, the guarantee was the following: Full or part-time education in school, Sixth Form College, independent learning provider or Further Education College. An apprenticeship or programme-led apprenticeship, which must include both the training element and a job or work placement. Entry to employment. Employment with training to NVQ level 2 The reason behind these requirements is that by 2013, all pupils will be required to continue in education or training to at least 17 years of age. This does not mean that they will be required to remain in school, but they should be following one of the pathways above. It is possible that under the new government these may change.

We Must Reform College Sports Essay -- Argumentative Persuasive Argume

The current athletics systems in many large colleges are no longer beneficial to student-athletes or the academic premise the schools were founded under and are in need of intensive restructuring. Ernest Boyer, former president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching said, "I believe that the college sports system is one of the most corrupting and destructive influences on higher education" (1999). In fact, it is widely acknowledged that there is corruption by many college coaches in the areas of recruiting, eligibility, degree progress, and academic integrity of athletes. The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association), the national governing and accrediting agency for college athletics, possesses the duty of policing such offenses, but it is currently in a position to make huge profits off big-time sports, despite their continued claims of a non-profit status. The NCAA’s inconsistent enforcement of violations, seemingly based on the size of a progr am, has fueled many questions regarding the appropriateness of their role as a rules enforcement organization. The corruption by coaches and administrators, and academic ineligibility of many athletes has led people to wonder whether the amateur status of Division I athletes is still appropriate. The original intention of college athletics was to enhance the academic experience, and the NCAA came about due to the need to impose a set of regulations that would make college football safer. However, the big-time college sports of football and men’s basketball have become a multi-million dollar entertainment enterprise, and it appears that the NCAA has lost all concept of it’s mission: "to maintain intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the educ... ...ronicle of Higher Education, 47, A51-A52. Suggs, W. (2000). A professor’s challenge to sports at Tennessee. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46, A37-A38. Suggs, W. (2000). 10 years later, another look at big-time college sports. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47, A69-A70. Suggs, W. (2000). A decade later, sports-reform panel plans another look at big-time athletics. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46, A45-A46. Suggs, W. (2000). Knight commission gets an earful from critics of big-time college sports. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47, A54. Suggs, W. (2000). NCAA adopts rules changes aimed at curbing abuses in men’s basketball. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46, A54. Wyatt, J.B. (1999). Our moral duty to clean up college athletics. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 45, A56. http://www.NCAA.org/

Democracy Is the Best Form of Government

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.The term originates from the Greek (demokratia) â€Å"rule of the people†,[1] which was coined from (demos) â€Å"people† and (kratos) â€Å"power† in the 5th century BCE to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens; the term is an antonym to â€Å"rule of an elite. † The English word dates to the 16th century, from the older Middle French and Middle Latin equivalents.A democratic government contrasts to forms of government where power is either held by one, as in a monarchy, or where power is h eld by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy. Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy,[2] are now ambiguous because contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic elements. Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution. 3] Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic forms, both of which concern how the whole body of eligible citizens executes its will. One form of democracy is direct democracy, in which eligible citizens have direct and active participation in the decision making of the government. In most modern democracies, the whole body of eligible citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives; this is called representative democracy.The concept of representative democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during the European Middle Ages, the Age of Enlightenment, and the American and French Revolutions Definition While there is no universally accepted definition of â€Å"democracy,†[5] equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times. [6] These principles are reflected in all eligible citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes.For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its eligible citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution. [7][8] One theory holds that democracy requires three fundamental principles: 1) upward control, i. e. sovereignty residing at the lowest levels of authority, 2) political equality, and 3) social norms by which individuals and institutions only consider acceptable acts that reflect the first two principles of upward control and political equality. 9] The term â€Å"democracy† is sometimes used as shorthand for liberal democracy, which is a variant of representative democracy that may include elements such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government. [citation needed] In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a central attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant principle is that of parliamentary sovereignty (while maintaining judicial independence). citation needed] In other cases, â€Å"democracy† is used to mean direct democracy. Though the term â€Å"democracy† is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles also are applicable to private orga nizations. Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy. [by whom? ] Hence, democracy allows for political minorities to be oppressed by the â€Å"tyranny of the majority† in the absence of legal protections of individual or group rights. An essential part of an â€Å"ideal† representative democracy is competitive elections that are fair both substantively[10] and procedurally. 11] Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are considered to be essential rights that allow citizens to be adequately informed and able to vote according to their own interests. [12][13] It has also been suggested that a basic feature of democracy is the capacity of eligible voters to participate freely and fully in the life of their society. [14] With its emphasis on notions of social contract and the collective will of the eligible voters, democracy can also be characterized as a form of political collectivism because it is d efined s a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. [15] While democracy is often equated with the republican form of government, the term â€Å"republic† classically has encompassed both democracies and aristocracies. Democracy is the best form of government. Yes because†¦ Freedom Democratic states nearly always have freer people than autocratic states. They obviously have the right to vote for their government so by extension deciding the policy of their nation and what their nation should be like.They have more freedom of speech and expression than in autocracies. In particular they are free to criticise their own government. Represents the people The biggest virtue of Democracy is that it is government by the people for the people. The government represents the views of the people who elect them and can throw them out if the government does things that the people do not like. Unlike other forms of g overnment democracy is about the little man, everyone rather than the elite that are often disconnected from how everyone else lives their lives.Better governance due to transparency Democracy is as much about having checks and balances to the executive and having transparency of decision-making as it is about elections and the populace throwing governments out of power. In a democracy the parliament, the media and sometimes the judiciary all keep an eye on the executive and what is being done with the people’s money. They are therefore able to see if the executive is doing things that are detrimental to the country, are immoral, or even illegal. This can then be brought to a halt.Even where such actions are not visible on the surface there are separate institutions that have the power to investigate the executive and watch any ‘secret’ deals or actions that are going on away from public view. Respect of Human Rights Democracy as much it is understood, is the gov ernment of the people, by the people and for the people. If democracy is put at it appropriate performance, then, all facet of human rights is respected. The citizens would have the rights to exercise freedom of speech concerning the well-being of the populace in areas of the economy, education, health, infrastructural development, etc.Promotes Human Rights As much as Democracy is understood, it is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The ability of the people to have a voice in the running of the State, in the economy, health, education, infrastructural development, etc creates a bit-balanced environment for governance to thrive; this can only be achieved in a democratic governance. This is not the case. The most developed and richest countries are all democracies.While they may well have been developing their democracies during their initial industrialisation democracy and the freedom it brings is increasingly necessary for economic growth once the country has moved to being mostly dependent upon services rather than manufacturing or natural resource exploitation for economic growth. Once this occurs then creativity becomes important and the freedoms associated with democracy are needed to foster this creativity that is needed for industries such as information technology, creative arts, research and development etc.Democracy is the best form of government. No because†¦ Freedom Except for the freedom to choose the government there is no reason why people cannot be as free under an autocracy as in a democracy. Represents the people Democracy does not do very well at representing the people. In first past the post systems a government may not even have the support of a majority of those who voted not even including that many will not have votes and many more will not have the vote. This means that it is often a small minority of the population who determines which party gets in to government.Once they are there they are rarely rep resentative of the people as they have several years to do what they like. Yes they need to think about re-election but that simply means they need to do more that the people like than the people dislike (or else have a good advertising campaign). Better governance due to transparency While this is mostly found in democracy it is not something that has to be exclusive to democracies. Autocracies can potentially be transparent and have checks and balances they however often do not simply because an autocracy often has the time, and the willingness to use force to prevent these from occurring.Economic growth Autocracies are better at big projects, they can get things done and as such they are likely to be better at creating economic growth if they have the will. In an autocracy there are not the avenues for dissent that can block building projects, the police or troops can be used to clear protests that in the west would slow down large infrastructure projects. As a consequence of thi s all the infrastructure that is needed to create a modern economy can be produced quicker and cheaper than would be the case in a democracy.Also the resource base of the country can be accessed faster (no pesky environmentalists preventing drilling and mining! ) and used more efficiently. Increasingly about money In some countries democracy seems to be increasingly about money. The U. S. is the obvious example where millions are spent on elections with big events and glitzy advertising campaigns. This is not what democracy should be about and it discourages other countries from moving along the path to democracy. Indeed it undermines the very idea of democracy. Democracy when money is involved to the extent that it is in the U. S. A. ecomes elitist and corporatist because only the elite and rich businessmen can afford to fund the campaigns for congress let alone for the presidency. The 2008 campaign for the White House cost $1. 6 billion and the whole 2008 election including senate and house of representatives races cost $5. 3 billion. Autocracies obviously avoid this immense expense by avoiding elections. Is democracy the best form of government? Disagree : By Richard What if someone was in power who cared about the people, stood for the people, was in touch with the people and was not corrupted by the power that Dictatorship brought him.Yes, it seems unlikely but what if? We could have the ability to do more, faster with less red tape, paperwork, and continual discussion (as with a dictatorship) coupled with the freedoms of democracy. The problem is the people always believe the mob (majority) to be right. The truth is people are easily manipulated when in a crowd or together as a majority on an issue. It takes but one person to convince 10 000 that his conviction is the right one. Nevermind what the minority of free thinkers, academics, intellectuals, or revolutionaries have to say or have warned against. Political Ideology is not the problem.Humans are. W e are self-righteous, greedy, self-serving, destructive, and worst of all manipulative. People always point me to the selfless acts of others they have witnessed in order to prove me wrong on my previous statement. But the fact is these selfless people are in the tiny minority, or as with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, already have 10 houses, 4 cars, 2 security guards and a 10 mil bank account. â€Å"Giving† to the poor doesn't detract from their riches as they resupply their wealth with shares bought and sold or actually working. Thus, they aren't losing wealth. They simply aren't gaining more.We need the minority just as much as we need the majority. That minority of free thinkers, academics, intellectuals, and revolutionaries are the ones that changed the world. They brought us medicine, computers, a better understanding of science and space, but most important of all a curiosity for knowledge. Democracy should protect the rights of the minority more often than it does. We r ely too much on what the mob thinks, when in actual fact they don't think. They just regurgitate the drivel fed to them by some sob who knows how to manipulate the mob for his own profit. And that is the biggest problem facing democracy.How do you overcome the this human condition where if we are in large groups, emotion replaces logical thought? Disagree : By Prashanth I think there are better forms of government other than democracy. Dictatorship is not completely bad neither is democracy completely good. Consider this form of government– Instead of having bulky political parties why not have leaders of parties etc stand as candidates for the post of President/Prime Minister. The people can directly vote for them. Better still we could invite applications for this post from the citizens. Based on screening them for leadership track record,no criminal cases etc. e could select the top 5 or 10 most eligible candidates. People can select the candidate who is most popular/likab le for 5 years. He could then select experts from different sectors as ministers. He could hand pick distinguished people from different sectors as expert advisory group who could debate/discuss proposed laws. He can hand pick worthy local people for mayor position in cities/villages who should interact directly with people and pass immediate orders to solve their problems. He should have a citizens forum where people directly give ideas to the Prime Minister/President.The judiciary to oversee the constitutional validity of laws passed,Election Commission,Constitution and an ombudsman to check corruption etc all of them will be there. This form of government will cut flab,be efficient and agile. It will eliminate unworthy but popular people from getting elected. Also the people debating will be experts in their field. There is greater likelihood of better decisions. As it is today the party leaders only call the shots. Then why not have worthy leaders directly elected by the people. These leaders will keep a balance between expert opinion,constitutional provisions and public opinion.

Performance Based Pay for Teachers

Performance-based pay for teachers, or merit pay, is a trending educational topic. Teachers pay, in general, is often highly debated. Performance-based pay ties teaching components such as standardized test scores and teacher evaluations to a salary schedule. Performance-based pay originated from a corporate model that bases a teachers salary on job performance. Higher performing teachers receive more compensation, while lower performing teachers receive less. The Denver, Colorado school district may have the most successful performance-based pay program in the nation. The program, called ProComp, is seen as a national model for performance-based pay. ProComp was designed to impact critical issues such as student achievement, teacher retention, and teacher recruitment positively. The program has been credited with boosting those areas, but it does have its critics. Performance-based pay will likely continue to increase in popularity over the next decade. Like any educational reform issue, there are two sides to the argument. Here, we examine the pros and cons of performance-based pay for teachers. Pros Motivates Teachers to Make Improvements in the Classroom Performance-based pay systems offer teachers a reward based on meeting set performance measures typically tied to student performance. These measures are based on educational research and are a set of best practices intended to boost overall student outcomes. Many of the best teachers are already doing a lot of these things in their classrooms. With performance-based pay, they may be asked to take it a little above what they normally do, or it may motivate low performing teachers to get their acts together to receive their bonus. Provides Teachers With the Opportunity to Receive a Higher Salary People typically do not become teachers because of the salary. But, it doesnt mean that they do not want or need more money. Sadly, a relatively large number of teachers across the country are picking up a second job to keep their family afloat financially. Performance-based pay not only provides teachers with an option to make more money but also motivates them to meet targeted objectives while doing so. It is a win, win situation both for the teacher and their students. The teacher makes more money, and in turn, their students get a better education. Invites Competition Thus Raising Student Performance Performance-based pay creates competition among teachers. The better their students perform, the more money theyll receive. Higher outcomes translate to higher pay. Teachers are often competitive by nature. They want their fellow teachers to be successful. But, they also want to be more successful then them. Healthy competition pushes teachers to become better, which in turn boost student learning. Everyone wins when the best teachers work hard to stay at the top, and mediocre teachers work hard to improve enough to be considered one the best. Allows Bad Teachers to Be Removed Easier Many performance-based pay systems include components which enable principals to terminate teachers who continuously fail to meet goals and objectives. Most teacher unions adamantly opposed performance-based pay because of this element. Standard teacher contracts make it difficult to terminate employment, but a performance-based pay contract makes it easier to remove a bad teacher. Teachers who are unable to get the job done are replaced by another teacher who may be able to get things on track. Aids in Teacher Recruitment and Retention Performance-based pay can be an attractive incentive especially for young teachers who have a lot to offer. The opportunity for higher pay is often too compelling to pass up. To passionate teachers, the extra work is worth the higher salary. Also, schools offering performance-based compensation typically have no problems attracting top teaching talent. The pool is usually bottomless, so they can get quality teachers from the beginning. They also keep their good teachers. The best teachers are easy to retain because they are well respected and likely will not receive a higher salary elsewhere. Cons Encourages Teachers to Teach to Standardized Tests A large part of the performance-based pay objectives rests in standardized test scores. Teachers across the nation are already feeling the pressure to abandon creativity and originality and instead to teach to the tests. Attaching an increase in pay only amplifies that situation. Standardized testing is all the rage in public education, and performance-based pay just adds fuel to the fire. Teachers skip once celebrated teachable moments. They neglect valuable life lessons and have essentially become robots all in the name of passing a single test on a single day during the school year. Can Potentially Be Costly to the District School districts across the United States are already strapped for cash. Teachers on a performance-based contract receive a base salary. They receive a â€Å"bonus† for meeting specific objectives and goals. This â€Å"bonus† money can add up quickly. The Denver Public School District in Colorado was able to start ProComp thanks to voters who approved a tax increase that allowed them to fund the incentive program. It would have been impossible to fund the program without the revenue generated from the tax increase. School districts would find it exceedingly difficult to maintain the funds necessary to run a performance-based pay program without additional funding. Dilutes a Teacher’s Overall Value Most teachers offer much more than just the ability to meet learning objectives or goals. Teaching should be about more than just a test score. Ideally, teachers should be rewarded for the size of the impact they make and for making a difference in the lives of their students. Sometimes those qualities go unrecognized and unrewarded. Teachers have a powerful influence on their students, yet theyre relegated to ensuring that their students are going to pass a test. It skews the real value of a teacher when you only base the job they are doing on meeting student performance objectives.   Fails to Consider Factors Beyond a Teacher’s Control There are many factors beyond a teacher’s control that influence student performance just as much or more than any teacher will. Factors such as lack of parental involvement, poverty, and learning disabilities offer real hindrances to learning. They are nearly impossible to overcome. The reality is that teachers who sacrifice to pour into the lives of these students are often seen as bad teachers because their students do not meet the level of proficiency that their peers do. The truth is that many of these teachers are doing a far superior job than their peers who teach at an affluent school. Sometimes they fail to receive the same rewards for their hard work. Can Potentially Harm High-Risk Areas Every school is not the same. Every student is not the same. Why would a teacher want to teach in a school surrounded by poverty and have the cards stacked against them, when they can teach in an affluent school and have immediate success? A performance-based pay system would keep many of the best teachers from pursuing jobs in those high-risk areas because of nearly impossible odds to meet the performance measures needed to make it worth the while.