No Child Left Behind vs. Inequalities Essay Example for Free

No Child Left Behind vs. Inequalities Essay The American educational system suffers from a wide disparity between the poor and rich schools in the country. Race relations is a prominent cause of the problem wherein the white-dominated school districts get the most funding and government support while non-white children live in poverty, academic underachievement, indifferent government officials and hopelessness. The No Child Left Behind Act seeks to lessen this disparity by equalizing governmental funding, ensuring a competent teaching workforce and instilling a system of accountability. However, like many other laws, No Child Left Behind has its shortcomings and needs re-examination and/or fine tuning to ensure its effectiveness. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the Issues in Jonathan Kozol’s Book Through the book Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools, Kozol (1991) made several noteworthy points such as (1) many schools in poverty-stricken areas have non-white children comprising the majority of their student populations, (2) poor, run-down schools in non-white neighborhoods view themselves as serving those children who have little value to the country, (3) students, school administrators, public officials and community residents have a shared feeling of hopelessness for their plight and nobody is willing to be accountable for the problem, and (4) increased funding for the poorest schools in America can make a difference if this is accompanied by a change in the society’s attitude (pp. 82, 114, 243). Former US President George W. Bush signed â€Å"The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001† into law on January 8, 2002 as part of his educational reform agenda (â€Å"No Child†, 2007). The Act sought for immense transformation in America’s K-12 education by underscoring four principles: (1) greater accountability for results, (2) increased flexibility and local control, (3) expanded options for parents, and (4) an emphasis on proven and effective teaching methods (â€Å"New Jersey†, 2006). The four principles are aligned with the areas of racial inequalities among schools as identified by Kozol (Check, 1992, p. 1) which include funding, governmental assistance, political support, buildings upkeep, quality of educators, availability of and funding for school supplies, extra-curricular facilities, overcrowding and accountability system (Warner, 2002, n. d. ). Extent of Effectiveness of the Act Some of No Child Left Behind’s remedies are more pronounced in student academic performance. Thompson and Barnes (2007) cite that albeit slow progress, NCLB yields favorable results in strengthening student academic achievement. For example, scores in mathematics among 4th and 8th graders from 2003 to 2005 increased nationwide with scores for Hispanic and African American students showing significant improvement in the same period. Further, 4th graders’ national average scores in reading improved while achievement gap between African American and Hispanic 4th graders narrowed slightly from 2003 to 2005 (p. 16). More than two-thirds of the states also reported that test scores disparity in terms of race, income, or language background has lessened or stayed the same (Rentner et. al. , 2006 as cited in Thompson and Barnes, 2007, p. 16). On the contrary, the mostly debated shortcomings of the law fall in three areas. First, its stringent assessment and reporting requirements forced educators to allocate instructional time in preparation for assessment thereby suppressing creative learning in the classroom. Secondly, the Department of Education has failed to immediately ensure and monitor that the states comply with the NCLB’s teacher quality provisions; this being done only two years after the effectivity of the law. Lastly, fund disbursements in some states primarily devoted to professional development were done without full consideration of effectiveness or content quality of the trainings (Thompson and Barnes, 2007, pp. 19-20). Conclusion In summary, the NCLB has laid the foundations for educational reform and academic equality but continuous evaluation is essential to make the law work for all. References Check, J. (1992). Book Review: Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Shools, by Jonathan Kozol. The Quarterly, 14 (3). Retrieved April 10, 2009, from http://www. nwp. org/cs/public/print/resource/1139 Kozol, J. (1991). Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools. New York: Harper Collins New Jersey No Child Left Behind. (2006). Retrieved April 10, 2009, from http://www. nj. gov/education/grants/nclb/

Collectivization and the Peasant Rebellion

Collectivization and the Peasant Rebellion Collectivization and the Peasant Rebellion Collectivization was one of Joseph Stalins policies in addressing the looming decline in food production in the Soviet Union. This policy, implemented from 1928 through 1940, involved the consolidation of farms from individual farmers into collective farms. Because of the collectivization policy, the Soviet Union experienced significant problems as the peasants opposed collectivization and as the government remained adamant in supporting the policy. Support from the Peasantry One of the main benefits of the collectivization policy was that the landless peasants would be able to experience significant improvements in their economic situations, especially when considering that the policy provided for increased involvement of the landless peasants in the farm activities. This was the major aspect of the policy that attracted the peasants to provide support for the establishment of collective farms. Another important consideration is that the collectivization policy was aimed at providing necessary information in order for decision-making at different government levels to be well-grounded. Such information was the main target of the government in controlling the collective farms, with the information being delivered or made accessible to decision-makers in the timeliest manner possible through the centralized structure of the collective farms. This means that the reach/ scope and effectiveness of the centralized collective farms could significantly contribute to the success of the governments efforts in increasing agricultural output. In this regard, it is arguable that one of the advantages of the collective policy was that it made decision-making more attuned to the current conditions of the Soviet Union. However, an important consideration is the structure of the Soviet Union this influenced how economic information on the collective farms could be disseminated among the de cision-makers at the different government levels. For instance, a centralized structure could readily allow for the dissemination of such information through just a singular effort. In the case of a decentralized structure (as was the case of the non-collective farms prior to the implementation of the policy), however, such information would have proven to be difficult to disseminate. This was important to consider, especially amidst the widely implemented combination of centralized and decentralized economic processes within the Soviet Union.[1] The structure of the centralized collective farms would have had to be well-adapted to this (generally) dual nature of the government for it to be utilized fully. From this perspective, if the structure of the centralized collective farms was indeed designed to support such nature, it would have allow decision-makers to be effective at making use of available information. In a decentralized government as in the case of the farms prior to the implementation of the collectivization policy, a properly configured structure would have allowed for the most appropriate way of allocating of resources. In addition, it would have helped decision-makers in assessing options and in implementing control over a variety of processes. The significance of the structure of the centralized collective farms was greater in the overall performance of the economy of the Soviet Union and its centralized operations. Since decentralization meant that many components produced different sets of information and were likely to make decisions based on such varying information sets, having centralized structure such as the structure of the centralized collective farms that comprehensively covered the government and the Soviet Union and its needs would have meant great improvements in making decision making among the different components well-organized and in harmony with each other. Having this done would have meant that the Soviet Union would be able to col1aborate its efforts, in spite of being decentralized. The challenge, however, was that the different components had different information outputs that did not necessarily conform to each other. The system would have had to make major adjustments to such information-processes before actually being able effectively implement the structure of the centralized collective farms. Under decentralization, there were a number of advantages that the peasants and government could use of when implementing the centralized structure of the collective farms. For instance, the costs of developing the centralized structure of the collective farms and implementing it were relatively lower than maintaining decentralized farms that could barely support the food needs of the Soviet Union. This was because of the â€Å"divided† nature of the system individual components of the system did not have to cover the entire Soviet Union, but only had to be connected to the system core Moscow.[2] In addition, the centralized structure of the collective farms in the economic environment of the Soviet Union at the time meant that the system could be customized in such a way that the specific needs of the individual components are addressed in the best possible way. Therefore, through the centralized structure of the collective farms in such a setting, the processes in the di fferent areas were maintained, thereby theoretically allowing for more efficient production. This, in turn, made the system considerably flexible as some areas could be made to function differently from the rest of the Soviet Union. The centralized structure of the collective farms allowed for more effective implementation of Soviet strategies. Theoretically, it also allowed the government to maintain or improve participation of peasants. Moreover, decision-makers in the different areas, even though having access to information regarding other areas, would still have maintained a sense of responsibility, considering that they were made to perform within their own areas in spite of having better access to the system information. Moreover, the centralized structure of the collective farms had the advantage of being theoretically more reliable. This was because of the use of different systems (or sub-systems) in the different areas. When a problem/ failure occurred in one sub-system, t he centralized structure of the collective farms would still remain functional in other sub-systems. The centralized structure of the collective farms also provided for responsiveness among the government offices. It is important to emphasize on the increased motivation/ satisfaction that, theoretically, peasants would have in such a setting peasants were theoretically encouraged to participate in processes and have a heightened sense of responsibility. Also, since the theoretically took into consideration the various needs of the different areas and not just those of the entire Soviet Union as a whole, theoretically, the decision-makers in the different areas would have been able to achieve improvements in their response times. Peasants Discontent and Its Parameters The main discontent of the peasants with the policy was that it took away land from peasants who already had land prior to the policy implementation, and it effectively decreased the income of the peasants in spite of the supposed improvements in the economic situations of the peasants. One of the parameters of the peasants discontent was their freedom to work on their own lands and on lands of their own choosing. The former farm system prior to collectivization is generally associated with democratic societies. This makes sense because the former farm system prior to collectivization required individual freedom and control of resources, properties and means of production. It is arguable that the framework of democracy was the most appropriate for the former farm system prior to collectivization at least at the village level. In contrast, communism and socialism imposed by the collectivization were not typically associated with democracy, especially when considering that communism an d socialism prohibits individual ownership and control of the economys means of production. As a result, the former farm system prior to collectivization could not exist in purely communist or purely socialist economic systems.[3] It is important to note that the former farm system prior to collectivization was characterized by three main aspects: (a) private ownership, (b) individual economic freedom, (c) competition among farming entities. In terms of private ownership, the entire village accepted and accommodated private ownership. This meant that, in such an economy, resources such as land, as well as the means of production and goods and services were privately owned at the village level by individual members of the society, by groups or entities like partnerships or families. In terms of individual economic freedom, the former farm system prior to collectivization allowed individual members of the villages to pursue their own interests to achieve certain economic goals. This meant that in such a situation, the individual peasants were allowed and accommodated to act for personal gains. Considering that individuals were free to go for whichever occupation they desired, the former farm system prior to coll ectivization was frequently referred to as an enterprise system within the socialist Soviet Union.[4] In terns of competition among farming entities, the former farm system prior to collectivization allowed and accommodated individuals and groups to compete against each other. This aspect of the former farm system prior to collectivization was actually an offshoot of individual economic freedom at the village level people competed against each other because of their desire to accomplish their personal economic interests in a system where resources and, thus, economic opportunities were limited. These three aspects were important factors that contributed to the discontent of the peasants and that distinguished the former farm system prior to collectivization from the collective farming villages upon implementation of the policy. In the new collective farm structure, there was no individual economic freedom, no private ownership and no economic competition among individuals or groups of individuals. In such an economy, there was no private ownership. The main positive effects of the former farm system prior to collectivization were as follows. It supported individual freedom. It also allowed for individual control of resources and properties at least at the village level. This prevented the government (or a few individuals) to control economic resources and properties. Overall, the former farm system prior to collectivization was a dominant factor in the Soviet Unions situation during the implementation of the collectivization policy. In contrast, the new structure of the collective farms entailed economic equality. Peasants were compelled to work, with their efforts ideally being pooled together to be distributed equally among the people. In terms of productivity, the people were theoretically encouraged to be more productive. Socialist and communist strategies (agenda) were similar in that they consider the people as the origin of power. However, they also differ in terms of how such power is utilized and maintained, and in terms of how the people have control of such power once it has already been given to the ruler(s). The new structure of the collective farms meant that the landed peasants would lose their properties, that the landless peasants would gain access to farmlands but lose their economic freedom, and that the farming villages would be subjected to the control of Moscow, mainly for the benefit of the densely populated cities of the Soviet Union. The new structure of the collective farms also meant that, with the aim of increasing overall economic efficiency, there was the very realistic risk of the government making reduced payments to the peasants in spite of the peasants increased agricultural output. Uprising Effectiveness, Expectations of Peasants and Overall Outcome The peasant uprising was effective in the sense that it effectively counteracted the collectivization policy. For instance, the Soviet Union as a whole experienced decreased agricultural output because the peasants refused to the work in the farms.[5] This is completely opposite the initial goal of the collectivization policy, which is to increase agricultural output to support the growing demand of the Soviet Union, especially in urban areas where populations were concentrated.[6] One of the main reasons for the effectiveness of the uprising was that the peasants expectations of maintained or increased income were not met by the collective farms. In fact, many of the peasants experienced decreased income because of the collectivization policy.[7] The result of such failures can be observed in the situation of the Soviet Union by the late 1930s. For instance, large-scale collectivization and the reaction of the peasants resulted in major changes in the effectiveness of Soviet Unions institutions especially at the level of the villages. Such collectivization policy did not necessarily have the power or strength to be successful at being effective, in spite of the fact that the policy was supported, theoretically, by the socialist economic system that framed the economic activities of the villages in general.[8] In fact, the results of the collectivization policy indicate that such policy was met with significant opposition, such that support for the collectivization policy was utterly uncommon throughout the Soviet Union in spite of the outright and well-known mandate of the government for the establishment of the collective farms. The opposition exhibited by the peasants in the villages can be considered akin to the Soviet Unions transition into a state where small democratic institutions are accommodated at the village level. Democratic movements have been making some progress at the time, but they are still weak against the large communist government.[9] In addition, perhaps more importantly, the actions of the Soviet Unions government actually resulted in attention being shifted towards the government and its policies and actions.[10] This led to increased criticism of the Soviet Union government and the policies it implemented. However, movements against the communist autocracy were very difficult, in spite of the large scale refusal of the peasants to work in the collective farms. Thus, this implies that the problems experienced by the Soviet Union during the collectivization of the farms were attributable to the Soviet Unions nature of government. Such problems were very complex and difficult to address by way of movements or activities similar/ related to the collectivization.[11] In this regard, the overall outcome of the peasant uprising was the decline of agricultural production of the Soviet Union and the eventual failure of the collectivization policy. It should be noted that the Russian communist government was the principal reason behind the difficulty in addressing problems of autocracy and problems in sustaining the collectivization policy. For instance, in spite of changes in power distribution within the Russian government, the communist central government remained strong and powerful in addressing challenges and oppositions.[12] The Russian communist government actually had not changed much in terms of influence and thus remained the major obstacle to any democratic move or any move that counters the Russian communist governments initiatives and decisions, even at the lowest levels of the villages. Because of this maintenance of power, the central government was able to impose restrictions on the population even when such restrictions were against the desires of the peasantry. For instance, by controlling the farms at the village level, the Russian central communist government believed that it would be more able to control localities and effectively implement reforms for growth, especially in the agriculture and food supply.[13] Because of its power and the lack of strength of opposition, the central government readily and extremely limited the population in spite of changes in the economic conditions throughout the country. Such strength and apparent lack of flexibility undermined the growing problems linked to the peasant uprising. As a result, the inflexibility of the Russian government contributed to the eventual failure of the collectivization policy. Nonetheless, in spite of the power and oppression that the government exerted on the people in the villages, it was actually suffering from unapparent problems in maintaining central control as well as discipline, especially among the communities involved in the collectivized farms.[14] This made Moscow prone to problems in maintaining the system of government throughout the country, which, in turn, made the government unable to properly, completely and effectively enforce the collectivization policy. This also points out that need for Moscow then to examine large-scale and comprehensive reforms and their effects on the economy. An important part of the situation of the Soviet Union during and immediately after the implementation of the collectivization policy was the transformation of the Russian communist government into a major facilitator of the reform.[15] This is important because the Russian government did not properly accommodate the expectations and needs of the peasantry. There was no effective means of establishing a system that checks and balances on all institutions involved in the collectivization policy, such that there were conflicts of interests among the different offices involved in the collectivization policy, as well as between the government and the peasantry in general. The Russian communist government was then already trying to transform itself into an entity that is more understandable and acceptable to the population through the collectivization policy, which undoubtedly attempted to consider the needs of the growing population as well as the needs of the landless peasants.[16] Another principal consideration for Soviet Unions reforms was its legal system at the time of the implementation of the collectivization policy. In the past, the actions that were made in this system were practically determined by the central government. Thus the system was able to deeply enroot itself into the Russian society. The negative things about this characteristic of the government was that, under communist totalitarian government, power was unlimited, party power was permanent, and the leaders power was indivisible.[17] In addition even if the Russian communist government took on a reversal of action, this would not mean any change in the totalitarian power structure. Such inflexibility, as mentioned earlier, contributed to the eventual failure of the collectivization policy. Because of its strong persistence even to the late 1930s and after the failure of the collectivization policy, this central autocracy had to be dealt with if the country was to sustain its economic pace through reforms in the legal system. The historical task that faced Soviet Union was to create a society under the rule of law, in spite of the increased economic lawlessness of the peasants who refused to work in the collective farms. The path to such a society was a legal one, not an illegal one.[18] However, courts were not independent.[19] There still needed to be some big struggles to be faced in order for the system to be changed in favor of economic and socio-political reform for the benefit of the population. This was important because the legal path was an effective method of struggle towards properly addressing the needs of the Soviet Union.[20] It should be noted though that, in spite of apparent stagnancy and decline resulting from the collectivization policy, the Russian legal system has already exhibited significant changes alongside the decline of the economy upon implementation of the collectivization policy.[21] All these emphasize the complexity that the Russian government actually faced in trying to mold the Soviet Union into a growth-conducive society. Regarding the nature of Soviet Unions system of corruption, it is important to note that corruption was built into the fabric of Russian society such that removing it would have resulted in problems at the basic levels of government and public service.[22] Thus, there was a compelling case that essentially establishes that, probably, to some extent, the Soviet Union would have had to continue addressing the need for growth-conduciveness without actually eliminating corruption and peasant opposition comprehensively at such a large-scale. Analysis and Conclusion Regarding the establishment of collective farms in Russian villages, the problems faced by the Russian government was on the autocracy and the delegation of â€Å"power† to the villages through to ensure proper implementation of collectivization.[23] Through collectivization, the village people are deprived of their power and are compelled to give up their properties for the benefit of populations that the government considered fit for allocation of the produce from such properties. By the end of the 1930s, the country already had large scale implementation of collectivization in villages throughout all its territory. However, in spite of the general interest that such an implementation has gained from critics and analysts around the world, the Russian government was actually having problems with the implementation. The principal issues to consider in the implementation of collectivization in the Soviet Union were as follows: (1) whether or not this collectivization policy would influence lawlessness and rebellion exhibited by villages; (2) whether or not the resulting structure of the collective village farms would function as agents for suppressing village resistance to state initiatives or, on the contrary, as supporters of such resistance; (3) whether or not it is possible to establish a peaceful and beneficial coexistence between the Russian Government and the collective farm structures in the villages; and (4) whether or not the people were actually inclined to accept and participate in the collective farms. In effect, there needs to be an examination of such issues, especially in terms of the objectives of the policys implementation and how it was that the resulting collective farm structures in the villages could be established realistically. The problems and results of the collectivization policy were discussed and analyzed, especially from the perspective of the state government as well as the perspective of the peasants. The bases used for such analysis are considerably robust and makes use of earlier literature on Russian sociology and politics. This paper addresses the issues involved in the implementation and failure of the collectivization policy, with Russian socio-politics as the foundation for the analysis. It is concluded that village opposition and freedom in economic activities was difficult to attain, given the state of government (or lack of it) in the villages at the time the collectivization policy was implemented. However, it was not impossible, especially when considering the economic boom that influenced even to a small extent the villages. Overall, the collectivization policy was a failure because it did not consider all of the needs and expectations of the peasants, and because the uprising of the peasants resulted in a decline in agricultural output, which was completely opposite to the agricultural and economic improvement goals of Stalins collectivization policy for the Soviet Union. Bibliography Allilueva, A. 1946. Vospominaniia. Moscow: Apin. Conquest, R. 1989. Stalin and the Kirov Murder. New York: Free Press. Deutscher, I. 1968. Stalin: A Political Biography. London: Sage. Fotieva, L.A. 1964. Lenin. Moscow: Apin. Hingley, R. 1974. Joseph Stalin: Man and Legend. London: Sage. Jonge, A. 1988. Stalin and the Shaping of the Soviet Union. New York: Free Press. Kaminskii, V., Vereshchagin, I. 1939. Detstvo I iunost vozhdia: dokument y, zapiski, rasskazy. Molodaia gvardiia, no. 12, 1939. Khrushchev, N.S. 1989. Stalin. Vospominaniia, 28, 9-15. Krivitsky, W. 1939. In Stalin s Secret Service. London: Sage. Lewin, M. 1968. Lenins Last Struggle. New York: Free Press. Medvedev, R. A. 1969. Let History Judge: The Origins and Consequences of Stalinism. New York: U. Binding. Nicolaevsky, B. 1965. Power and the Soviet Elite. New York: Ann Arbor. Orlov, A. 1953. The Secret History of Stalins Crimes. New York: Free Press. Rayfield, D. 1976. The Dream of Lhasa: The Life of Nikolay Przhevalsky. Athens: Ohio. Slusser, R. M. 1987. Stalin in October. London: Sage. Souvarine, B. 1939. Stalin: A Critical Survey of Bolshevism. New York: Read Books. Triymfi, I.V. 1956. Stalin: Politicheski Portret. Moscow: Apin. Tucker, R. 1974. Stalin as Revolutionary. New York: Free Press. Ulam, A. 1973. Stalin: The Man and His Era. New York: Viking Press. Volkogonov, D. 1973. Stalin. New York: Free press. [1] Kaminskii, V., Vereshchagin, I. 1939. Detstvo I iunost vozhdia: dokument y, zapiski, rasskazy. Molodaia gvardiia, no. 12, 1939. [2] Krivitsky, W. 1939. In Stalin s Secret Service. London: Sage. [3] Souvarine, B. 1939. Stalin: A Critical Survey of Bolshevism. New York: Read Books. [4] Allilueva, A. 1946. Vospominaniia. Moscow: Apin. [5] Orlov, A. 1953. The Secret History of Stalins Crimes. New York: Free Press. [6] Triymfi, I.V. 1956. Stalin: Politicheski Portret. Moscow: Apin. [7] Nicolaevsky, B. 1965. Power and the Soviet Elite. New York: Ann Arbor. [8] Deutscher, I. 1968. Stalin: A Political Biography. London: Sage. [9] Lewin, M. 1968. Lenins Last Struggle. New York: Free Press. [10] Medvedev, R. A. 1969. Let History Judge: The Origins and Consequences of Stalinism. New York: U. Binding. [11] Ulam, A. 1973. Stalin: The Man and His Era. New York: Viking Press. [12] Volkogonov, D. 1973. Stalin. New York: Free press. [13] Hingley, R. 1974. Joseph Stalin: Man and Legend. London: Sage. [14] Tucker, R. 1974. Stalin as Revolutionary. New York: Free Press. [15] Rayfield, D. 1976. The Dream of Lhasa: The Life of Nikolay Przhevalsky. Athens: Ohio. [16] Slusser, R. M. 1987. Stalin in October. London: Sage. [17] Ibid, 37. [18] Jonge, A. 1988. Stalin and the Shaping of the Soviet Union. New York: Free Press. [19] Ibid, 9. [20] Ibid, 36. [21] Conquest, R. 1989. Stalin and the Kirov Murder. New York: Free Press. [22] Ibid 98. [23] Khrushchev, N.S. 1989. Stalin. Vospominaniia, 28, 9-15.

Importance of Toys for Child Creativity and Development

Importance of Toys for Child Creativity and Development Introduction Nowadays, there are a lot of newborn baby and children in world. Average one year of newborn baby in Malaysia was 20.41 out of 1,000 population. Kids need toys and plays to entertain them and learn things. So I do believe that when we were young, we used to spend a whole day long sitting in the middle of living room playing toys with brother and sister. Inmy childhood of 90s,we play toy soldier, lego, dolls, puzzle, masak-masak (it means cooking in Malay language) and etc. Playing was fun. We can turn our toys to be anything that we want it to be. This is where we can slowly build up and develop our creativity through toys and absorb to brain. And nowadays we can see that a lot of kids hanging Ipad in anywhere along with parents. No matter they were pooping, shopping, or eating, It has becomes an essential for them, not only for kids, It is also an important source of relaxation and stimulation for adults too. Besides, a lot of adult used IPad in their work too. Play is part of their job, part of learning, to work through difficult situation, to gain experience and life skill. They could practice the basic life skills through playing or toys. In this research, I am going to write about howtoys and playscan influence kids to become creative. Objective The purpose that I doing this research is to know how important of toys can leading kids to be success in their life, to be able think creatively, to guide the world into global thinking, to find out how important of creativity. Hypothesis If toys canmake a kid to be happy, then it can be a learning tool as well. Keywords: toy, play, creativity, kids, the impact of toy on children. 1.1 Research Question 1. How important of toys to the kids? 2. How important of creativity to us in the future? 1.2 Literature Review Every kids is an artist, the problem is how to maintain an artist once you grow-up ( Pablo Picasso 1973). If children are an artist, what to do to maintain them? To become an artist have to train since they are kids. Kids are quicker to learn anything than adults because kids mind are still fresh and brain is still forming (Jandy Jeppson with Judith A. Myers-Walls and Dee Love 2006 ). Kids can absorb massive amounts of information in all the way while they are five was confirmed by ( Dr. Robert Leston and Patrice Bending 2008 ).Toysare an essential way to kid’s learning by ( Matt Damon 2009 ). Besides, children were found they were more active when they were playing toys compare with they were not playing toys or boxes (Fedateal 2011). Some of the parents think that toys arejust an object for kids to play with. They does not know how important of a toy can develop and influence kid’s mind. Toys designed not only for having fun but it was somehow to strengthening their m inds and bodies. Children are always uncreditable creative, so toys always the best choice for children to develop creativity thinking by( Andrea Atkinson 2005 ). To work out with toys, the firstthing we must know is how to choose a right toy for our children. When we are planning to buy a toy, we should concern about our kid’s personality, interest, like or dislike and check out for the toy safety standard, but not just simply buy it by ( Alvin Eden, MD 1998 ). So we suggest that parent should buy toys that are not directly tied to the particular theme. By this way, it will help children to think and show out their imagination to the new toys and playing situations by ( Keith Sawyer 7th December 2005 ). Is creativity important? Yes, Is important because creativity is creation, experimenting, growing, adventure, making mistake and having fun said by ( Mary Lau Cook 2008 ). ( Steve Jobs ) also said that creativity is linking two different thing so that it will become an unique invention. Every kidis born with creative potential. In order to make kids think creatively, Parents should encouraging and nurturing their kids with patience. Besides that, we should make sure those toys are creatively designed instead of just simply buying a toy. There is some of the basic example of toys likes, books, art and craft, musical toys to make noises with, clay or role play toys that you can choose for( Marilyn Lopes October, p. 3 ). Theoretical Framework Table above has shown the nine stages of Psychosocial Development. ( Erik H. Erikson and Joan Erikson ). It has explained the nine stages of human developing from infancy to late adulthood. In the stage of Initiative vs. guilt which means kids are in age of 4 to 5, they are started to feel curiosity on everything. We should foster their curiosity and the sense of adventure in kid’s learning stage. Trying to play with toys and answer their question to let them learn or parents can play belong with them such like pretend play. This could make them learn the imagination. Research Methodology Research Strategy I am using different kind of techniques like observations, interviews and surveys, I would like to examine on play based learning in individual participants and apply to ethnographic data on it. I will prepare some surveys and questionnaires, and having a 10 minutes of the interview to the couple or parents to answer my questions. Besides that, i will arrange the kids who are from those parents that i having interview for having fun with toys and i will asking them some of the ideas and thoughts from them for helping me to complete my research. I will be choosing some specific toys such like wooden blocks or lego. I will also ask for their opinion if they like or dislike the toys and ask for their reasons. Through the data collect by surveys, I will choose to analyze the facts by using qualitative research. In last, I also will use literature review in helping me to understand this topic more and to support my research. Audience Social Contexts My target audience would be those couple who just married and ready to have a baby and parents that have little kids at home. Why my target audience would be them? Because for new born parents they have no experience in choosing children’s toys. My research would be a guide for them. Design Contexts My design context in my research is purposely for education.Because toys can be separate to different types. Example like books, musical toys and so on. So children can learn through this kind of stuff. But Besides education, it is also a guide to the parent and couple who ready to have a baby. Toys can said is an important play to our children or kids. Why we said so? Because a good toy it will help our children to point out their abilities. A good toy can develop and influence our children’s thinking, their interest and even children’s creativity. In my research, it related to art and design. Toy can branch out a kid or children’s creativity, their playing situation and their playing performance. From this way parent can know that what are their children’s interest, like or dislike. Besides, toy also can release stress and enjoy the happy hour with children. Last but not least, Toy and play are related and connecting with art and designs. Key Terminology I would be choosing qualitative research for my key terminology. I will try to make a survey and pass out to the couples who are just get married and parents from age 25-35 to gather up the needed details for my qualitative research. Ethical Consideration Toys are much more useful than just being influence creativity. There are a lot of advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of playing toy are letting your kids have a chance to play with sibling or friends. It can make you stay close with your friendship or even meet some new friends too. Besides that, it can reduce stress too, although kids normally don’t have too much of stress, but when parents play along with their kids, they can connect with their kids, reduce the stress from working and the most important is can closer relationship between kids and parents. Summary In summary, Toys are bringing enjoyment and happiness to kids. It can be a learning tool that could lead your kids to be success in their life too. Toys could enhance kids’ cognitive behavior and stimulate creativity. It helps your kids to develop their mind to be creative, share their thoughts and idea to guide the whole world into the new era. Kids are our future, nurturing them when they are kids.

The Magic Of Chaos By Peter Carroll :: essays research papers

The Magic of Chaos Crowley certainly helped put the boot in against monotheism but the process was already well advanced. Science, which had basically evolved out of renaissance magic, had more or less finished monotheism as a serious parasite on advanced cultures. Crowley was enthusiastic about science and appropriately so for his era, but in the work of Austin Spare we begin to detect a certain foreboding. However it is Spare's work that appears more austere and scientific when compared to some of Crowley's more baroque symbolic extravagances. Spare rejected the classical symbologies of forgotten ages and sought the magic of his own personal arcana. Using the minimum of hypotheses he evolved a magic from his own racial memories and subconscious. Independently of complex systems he developed effective techniques of enchantment and divination requiring only ordinary language and pictures. Spare's work forms the bridge between an older style of magic brought to fruition by Crowley (which derived most of its appeal, power and liberating potential from its religious style of anti-religion) and the new magic. The new approach is characterised by a kind of scientific anti-science. This is increasingly becoming known as Chaos Magic. It would be no more useful to dub Chaos Magic as pseudo-science than it would be to dub Crowley's ideas as pseudo-religion. It is astrology as it is normally practised that is mere pseudo-science much as satanism and freemasonry are pseudo-religion. Chaos Magic attempts to show that not only does magic fit comfortably within the interstices of science but that the higher reaches of scientific theory and empiricism actually demand that magic exists. This is somewhat analogous to the way in which many religious theories implied the possibility of theurgic or demonic magic. The best magic has always had a strong antinomian flavour. The most remarkable magicians have invariably fought against prevailing cultural norms and obsessions. Their victories represent not only a personal liberation but also an advance for humanity. History bequeaths us no records of the renegade shamanist magicians who must have brought about the advent of paganism, but we know a little of the anti-pagan magicians who created monotheism: Akhenaton, Moshe, Gautam, and so on. As monotheism became a steadily more repressive and obscene force, a new generation of magicians arose and fought it. Some fought too openly and were destroyed; others were more subtle and planted effective seeds of destruction on a purely philosophical level, and others hastened its destruction by taking theological and theurgical ideas to outrageous conclusions. The roll of honour is here much larger, including such notables as Gordiano Bruno, Cornelius Agrippa, John Dee, Cagliostro, Eliphas Levi, and recently, The Magic Of Chaos By Peter Carroll :: essays research papers The Magic of Chaos Crowley certainly helped put the boot in against monotheism but the process was already well advanced. Science, which had basically evolved out of renaissance magic, had more or less finished monotheism as a serious parasite on advanced cultures. Crowley was enthusiastic about science and appropriately so for his era, but in the work of Austin Spare we begin to detect a certain foreboding. However it is Spare's work that appears more austere and scientific when compared to some of Crowley's more baroque symbolic extravagances. Spare rejected the classical symbologies of forgotten ages and sought the magic of his own personal arcana. Using the minimum of hypotheses he evolved a magic from his own racial memories and subconscious. Independently of complex systems he developed effective techniques of enchantment and divination requiring only ordinary language and pictures. Spare's work forms the bridge between an older style of magic brought to fruition by Crowley (which derived most of its appeal, power and liberating potential from its religious style of anti-religion) and the new magic. The new approach is characterised by a kind of scientific anti-science. This is increasingly becoming known as Chaos Magic. It would be no more useful to dub Chaos Magic as pseudo-science than it would be to dub Crowley's ideas as pseudo-religion. It is astrology as it is normally practised that is mere pseudo-science much as satanism and freemasonry are pseudo-religion. Chaos Magic attempts to show that not only does magic fit comfortably within the interstices of science but that the higher reaches of scientific theory and empiricism actually demand that magic exists. This is somewhat analogous to the way in which many religious theories implied the possibility of theurgic or demonic magic. The best magic has always had a strong antinomian flavour. The most remarkable magicians have invariably fought against prevailing cultural norms and obsessions. Their victories represent not only a personal liberation but also an advance for humanity. History bequeaths us no records of the renegade shamanist magicians who must have brought about the advent of paganism, but we know a little of the anti-pagan magicians who created monotheism: Akhenaton, Moshe, Gautam, and so on. As monotheism became a steadily more repressive and obscene force, a new generation of magicians arose and fought it. Some fought too openly and were destroyed; others were more subtle and planted effective seeds of destruction on a purely philosophical level, and others hastened its destruction by taking theological and theurgical ideas to outrageous conclusions. The roll of honour is here much larger, including such notables as Gordiano Bruno, Cornelius Agrippa, John Dee, Cagliostro, Eliphas Levi, and recently,

Euthanasia Essay: The Hemlock Society and Assisted Suicide

Hemlock Society, Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Dori Zook, Hemlock Society public relations director, claims that Hemlock supports legalization of physician- assisted death only in cases of terminal illness. And Hemlock's website asserts that the Society favors physician-assisted suicide strictly for someone "who is already in the dying process." But there is a glaring discrepancy between this official stance and what prominent members of Hemlock have said and done. For example, there is this little gem from Hemlock co-founder Derek Humphry's book, Final Exit: "What can those of us who sympathize with a justified suicide by a handicapped person do to help? When we have statutes on the books permitting lawful physician aid-in-dying for the terminally ill, I believe that along with this reform there will come a more tolerant attitude to the other exceptional cases." Or take the actions of Hemlock leaders in the case of Elizabeth Bouvia. Writing about the Bouvia case, Humphrey expressed Hemlock's support of the right to voluntary euthanasia for "a person terminally ill, or severely handicapped and deteriorating...." Hemlock Quarterly 14 (1984). But Ms Bouvia was not "deteriorating." Cerebral palsy is not degenerative. The open-ended term "deteriorating" can be made to mean almost anything in order to justify a disabled person's suicide. Bouvia's lawyers, led by Richard Scott, another co-founder of Hemlock, distorted the nature of her disability, likening her to a terminal patient. "Were Plaintiff Bouvia an 84-year-old woman whose life was prolonged solely by various tubes and numerous machines," they argued in the Riverside Superior Court, "and she sought to end such an existence, it is doubtf... ...rejudice against people with disabilities, they must publicly denounce Jack Kevorkian's bigotry. The statements and actions noted above are neither stray, nor taken out of context. RTD leaders, time after time, have demonstrated the same willingness to promote this final "solution" to the problems of people with disabilities. Taken together, these words and deeds mark a clear and consistent pattern of promoting assisted suicide for people with disabilities. Why, then do RTD leaders now claim to advocate a narrower application of assisted suicide? Perhaps they tailor their message depending on the immediate political climate and who they think is listening. For the benefit of all of us who are listening, we call on Hemlock, its leaders, and allies to come forward with boldness and honesty to clearly state their complete agenda.

Art :: essays research papers

World Cultures Baroque Art Essay During the Baroque period, new ideas and views of society and of religion spurred up. To express these new ideas many artists used the ideas of past artists to further expand their own motives. " If I have seen further (than you and Descartes), it is by standing upon the shoulders of Giants." Sir Isaac Newton, 1676 The artists of the baroque period were using past ideals as a ladder to the prevalent and the gallant. Four pieces of art that exceplified the usage of the great minds of the past were; The Rape of the Sabine Women by Nicholas Poussin, The east faà §ade of the Louvre Palace, The View of Delft by Jan Vermeer and The Palace of Versailles. The magnificent artwork of Nicholas Poussin shows the mixture of Roman architecture and ideas. He copied the body sculptures and the basilicas of ancient Rome and added them to his medium of oil. Poussin traveled to Roman museums for inspiration and models. In The Rape of the Sabine Women, he show s how he balanced his art by carefully arranging opposites. Since he used statues for models, the people in his painting look to be chiseled and very statuesque. Poussin also uses a background of a Roman city to further enhance his love for the classical world. He sought for permanent in the momentary and the universal in the individual. Many artists of the time turned to classical Greece and Rome for their ideas. Another prime example is the East Faà §ade of the Louvre Palace in Paris, France. KING LOUIS XIV originally commissioned this piece of work to Gianlorenzo Bernini in 1665. The king's finance minister felt " it left the king housed no better than before." so his plan was rejected and a French architect named Claude Perrault was appointed to finish the job. This palace had to grand enough for the "sun-king", so Perrault used classical influences to achieve the proper grandness fit for a king. He used a long Corinthian colonnade, friezes, and pilasters. T his acted as a restraining influence to the baroque ideas of the time. Greek and Roman art influenced many Europeans, especially the monarchs of the time. No monarch showed that better than King Louis XIV of France. His rule of France's nobles required a large palace to be built to accommodate and preoccupy the people that could have threatened his absolute power.

Philosophy And Modernity Essay

The conflict between Philosophy and Modernity is a never ending topic. Each of the terms is individually supported by the corresponding generations. But those who support modernity, at least at some point of life will surely support philosophy. That is the power of philosophy. Let us take a mishap as example that shows us how these two issues conflict with each other. The terrorist attacks of September 11 still haunt the minds of Americans unnerved by the enormity of the crime. We need to know what could have inspired someone to do such a thing. It is bad enough to experience such a monstrous event; to feel it is inexplicable, an act with no conceivable motive, only adds to the sense of unreality. What is the source of this hostility? What ideas, values, and attitudes give rise to it? Lewis’s observation contains the seeds of the two leading schools of thought about the answer to this question. Both schools place Islamist hatred of the USA in a larger cultural and historical context. Both are plausible, and in many respects they are compatible. But they differ in what they see as the essential terms of the ongoing conflict, and in their implications for the future. One school holds that the war on terror reflects an underlying conflict between Islam and the West as civilisations. Each is united, as a civilisation, by the loyalty of its people to a narrative of their past, a common religion, and shared ideas, values, and ways of life. The current tensions between Islam and the West are only the latest of the conflicts that have occurred over the centuries. The USA is a particular object of hostility now because it is the most powerful Western country. Those who reject modernity are to be found in every nation and civilization. The second school holds that terrorists’ hostility is directed at ‘the principles and values’ of the West. On this view, what they hate is not the West as a society or a civilisation per se, but rather the culture of modernity. Modernity was born in the West, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but it is not inherently tied to the history or customs of any one society. It is a constellation of universal values – the secular culture of reason, science, individualism, progress, democracy, and capitalism – that have spread worldwide in different forms and to varying degrees. By the same token, those who reject modernity, who fear and wish to destroy it, are to be found in every nation and civilisation. And invariably they hate the USA as the fullest, most persuasive, and thus most dangerous embodiment of that culture. There are as many battles within civilisations as between them. Muslims saw military success as a mark of Allah’s favour. As Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a prominent Iranian philosopher and historian, observes, ‘During the first twelve centuries of its historic existence, Islam lived with the full awareness of the truth and realisation of God’s promise to Muslims that they would be victorious if they followed His religion. Such verses as â€Å"There is no victor but God†, which adorns the walls of the Alhambra, also adorned the soul and mind of Muslims’. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, however, the tide turned. The scientific and industrial revolutions vastly increased the wealth and the military power of the West. After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, the Middle East was taken over by European nations and broken up into colonies and protectorates. Today, despite decolonisation, the countries of this region remain poor and backward by comparison not only with the West but also with the booming economies of East Asia. Oil revenue has showered wealth on the region, but economic growth has been held back by layers of regulations, wasteful government enterprises and investments, not to mention corruption. Because of their strategic location, Middle Eastern countries were pawns of the Cold War but were rarely true partners or friends of either power. Now, Muslims feel they are at the mercy of a global economy driven by Western capitalism. They feel invaded by Western popular culture, which they regard as morally decadent. Israel is the salt in all these wounds – a nation of people who came from the West, tore a patch of land from Islam, turned it into a vibrant, wealthy economy, and acquired the military prowess to defeat its Arab neighbours. The result of all this, is ‘a feeling of humiliation – a growing awareness, among the heirs of an old, proud, and long-dominant civilisation, of having been overtaken, overborne, and overwhelmed by those whom they regarded as their inferiors’. Having tried to take on Western ways, with dismal results, they are increasingly drawn to the idea that the solution is a return to the pure Islamic faith that reigned in the days of their former greatness. The clash-of-civilisations school doubtless represents part of the truth of the matter. But it is not the whole truth, and not the fundamental truth. Its chief shortcoming is that it exaggerates the extent of agreement in outlook, values, ideas, and loyalties among people who share the common history and culture that define a civilisation. In fact, there are as many battles over these issues within civilisations as between them – especially in the West. The hijackers’ target was a temple of modernity. At the level of fundamental philosophical principles, however, the Enlightenment period was much more important as a turning point in the West, and in a way created a new civilisation. Anti-modernism Modernity was born in the West in a radical transformation of its past. The world of the Middle Ages, built around the world-view of Christian Scholasticism, was a society of religious philosophy, feudal law, and an agricultural economy. Out of this soil, the Renaissance and Enlightenment produced a substantially new society of science, individualism, and industrial capitalism. When we examine the wider context of Islamic terrorism, it is clear that a hatred of modernity is its driving force. The cultural foundation of this new society, if we state it as a set of explicit theses, was the view that reason, not revelation, is the instrument of knowledge and arbiter of truth; that science, not religion, gives us the truth about nature; that the pursuit of happiness in this life, not suffering in preparation for the next, is the cardinal value; that reason can and should be used to increase human wellbeing through economic and technological progress; that the individual person is an end in himself with the capacity to direct his own life, not a slave or a child to be ruled by others; that individuals have equal rights to freedom of thought, speech, and action; that religious belief should be a private affair, tolerance a social virtue, and church and state kept separate; and that we should replace command economies with markets, warfare with trade, and rule by king or commissar with democracy. It is therefore misleading to call our civilisation Christian, even though that remains the largest religion in terms of adherents. The West may still be a culture of Christians, by and large, but it is not a Christian culture anymore. It is a secular culture. And that is what the Islamists hate most about us. The al-Qaeda hijackers did not target the Vatican, the capital of Western Christianity whose leaders launched the Crusades. They did not attack the British Foreign Office, which directed colonial policy in the Middle East after World War I. They attacked the World Trade Centre, the proud symbol of engineering audacity and global commerce, where businesses from scores of countries (including many Muslim countries) worked in freedom and peace, creating wealth and investing in material progress. Their target, in short, was a temple of modernity. The culture of modernity is not a Western good but a human good Modernity meant people changing their relationship with both the world and themselves. For the first time, through science, they realised that many things, such as certain weather patterns or illnesses, were not a matter of fate. The social order no longer seemed impossible to change either. Revolutions could sweep away despots and people could improve their living standards. The threat posed by the Islamist terrorists derives not from their Islamic background but from the ideas, values, and motivations they share with anti-modernists everywhere-including in the West. In that regard, they have not merely assaulted our civilisation. They have attacked civilisation as such. Civilisation is the condition a society attains when it emerges from prehistoric barbarism and begins to apply intelligence systematically to the problems of human life, by creating technologies of production like farming, technologies of cognition like writing, and technologies of social order like cities and law. The culture of modernity is one of these permanent contributions – the most important. Though Western in origin, it is not a Western good but a human good. It has vastly expanded our knowledge of the world; brought a vast increase in wealth, comfort, safety, and health; and created social institutions in which humans can flourish. Anti-modernism is not simply loyalty to pre-modern stages of civilisation on the part of people who have not yet discovered reason and individualism. It is a postmodern reaction by people who have seen modernity and turned against it, who hate and wish to destroy it. This is a profoundly anti-human outlook, and there can be no compromise with it. As we take aim at the terrorists who have attacked us, we must also take intellectual aim at the ideas that inspire them.