ENAIDA CLUD BLOG

Jejak Panda Terima Kasih Sudah Kunjungin Blog Ini ceme online terbaik The other day I forwarded a message to the CWP listserv about the release of the documentary Waiting for Superman , which came out on the 24th. I haven’t seen the movie yet but all the buzz is that it is highly critical of education in the United States. There’s a couple of lengthy articles about the film and about education in general in the September 20 issue of Time . The email I forwarded came to me from a colleague in the Neag School of Education, and it had gone out to several listservs for students. Within minutes of my forward I received an email from a colleague who demanded to know if I was endorsing this biased film. I answered that I was simply forwarding information, but the angry tone of the email struck me. I thought, why was there so much anger and even fear implicit in this email? This was especially notable because the original email I received about the film’s release lacked any sense o

Jejak Panda Selamat Datang Lagi Di Blog Ini bandar ceme terpercaya This week I wanted to address the issues I brought up last week, but I can’t ignore this morning’s lead editorial in the Willimantic Chronicle : “Some teachers deserve to go.” (I only momentarily pause to point out that the editorial wasn’t written by anyone on the Chronicle ’s editorial staff, but was taken from a wire service). Anyway, the argument I keep encountering regarding evaluation of teachers and merit pay rests upon the assumption that the teachers don’t work hard enough. The Chronicle editorial criticizes “bad teachers who wear tenure like a badge of honor.” Last week Rick Green at The Hartford Courant responded to a Vanderbilt University study that demonstrated conclusively that merit pay has no measurable benefit on student performance on standardized tests. Green dismissed the results of the study with a single stroke, saying that we need to look “deeper” at the study to draw

Jejak Panda Kembali Lagi Bertemu Di Situs Kesayangan Anda situs bandar ceme This week and next is advising at UConn, when all the students have to sign up for twenty minute slots to meet their advisors to plan their schedules for next semester. If you went to UConn back in the day like I did, you might remember forging signatures on add/drop cards and standing in line in the ROTC hangar to register. Seems like such a madhouse now. I rarely met with my advisor. I had a professor I was friendly with who showed me how to forge his signature so I could expedite registration. The students can’t do that now. Now, everything is computerized. There are electronic holds that prevent students from using the online registration system if they haven’t paid their fee bill or if they haven’t met with their advisor. And each student is assigned a pick day when they can actually log into the system and register. It’s still a madhouse, but without all the students being herded into one

Jejak Panda Selamat Datang Kembali Di Blog Kesayangan Anda bandar ceme Every fall I teach a section of an American Literature survey course. I always tweak the writing assignments, but for several years I have been giving a version of the same assignment. Students have to use one or more of the texts from the course as lenses through which to view and interpret a contemporary ‘text,’ which I define broadly to include any current book, film, television series, political or cultural event or figure. Students have the option of writing two, seven-page essays, one due at midterm and the other at the final, or of working throughout the semester on one fifteen page essay. About a third of my current twenty students have chosen the fifteen page option. Students must do research on their contemporary text, which can involve reading news articles or watching sitcoms, depending on the nature of the text they choose, and they must draft. There are four response group sessions and two te