The English Language Learner Is Defined By The Individuals...

An English language learner is defined as someone who â€Å"has sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language and whose difficulties may deny such individual the opportunity to learn successfully in classrooms where the language of instruction is in English† (Ortiz, Woika, 2013, p. 2). As defined by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a child with a disability has â€Å"mental retardation, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities; and who, by reason thereof, needs†¦show more content†¦If a student is both an English language learner and has a learning disability, their educational needs become inherently more complex. However, through research on the needs of English language learners wit h disabilities, on various case laws, and by participating in lectures on the topics of English language learners and students with learning disabilities, I have come to a clearer understanding of these unique needs as well as the processes necessary to identify, evaluate, and work with these students. Prior to the 1960s, both English language learners and students with disabilities were often segregated from their peers, given inadequate instruction, and inappropriately assessed (Ortiz, Woika, 2013). This began to change when, with the holding of Brown vs. board of Education (1954), a principle for equal educational opportunities for all students was brought to fruition (Yell, 1998). After this decision, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 prohibited the discrimination of people on the basis of race, color, or national origin in the operation of federally assisted programs. Further, to

Sex And Fender Are Not Equal Contrary - 887 Words

Sex and fender are not equal contrary to common assumption. Sex, as defined by Rosman, is the the â€Å"physical differences between male and female [based on] biological and anatomical composition of genitals and secondary sexual characteristics [like] breast size, hair distribution, [and] body fat†(141). On the other hand, gender is defined as â€Å"the culture-specific set of behavioral, ideological, and social meanings constructed around the understandings of these biological and anatomical differences†(142). So what does this mean? Indeed, the assumption of sex equating to gender is not necessarily true because gender is culturally constructed. Different societies often have different perceptions of what gender is: for instance North American heteronormative culture and gender stratification in comparison with the gender relationships of people in Wogeo (where there are minimal differences between men and women) or of the people in Samoa - specifically focusing on the fa afafine. The film Paradise Bent directed by Heather Croall explores part of the world of fafinines. The fafine of Soma are their own gender defying the gender binaries of strictly male or female. The word itself meansâ€Å"in the manner of a woman† and according to the film, fa afafines are men playing women s roles. They are largely accepted by the communities in which they live. Mothers of fa afafines value and love their fafini son and appreciate their help around the house. Chief Leutele voices that he doesShow MoreRelatedAccounting Information System Chapter 1137115 Words   |  549 Pagesprocessing 25. Sets of numbers are reserved for specific categories of data _15_ z. online, real-time processing 26. The general ledger account corresponding to a subsidiary ledger, where the sum of all subsidiary ledger entries should equal the amount in the general ledger account 2-12 Accounting Information Systems 2.6 For each of the following scenarios identify which data processing method (batch or online, real-time) would be the most appropriate. Some students will

Sartre Revised Free Essays

string(114) " the things that he do, what kinds of act he gets himself involved in, becomes his definition, becomes his being\." Being condemned to be free is ironic. Condemn and free are two words not usually seen together in one sentence making a coherent and firm statement. To condemn is to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually after weighing evidence and without reservation. We will write a custom essay sample on Sartre Revised or any similar topic only for you Order Now And to be free is to have the legal and political rights of a citizen. Joined together the words will over right their meaning. And yet philosopher Jean – Paul Sartre managed to make his point stand out and be heard by everyone, outliving 64 years of earthly, human living. What Sartre is trying to tell us, his thoughts and ideas about life here on earth, about our responsibilities, about the trifle things and actions in our everyday lives that we tend to ignore because we think life is bigger than us, that there’s a bigger picture, is what being condemned to be free is all about. In today’s modern world, freedom has become a necessity and has taken on many forms. Gone were the days when women are not allowed to vote, engage in politics and other manly jobs, cannot have a career and is obliged to stay home and manage the household, and be thrown to unwanted marriages arranged by their parents. Now everybody can choose. And many have viewed this right to choose as a form of freedom. One has the right to choose their schools, their career paths to take, their spouses, how many children are they going to have, what will they name their kids, it is just a matter of choosing and directing this freedom to what we think is the right thing to do. After all, not all of us are using this freedom to choose our actions wisely. It all starts with human beings being born free and equal in dignity and rights, the first article from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Men are created equal, and it’s funny that there are people born carrying within them the royal blood. It already raises their political and monetary position above all the common men. They carry with them the noun King, Queen, Prince, Princess, Emperor, and Empress among others before their birth names. They have all the advantages in the world, not having to sit through traffic, not having to be the front liner in a war, not having to work hard to earn a living. In fact, they just sit and everything is done for them, all they have to do is make sure they keep their countries the same as it was before they were born. Up to what extent is this equality in dignity and rights applicable? Now that everybody seems to have a complete grasp of liberty, it appears that being free is not as wanted as it was before. History taught us well enough to know that there have been a number of wars fought for freedom and religion. The tales of man then tells us how others will try to conquer the lands where they have been born, and a leader will fight for their land and in the end they either merge with the conquerors or greatly celebrate their freedom. Religion, too, has been a great propeller of wars. Different beliefs, different doctrines, a different God for every religion, set the plot for a more massive movement that outlasted every century up to now, still counting fatalities. â€Å"The historical reality is that where religious freedom is denied, so too are other basic human rights. † (Why Religious Freedom? ) Religious freedom is just one of the many forms of freedom people are indulging in today. There is also what we call academic freedom. â€Å"The notion of academic freedom is invoked to justify statements by faculties that offend politicians, religious leaders, corporate executives, parents of students, and citizens. (Academic Freedom in the United States) That immediately removes your right as a person to say what you want to say, it obviously is a threat to be opinionated now a days. And it is not just academic; the press is also encountering some form of suppression. According to the Freedom House organization, there are several reasons as to why the media i s being stripped off of its independence. The media can be a source of political opposition, political upheaval, victims of violence, and finally, they can be threats to national security. (Map of Press Freedom) With all the overwhelming talk about freedom, liberty and human rights, one man tries to summarize all this into man being condemned to be free. Jean-Paul Sartre is said to be one of the brightest philosophers of the twentieth century. â€Å"French novelist, playwright, existentialist philosopher, and literary critic. Sartre was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in 1964, but he declined the honor in protest of the values of bourgeois society. His longtime companion was Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986), whom he met at the Ecole Normale Superieure in 1929. â€Å"(Jean-Paul Sartre 1905-1980) An Existentialist, Sartre is known for his public lecture, Existentialism and Humanism and his magnum opus, Being and Nothingness. Sartre’s greatest work, Being and Nothingness is subtitled: Phenomenological Ontology. He starts his discussion with the description of two kinds of being. According to him there is the in-itself and the for-itself. The beings-in-themselves are the ordinary objects, while the being-for-itself are the human agents. (Jean-Paul Sartre) The beings-in-themselves or ordinary objects do not have the capability to change or create. A chair is nothing more than what it is, it cannot change its appearance on its own, nor can it create something out of its being. A human agent is a being-for-itself because it is a being with conscious plans, purposes and intentions. It is able to project forward from a given situation to a future possibility that is not yet realized. The uncertainty of human life and purpose, the venturing into the unknown is what makes and defines human life distinct from the others. As human life progresses, the things that he do, what kinds of act he gets himself involved in, becomes his definition, becomes his being. You read "Sartre Revised" in category "Papers" A person is born not knowing that he will pursue a career in medicine. As he grows up and goes to medical school he is defined. He has found a definition for his life, that of a doctor. For Sartre, if a being-for-itself starts to question its purpose and meaning, it starts to have a consciousness. The consciousness makes it possible for the human to know everything around him, and everything that is not around him. As it now knows that it is not an ordinary object but something else. Something undefined, something that is not yet known to him. So starts the journey to fill in an empty palette. In not knowing, in a human’s nothingness, he is free. There is this whole notion that if you are inside a prison cell, you are not free. You are bounded by rows and rows of bars, controlled by correctional officers, undermined by more experienced inmates. But if we were to use Sartre’s definition of freedom, no Alcatraz can set limits on our liberty. In fact, this will even define the person and not limit his being free. The core idea of the text is that man is condemned to be free, meaning that in this freedom that we have, we are still responsible for our actions. We cannot evade our responsibilities and say that we did not choose it to happen, because our actions are unmistakably ours alone. Nobody does our actions but us. Even if we are not inside jail cells, we are still attached to obligations and duties which we can only be held responsible to bringing upon ourselves. â€Å"Man being condemned to be free carries the weight of the world on his shoulders; he is responsible for the world and for himself as a way of being. † Every action that we do, we know and we are conscious of us doing it. We cannot clean our hands and say that we did not want that to happen. We are abandoned in the sense that we cannot but the blame on somebody else. We carry the burden; nobody can help us with it. Sartre pointed out a few arguments to support his view. He mentioned three reasons why human-reality is free. Human – reality is free because it is not enough. Human – reality is free because it is perpetually wrenched away from itself and because it has been separated by a nothingness from what it is and from what it will be. And finally, human – reality is free because its present being is itself a nothingness in the form of the reflection-reflecting. Basically what he is trying to say is that our life here on earth is not enough to explore everything that this world can offer us. We continue to be free in spite and despite of the fact that there is a limit to everything. Freedom is the nothingness which is made-to-be at the heart of man, it forces human – reality to make itself instead of to be. For human – reality to be is to choose oneself. Sartre tells us that if a person should make something out of his nothingness, then he makes use of his freedom. He has to make himself something out of this freedom. His freedom opens his world to a lot of choices. What one would want to do, what one would make out of the small money one has, what one will do when one wakes up in the morning. These things that one chooses to do will give him the being of man. Man cannot be sometimes slave and sometimes free; he is wholly and forever free or he is not free at all. For to be wholly free is to be given responsibility. And to not be free, one is not given responsibility, which will never be the case because only the beings-in-themselves or the ordinary objects are those that cannot assume responsibility. He must assume the situation with the proud consciousness of being the author of it. Our lives are like books. They have a plot, a setting and characters. But who makes things happen? Is it not us? We are the author of our own books, we make things happen. However bad the situation that we find ourselves in, we must assume responsibility and get through the challenge. Absolute responsibility is not resignation; it is the logical requirement of the consequences of our freedom. When free, man chooses to do things. And when man chooses to do things, these things will always have consequences. For example, man chooses to swim at high noon. After awhile, he finds himself with his skin burning from being exposed to the sun too long. This is the consequence of his actions. His freedom to choose his actions makes him absolutely responsible for whatever it brings to him. There is no non-human situation because all decisions are human. Even if we say that man does inhuman things, like that of nuclear war, murder and rape, this will never be a non-human situation simply because the decision to get involved is of human nature. You try to reason with yourself that maybe what you are doing is wrong and not just, and yet you still decide to do it. It is still a human who is behind the act; hence, it is not a non-human situation. There are no accidents in life. For lack of getting out of it, I have chosen it. It is a matter of choice. Here Sartre points out that what happens in life does not happen by chance. We get ourselves involved by our choice, and if we say we do not have a choice, and we cannot get ourselves out of it, we still have chosen it. Because we always have a choice. Even if that choice is suicide or not doing our duties, it is still an option to get out of a situation. Human – reality is without excuse. Lastly, Sartre tell us that one cannot ask, â€Å"Why was I born? or curse the day of his birth or declare that he did not ask to be born, for these various attitudes toward his birth – i. e. , toward the fact that he realizes a presence in the world – are absolutely nothing else but ways of assuming this birth in full responsibility and of making it his. When man becomes conscious of his p resence and being in this world, it follows that he accepts responsibility. Because now he knows and is fully aware of the things that he is doing, his freedom, and once aware of his freedom, he is found to be responsible. I think that Jean-Paul Sartre wants to find meaning in life just like everybody else. The answer to the question, â€Å"Why was I born? † Sartre answered simply. Unlike other schools of thought, namely the determinists and the proponents of free will, Sartre focused on man’s is being condemned to be free but with full responsibility. Sartre said that the proponents of free will are concerned with finding cases of decision for which there exists no prior cause or deliberations concerning two opposed acts which are equally possible and possess causes or motives of the same weight. Hence they try to reason that a person is born with the free will to find a cause for himself. However, the determinists reply saying that there is no action without a cause and that the most insignificant gesture refers to causes and motives which confer its meaning upon it. So for them, man is born with a cause already. Sartre simply answered this question when he said that man is born out of nothingness, and in this nothingness, he is free. And like most philosophical view points, Sartre is very much ridiculed for his existentialist values. There are objections to him mostly because of his atheistic ideals saying that he believes that we are living in a universe with no God, no morality, nothing absolute. Abandonment: Condemned to be Free) His stand on being free that leaves us with a feeling of abandonment because we are solely responsible for everything, comes from his realization that there is no supreme being, being God that guides us and supports us every step of the way. We are alone and we cannot ask for a God to help us in situations that we cannot possibly escape f rom. His definition of freedom permits everybody to do whatever we want, because we all have choices and responsibilities to bear. And if we have chosen to be a part of a non-human situation, we would still find ourselves deciding humanely. For example, a man participates in murdering another man, it is his choice to participate in the killing, and nobody forces him to do so. The other man is now dead, because man is free to choose what to do; he is not judged as doing something wrong. Instead, as long as he deems himself responsible for the killing, he is free. What we do not understand much is that our being free has to come with responsibility. Yes we get to do whatever we want, but we still have to consider the consequences and assume responsibility for it. By then, we cannot dare say that we did not want this. Nobody else is responsible for the things we do but ourselves. We choose, even if we say that we left it all to chance. Leaving it to chance is still an option that we choose. The life given to us, it is a choice. Everything we do, we do without regrets or remorse. There should be no excuses, for we are the authors of our situation, nobody else but us. In my own opinion, I greatly value Sartre’s work. He proves that there are so many reasons why we should enjoy our life here on earth and how much freedom we have. He points out a great deal of effort as to why we do things not needing a direct cause or a cause not to do it. But I do also possess a great amount of respect to the Supreme Being. I know that there are people who believe that they do not need a God, who believes that life here on earth is just passing and not really owed to him. But for me, that is not the case. I believe that we are not alone, and that there is someone out there who gives us hope and who makes us keep our faith. Yes, we have to be responsible for the things that we do. But that responsibility comes with great respect and consideration for other people around us. We just cannot hastily do things and hope that we do not get in the way of somebody. Life is governed by rules, by the law. If there will be none of these rules and laws, there is definitely chaos. And I do not think that suicide is neither an option nor a last resort. We cannot simply find the easy way out. What is the thrill in just killing yourself if you cannot overcome challenges and obstacles in your life? Why do you have family and significant others to share your dilemma with? I believe that our troubles are our responsibilities, but it does not stop us from asking help. There are now numerous numbers to call in case we decide not to confide to our family members or to our closest friends, especially if we want to remain anonymous. If other people find ways to help other people, especially those who established organizations like alcoholics anonymous, etc. , why can we not indulge in these as well? Yes we always have a choice, and suicide is not one of them. Yes we have the freedom to do that, but if you believe that everybody is given an equal and a second chance, would you do it? We do have our own burdens and crosses to carry, but everything is possible as long as we have faith. Faith in ourselves, to always have the courage to face our problems, faith in life, that it may not let us down and faith in the Supreme Being, to whom we know we are always taken care of. How to cite Sartre Revised, Papers

UNCC for Good Entails Services and Commodities - myassignmenthelp

Question: Write about theUNCC for Good Entails Services and Commodities. Answer: It is no doubt that, a typical product cannot be separated from the public point of view. In fact, common good entails services and commodities that are produced the benefit of an ordinary citizen. For instance, the production of clothing is an activity targeting the public since nobody can be questioned for having worn any type of clothing since preferences vary from one person to the other. Many times the production of clothing has been faced with a myriad of challenges since time immemorial correctly when focusing on ethics that are to be followed for equality and attainment of human dignity. Since the issue has come to light and its itching nature serving as the basis for evaluation, it has become crucial to look for the way forward in an attempt to ensure that at the end we shall have a just society whereby community engagement and advocacy are addressed to suit the expectation of every citizen. In particular, providing a critique concerning ethics of clothing in line with commo n good will be crucial in explaining underlying challenges as well as providing ways to address the problem is bound to bring stability in the community. According to the Catholic social teaching principles, a common good should take care of the dignity of work and the right of workers. In connection to ethics observed in the production of clothing, there is a deficit of the principle as mentioned above in that human dignity is put at stake (Hill Capella, 2014. The findings from clothing factory that collapsed in 2016 in Bangladesh serves as a right example towards highlighting the extent upon which human dignity was undermined. Evidently, around one thousand workers lost their lives while many others sustained serious injuries. Far from the fact that the collapse claimed more than expected lives of people, the proceedings taking place in the factory even before the incident were not satisfactory. Laczniak, Santos, and Klein (2016) posit that severally employees complained of poor pay by their employers in the production of clothing that attracted much attention in several parts of the globe one of them being the United States of Ame rica. Surprisingly, the suspects who were to be held accountable concerning the collapse of the building are still free from conviction, whereas affected families are still claiming for justice. Ilo (2014) postulates that Catholic social teaching principles dictate the essence of solidarity in the production of a typical product. Ideally, production of clothing does not put into account the plight of solidarity in bringing balance to the issues arising from that perspective. In fact, the commotion resulting from the production of clothing point of view tends to have negated from the reality of the matter concerning solidarity. It is a feature of public good to be misused by the participants due to lack of restrictions (Mizzoni, 2014). In that matter, the plight of the workers union is assumed whereby fighting for their rights by conducting p peaceful campaigns is never condoned. That is a clear implication that whether the workers are paid poorly, no one can stand to raise the concern in the fear that they will be sacked and replaced by other needy people seeking for employment. Evidently, the production of clothing is cheap hence compelling firms to maximize the profits by taking advantage of the employees (Thompson, 2015). In that case, solidarity is undermined to the extent of depriving the society of peace and stability. Catholic social teaching takes care of call to family, community, and participation. It is factual that attainment of right ethics in the production of clothing, the community must play its role fully (Freise Seuring, 2015). On the contrary, the community seems to have lagged behind in joining hands towards condemning unsatisfactory activities taking place in the clothing industry. For instance, when the rights of workers in the garment industry are exploited, employees might be compelled to remain calm for fear of being sacked. However, the community should participate on their behalf to claim justice. Unfortunately, everyone seems to have kept quiet hence comfortably watching the rights of others in facilitating the production of common good being takes for granted. McNeill Moore (2015) highlight that to achieve a more just society, it becomes necessary to take hold on community engagement. As previously highlighted that a standard product is meant to benefit each member of the community, working together as one is the only way enjoyment of that particular good can be attained. Community engagement, in this case, entails ensuring that families and the society as a whole join hands in the fighting for the rights of other key players who will devote their efforts towards ensuring production of decent clothing for the community. It is true that the community might remain quiet and have their demands met accordingly although there is little theory to support such a postulation. In fact, the truth of the matter is that if one party suffers, all the people are deemed to have incurred in the process concerning common good (Turker Altuntas, 2014). For instance, a healthy working environment implies that workers and other related stakeholders are motiv ated to give the best out of their skills. Also, providing the incentive to the employees is a clear indication quality of labor and goods produced will be outstanding for the benefit of a community. On the other hand, if the community does not arise to fight for their counterparts, exploitation of labor will be evident, and workers will participate in the provision of below standard work that claims poor production of clothing that does not suit the expectations of the public. In short, community engagement should be upheld at all time. Employers and the management should work together in taking care of dignity of labor and the right of workers. It is under the provisions of every firm to consider the value of employees about their rights and dignity of the work they perform (Cavusoglu Dakhli, 2016). It makes little or no sense when the management has to take right steps towards meeting the workers needs only when forced to do so. Similarly, it is expected that for a company that is engaged in the production of common good have to appear in the government records for compliance. However, much of the details regarding the degraded rights of workers remain a concern with many people seeking for the explanation as to the reasons for having poor leadership in the practical world. It is the responsibility of the employers and the whole management at large to ensure quality services and treatments to the workers either in the presence or the absence of governments supervisory body (Dawkins, 2014). Far from focusing on th e management alone to take care of the plight of workers, labor unions are entrusted with the responsibility of making follow-ups that are meant to bring stability in the working environment. The laxity of the labor and workers union paves the way for strict exploitation of employees whereby they feel degraded in the presence of their associates entrusted with the responsibility of fighting for them. Precisely, growing the urge to meet the demand of workers for the labor and workers union will compel employers to spread justice in the working environment as far as clothing production is concerned. The relevant stakeholders to ensure ethics in clothing production is met should uphold solidarity and advocacy. In line with the values of production of clothing, some professional advocates are equipped with the skill necessary to yield positive change in the community (Dawkins, 2014). Solidarity is enhanced when it dawn to every stakeholder that taking care of upright ways of cloth production is the responsibility of everyone. As a result, seeking for clarification concerning itching issues in clothing industry becomes an integral part of living. Failure to invest in advocacy can foresee the destruction of creation, hence putting the future of our generations at risk. McNeill Moore (2015) suggest that due to the recklessness of the real advocate in 2013 in London, people came out in large numbers in a protest to condemn David Cameron for the climate change. The rally came right after many eucalyptuses were cut down to provide essential elements for the production of leather jacket s. Surprisingly, London became deficient of trees of such kind hence forcing Cameron to extend the reach to Australia. Consequently, climate change concern emerged hence forcing people on the streets to claim the lost glory of their environment. In short, advocating for the prevention of exploitation of environment is crucial since it falls under the provisions of the clothing industry. In conclusion, clothing industry seems to have neglected important forms of ethics that are essential to the survival of human being and the achievement of a sustainable environment. Community engagements, as well as advocacy, are the spear headers towards the achievement of dignity and right of worker and maintenance of the worthwhile environment. Briefly, ethics regarding clothing industry about Catholic social teaching principles should be upheld to achieve a just society. References Cavusoglu, L., Dakhli, M. (2016). The Impact of Ethical Concerns on Fashion Consumerism: A Review.Markets, Globalization Development Review,1(2). Dawkins, C. E. (2014). The principle of good faith: Toward substantive stakeholder engagement.Journal of Business Ethics,121(2), 283-295. Freise, M., Seuring, S. (2015). Social and environmental risk management in supply chains: a survey in the clothing industry.Logistics Research,8(1), 2. Hill, R. P., Capella, M. L. (2014). Impoverished consumers, Catholic social teaching, and distributive justice.Journal of Business Research,67(2), 32-41. Ilo, S. C. (2014).The church and development in Africa: Aid and development from the perspective of Catholic social ethics(Vol. 2). Wipf and Stock Publishers. Laczniak, G. R., Santos, N. J., Klein, T. A. (2016). On the Nature of Good Goods and the Ethical Role of Marketing.Journal of Catholic Social Thought,13(1), 63-81. McNeill, L., Moore, R. (2015). Sustainable fashion consumption and the fast fashion conundrum: fashionable consumers and attitudes to sustainability in clothing choice.International Journal of Consumer Studies,39(3), 212-222. Mizzoni, J. (2014). Environmental ethics: A Catholic view.Environmental Ethics,36(4), 405-419. Thompson, J. M. (2015).Introducing catholic social thought. Orbis Books. Turker, D., Altuntas, C. (2014). Sustainable supply chain management in the fast fashion industry: An analysis of corporate reports.European Management Journal,32(5), 837-849.