Sports and Society - Examples of Each Category of Violence in Sport Assignment

Sports and Society - Examples of Each Category of Violence in Sport - Assignment Example Players can use body contact during tackling by using the upper body to push and shove opponents during a football game and this can qualify for borderline violence since it is not explicit in its nature. Using the hands to push other players when trying to control the ball. Sometimes, players will go all out and actually, assault another player defiantly qualifies as a brutal body contact. Quasi-criminal violence can come in the form of unprofessional conduct between players and can come in the form of threat, insults or other means that degrade the dignity and honour of a player, players or clubs. Criminal violence is organized violence against a player, group of players or a club where another player, players or club willfully connive to bring harm to the other in order to stop them from performing. (Hechter, 1977) 2. If we want to understand violence in sports, we must understand gender ideology and issues of masculinity in culture. How is masculinity related to violence in sports and how do issues of masculinity take on different meanings among men from different backgrounds? Give examples from the course material and from your own experiences as you discuss this issue. Sports have from time immemorial, been relegated to the domain of men. Aggression, displays of power and dominance, drivenness, and the male physic in all its powerful glory. Any sign of weakness, empathy and kindness were regarded as a sign of weakness. The Greek culture is the one that sport was birthed in and that is why it influenced many sporting worldviews. The Greeks were obsessed with power and its display in all its form for glory’s sake. The Greco-Roman culture idolized war and aggression as an expression of masculinity and this was seen in sports. Sporting events of the medieval times were gory events filled with real-life killings of wild animals and slaves who were called gladiators. The sole purposes of the gladiators were to fight and die in the arena for the sake of glory and entertainment.  Ã‚  

Shifting Trends in Special Education Essay Example for Free

Shifting Trends in Special Education Essay The Thomas B. Fordham Institute. is. the. nations. leader. in. advancing. educational. excellence. for. every. child. through. quality. research,. analysis,. and. commentary,. as. well. as. on-the-ground. action. and. advocacy. in. Ohio.. It. is. affiliated. with. the. Thomas.. B.. Fordham. Foundation,. and. this. publication. is. a.. joint. project. of. the. Foundation. and. the. Institute For. further. information,. please. visit. our. website. at. www. edexcellence. net. or. write. to. the. Institute. at.. 1016. 16th. St.. NW,. 8th. Floor,. Washington,. D. C.. 20036 The. Institute. is. neither. connected. with. nor..sponsored. by. Fordham. University. A. big. thank. you. goes. out. to. the. whole. Fordham. team. for. their. assistance. on. this. project,. especially. Michael. Petrilli. and. Chester. E.. Finn,. Jr.. for. their. project. guidance. and. astute. feedback,. to. Daniela. Fairchild. for. production. management,. to.  ©istockphoto. com/ AnithaCumming. for. the. snappy. cover. image,. and.. to. Amy. Fagan. for. dissemination.. The. smart. layout. design. is. the. work. of. Alton. Creative. and. the.. â€Å"Ed. Shorts†. logo. of. Laura. Elizabeth. Pohl. Conclusion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Appendix A.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure. A1:. Proportion. of. the. National. Student.. Population. with. Disabilities,. 1976-77. to. 2009-10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table. A1:. National. Number. of. Students.. with. Disabilities. by. Category,. 2000-01. to. 2009-10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table. A2:. Students. with. Disabilities. by. State,.. 2000-01. to. 2009-10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18. Appendix B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Federal. Disability. Definitions.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21. SH I FTI NG TREN DS I N SPECIAL EDUCATION EXECUTIVE SUMM ARY Executive Summary Special. education. is. a. field. in. flux.. After. decades. of. steady. increases,. the. population. of. students. with. disabilities. peaked. in. 2004-05. with. 6. 72. million. youngsters,. comprising. 13. 8. percent. of. the. nation’s. student. population.. The. following. year. marked. the. first. time. since. the. enactment. of. the. Individuals. with. Disabilities. Education. Act. (IDEA). that. special-education. participation. numbers. declined—and. they. have. continued. to. do. so,. falling. to. 6. 48. million. students. by. 2009-10,. or. 13. 1. percent. of. all. students. nationwide. This. report. examines. trends. in. the. number. of. special-education. students. and. personnel. at. both. the. national. and. state. levels. from. 2000-01. to. 2009-10.. It. finds. that. the. overall. population. of. special-education. students,. after. decades. of. increases,. peaked. in. the.2004-05. school. year. and. has. declined. since.. But. within. this. population,. individual. categories. of. students. with. disabilities. differed. markedly. in. thei r. trajectories:  ». . he. population. of. students. identified. as. having. â€Å"specific. learning. disabilities,†. the. most. prevalent. of. all. T dis. bility. types,. declined. considerably. throughout. the. decade,. falling. from. 2. 86. million. to. 2. 43. million. a students,. or. from. 6. 1. to. 4. 9. percent. of. all. students. nationwide.  ». . ther. shrinking. disability. categories. included. mental. retardation,. which. dropped. from. 624,000. to. 463,000. O students,. or. from. 1. 3. to. 0. 9. percent. of. all. pupils,. and. emotional. disturbances,. which. fell. from. 480,000. to. 407,000. students,. or. from. 1. 0. to. 0. 8. percent.  ». . utism. and. â€Å"other. health. impairment†. (OHI). populations. increased. dramatically.. The. number. of. autisA tic. students. quadrupled. from. 93,000. to. 378,000,. while. OHI. numbers. more. than. doubled. from. 303,000. to. 689,000.. Even. so,. autistic. and. OHI. populations. constituted. only. 0. 8. and. 1. 4. percent,. respectively,. of. all. students. in. 2009-10. In. addition,. state-level. special-education. trends. varied. dramatically:  ».. hode. Island,. New. York,. and. Massachusetts. reported. the. highest. rates. of. disability. identification. in. 2009R 10;. Rhode. Island. was. the. only. state. with. more. than. 18. percent. of. its. student. body. receiving.. special-education. services.  ». . exas,. Idaho,. and. Colorado. reported. the. lowest. rates. of. disability. identification. in. 2009-10.. Adjusting.. T for. overall. population. size,. Texas. identified. just. half. as. many. students. with. disabilities. as. Rhode. Island:. 9. 1. percent. of. its. total. student. body. States. also. varied. in. their. special-education. personnel. practices,. so. much. so. that. the. accuracy. of. the. data. they. report. to. Washington. is. in. question.. Nationally,. schools. ostensibly. employed. 129. special-education. teachers. and. paraprofessionals. for. every. thousand. special-education. students. in. 2008-09,. up. from. 117. per. thousand. in. 2000-01.. At. the. state. level,. this. ranged. from. a. reported. 320. per. thousand. in. New. Hampshire,. to. thirty-eight. per. thousand. in. Mississippi.. (We. appreciate. the. implausibility. of. these. numbers,. which. come. from. the. only. available. official. source. ) 1 SH I FTI NG TREN DS I N SPECIAL EDUCATION I NTRODUCTION  Introduction Last. summer,. New. Jersey’s. Star-Ledger. ran. a. hard-hitting. piece. about. the. condition. of. education. finance. in. the. Garden. State.. It. bemoaned. a. dismal. school-system. budget. in. which. teachers. had. been. laid. off,. extracurricular. activities. scrapped,. and. free. transportation. curtailed.. But. one. budgetary. category. had. been. spared:. special. education. â€Å"This. is. an. area. that. is. completely. out. of. control. and. in. desperate. need. of. reform,†. said. Larrie. Reynolds,. superintendent. in. the. Mount. Olive. School. District,. where. special-education. spending. rose. 17. percent.this. year.. â€Å"Everything. else. has. a. finite. limit.. Special. education—in. this. state,. at. least—is. similar. to. the. universe.. It. has. no. end.. It. is. the. untold. story. of. what. every. school. district. is. dealing. with. † 1 And. so. it. is.. Special. education. consumes. a. hefty. slice. of. the. education. pie,. comprising. an. estimated. 21. percent. of. all. education. spending. in. 2005.. That. slice. is. growing,. too.. Forty-one. percent. of. all. increases. in. education. spending. between. 1996. and. 2005. went. to. fund. it. 2 As. Superintendent. Reynolds. indicated,. special. education. is. a. field.in. urgent. need. of. reform.. Not. only. is. its. funding. widely. seen. as. sacrosanct—due. to. federal. â€Å"maintenance. of. effort†. requirements,. strong. special-education. lobbies,. nervous. superintendents,. entrenched. traditions,. and. inertia,. as. well. as. a. collective. sense. that. we. should. do. right. by. these. kids—but. America’s. approach. to. it. is. also. antiquated.. Despite. good. intentions. and. some. reform. efforts,. the. field. is. still. beset. by. a. compliance-oriented. mindset. that. values. process. over. outcomes.. Thirty-six. years. after. Congress. passed. the. Education. for. All. Handicapped. Chil dren. Act. (now. the. Individuals. with. Disabilities. Education. Act. or. IDEA),. the. rigidities. and. shortcomings. of. yesterday’s. approach. have. become. overwhelming,. as. have. the. dollar. costs.. There. has. to. be. a. better. way. We. at. the. Thomas. B.. Fordham. Institute. seek. to. help. chart. a. different. path,. doing. right. by. children. with. special. needs. while. recognizing. both. that. every. youngster. is. special. in. some. way. and. that. the. taxpayer’s. pocket. is. not. bottomless.. This. is. the. first. of. several. special-education. eye. openers. that. we’re. undertaking. 3. Ten. years. ago,.we. dipped. our. toes. into. the. turbid. waters. of. special-education. policy. via. a. set. of. thought-provoking. papers. in. a. volume. titled. Rethinking Special Education for a New Century. 4. The. fundamental. shift. from. compliance. to. outcomes. that. we. advocated. in. that. volume. has,. for. the. most. part,. not. come. to. pass. (though. we. may. see. a. glimmer. of. hope. in. the. implementation. of. Response. to. Intervention. [RTI]. programs).. Still,. someday—probably. after. the. delayed. reauthorization. of. the. Elementary. and. Secondary. Education. Act—Congress. will. again. take. up. IDEA.. Methodologypecial-education. student-population. data. (referred. to. in. federal. reporting. requirements. as. â€Å"child. count†). and. personnel. data. were. drawn. from. the. Data. Accountability. Center,. funded. by. the. Office. of. Special. Education. Programs. in. the. U. S.. Department. of. Education. and. located. at. ideadata. org. 5. Child-count. totals. are. reported. each. year. by. states. and. include. all. children. ages. three. to. twenty-one. identified. with. disabilities. 6. Thus,. the. term. â€Å"students. with. disabilities†. in. this. report. refers. to. the. number. of. students. that. the. education. system. recognizes.as. having. disabilities.. Variation. among. the. states’. disability. incidence. rates. almost. surely. has. more. to. S do. with. how. a. state. defines. and. identifies. special-needs. students. (i. e. ,. whether. a. state. over-. or. under-identifies. disabilities). than. with. the. true. population. of. disabled. children. in. that. state. . To. calculate. each. state’s. disability. incidence. rate,. child-count. numbers. were. divided. by. total. state. enrollment. figures. 7. State. enrollment. data. were. drawn. from. the. Digest of Education Statistics.. Total. student. enrollment. data. for. the. 2009-10. school. year.had. not. been. released. as. of. publication;. thus. 2009-10. figures. are. based. on. projections. published. in. the. Digest. 2 SH I FTI NG TREN DS I N SPECIAL EDUCATION I NTRODUCTION It’s. our. hope. that. the. next. iteration. of. that. law. will. benefit. from. fresh. thinking. amid. changed. realities. But. that. day. has. not. yet. dawned.. And. before. we. can. seriously. re-imagine. the. field. of. special. education. and. how. it. should. be. funded,. we. need. a. basic. understanding. of. the. state. of. special. education. today—and. how. it’s. changed. over. the. past. decade.. Many. are. aware,. for. instance,.that. the. number. of. students. who. received. specialeducation. services. rose. steadily. between. IDEA’s. enactment. in. 1975. and. the. turn. of. the. century.. But. is. this. population. still. growing?. Are. particular. types. of. disabilities. responsible. for. overall. trends?. What. types. of. personnel. do. schools. employ. to. teach. these. students?. Accurate. descriptive. data. on. questions. like. these. are. a. scarce. commodity. (more. on. that. later),. but. we. desperately. need. them. if. we’re. to. wrestle. with. the. more. complex. questions. that. vex. the. field,. such. as:. Have. rising. numbers. of.special-education. students. driven. up. costs?. Which. states. are. spending. more. and. which. are. spending. less. per. special-education. student. than. others?. Are. states. correctly. identifying. students. and. providing. them. with. appropriate. services?. What. types .of. interventions. are. most. effective. with. special-needs. children? This. report. sets. forth. the. number. of. children. identified. with. disabilities. in. our. nation’s. schools. by. disability. type,. nationally. and. by. state,. examining. how. those. patterns. have. changed. over. the. past. decade.. It. also. addresses:  ». Which. states. have. the.largest. and. smallest. proportions. of. children. judged. to. have. disabilities;  ». The. extent. to. which. the. numbers. of. students. with. specific. learning. disabilities. have. changed. over. the. last. ten. years;. and  ». The. number. of. special-education. personnel. employed. nationally. and. how. this. varies. by. state. We. also. dig. into. a. couple. of. outliers—Massachusetts. and. Texas—and. attempt. to. explain. why. their. data. look. like. they. do.. We. close. with. a. few. takeaways. and. next. steps.. 3 SH I FTI NG TREN DS I N SPECIAL EDUCATION FI N DI NGS Findings Students with Disabilities across America. After. decades. of. steady. increases,. the. population. of. students. with. disabilities. peaked. in. 2004-05. with. 6. 72. million. youngsters,. comprising. 13. 8. percent. of. the. national. student. body. (see. Figure. 1).. The. following. year. marked. the. first. time. since. the. enactment. of. IDEA. in. 1975. that. special-education. participation. numbers. declined.. (For. a. long-term. trend. analysis. of. the. special-education. population,. see. Appendix. A. ). Since. then,. the. number. and. proportion. of. students. with. disabilities. has. decreased. steadily,. falling. to. 13. 1. percent. of. the. national. student.body. by. 2009-10,. or. 6. 48. million. students.. 1 13. 8 13. 6 13. 4 13. 2 13. 0 Proportion of the National Student Population with Disabilities, 2000-01 to 2009-10 This. national. trend. is. driven. by. shifting. populations. of. particular. disability. types.. The. federal. government. requires. all. states. to. report. studentpopulation. numbers. across. twelve. categories. of. disability. (the. reporting. of. a. thirteenth,. termed. â€Å"developmental. delay,†. is. optional):. autism;. deafblindness;. emotional. disturbance;. hearing. impairments;. mental. retardation;. multiple. disabilities;. orthopedic. impairments;. other.health. impairments;. specific. learning. disabilities;. speech. or. language. impairments;. traumatic. brain. injuries;. and. visual. impairments.. (For. the. full. federal. definition. of. each. category,. see. Appendix. B. ). 1 2 4 6 7 3 5 8 9. Much. of. the. recent. decrease. in. the. overall. specialeducation. population. can. be. attributed. to. the. shrinking. population. of. students. identified. with. specific. learning. disabilities. (SLDs).. After. decades. of. growth,. the. proportion. of. students. with. SLDs. peaked. in. 2000-01. and. declined. thereafter,. falling. from. 2. 86. million. to. 2. 43. million. students.between. 2000-01. and. 2009-10,. or. from. 6. 1. to. 4. 9. percent. of. the. national. student. body. 8. -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 07 -0 -0 -0 00 -0 04 02 06 03 05. Other. disability. categories. declined. as. well.. The. population. of. students. with. mental. retardation. dropped. from. A Caveat on Disability Types T he. federal. government. requires. states. to. report. child-count. numbers. across. twelve. disability. categories. each. year. (a. thirteenth. category. is. optional),. but. does. not. require. that. states. actually. use. those. categories. for. their. own. within-state. identification. and. data-collection. purposes.. Thus,.state-specific. nuances. in. disability. definitions. abound.. For. example,. many. states. employ. their. own. unique. definitions. for. each. of. the. thirteen. categories. and/or. combine. and. eliminate. categories.. At. least. one. state. goes. so. far. as. to. identify. no. individual. categories,. opting. instead. for. a. single. â€Å"eligible. individual†. classification. for. students. with. disabilities. (see. Iowa’s SLD Trend: True or False? ).. To. meet. federal. reporting. requirements,. these. states. must. estimate. the. number. of. students. with. disabilities. within. each. federal. category.. And. in. some. cases,.federal. reporting. requirements. allow. states. to. report. one. category. within. another—for. example,. seven. states. report. students. with. multiple. disabilities. in. their. primary-disability. categories. rather. than. in. the. â€Å"multiple. disabilities†. 08 09 01 -10 category.. The. lack. of. consistency. in. defining. and. reporting. data. across. all. fifty. states. renders. any. state-level. comparison. of. students. with. disabilities. inherently. imprecise. . Take,. for. example,. recent. categorization. changes. in. Ohio.. Prior. to. 2007-08,. preschoolers. (three-. to. five-yearolds). with. disabilities. in. the. Buckeye. State. were. lumped. together. in. a. single. disability. category.. In. that. year,. however,. Ohio. first. required. preschoolers. to. be. sorted. into. distinct. categories.. To. ease. the. transition,. districts. classified. all. existing. preschoolers. with. disabilities. as. having. developmental. delays;. thereafter,. all. new. preschoolers. with. disabilities. were. to. be. categorized. by. disability.. As. could. be. expected,. the. number. of. students. with. developmental. delays. reported. to. the. federal. government. suddenly. grew. from. 0. to. 19,000. in. 2007-08,. and. then. fell. by. half. in. 2008-09.and. again. slightly. in. 2009-10. 9. Such. inconsistencies—this. is. just. one. example. of. myriad. state. eccentricities. and. idiosyncrasies—confuse. trend. analyses. at. both. the. state. and. national. level. 4 SH I FTI NG TREN DS I N SPECIAL EDUCATION FI N DI NGS 624,000. to. 463,000. in. that. time,. or. from. 1. 3. percent. to. 0. 9. percent. of. all. students.. The. number. identified. with. emotional. disturbances. fell. from. near. 480,000. in. 2000-01. to. 407,000. by. 2009-10. (after. peaking. at. 489,000. students. in. 2003-04),. or. from. 1. 0. to. 0. 8. percent. of. all. students.. Offsetting. a. portion. of.the. decline. in. these. disability. categories. were. sharp. increases. in. the. populations. of. students. with. autism. and. other. health. impairm ents. (OHIs). over. the. last. decade.. The. number. of. autistic. students. quadrupled. between. 2000-01. and. 2009-10,. rising. from. 93,000. to. 378,000,. while. the. number. of. OHI. students. more. than. doubled. from. 303,000. to. 689,000.. Still,. the. autistic. and. OHI. populations. constituted. only. 0. 8. and. 1. 4. percent,. respectively,. of. all. students. in. 2009-10. The. category. of. developmental. delay,. which. often. serves. as. a. general. disability. category.for. young. students. (typically. ages. three. to. five. or. three. to. nine),. grew. as. well,. from. 213,000. students. in. 2000-01. to. 368,000. in. 2009-10,. or. from. 0. 5. to. 0. 7. percent. of. all. students. The. incidence. of. other. disability. types. (which,. other. than. speech. or. language. impairments,. comprise. a. small. fraction. of. the. total). either. remained. stable. or. declined. slightly. during. this. time.. Figure. 2. shows. in. â€Å"pie. chart†. form. how. the. composition. of. the. special-education. population. has. changed. over. the. past. decade.. While. SLD. students. constituted. 45. 4. percent. of.all. students. with. disabilities. in. 2000-01,. that. percentage. had. shrunk. to. 37. 5. percent. by. 2009-10.. Autism,. on. the. other. hand,. increased. from. 1. 5. percent. of. all. identified. disabilities. to. 5. 8. percent.. OHI. identifications. doubled. from. 4. 8. to. 10. 6. percent,. while. cases. of. both. emotional. disturbance. and. mental. retardation. decreased. relative. to. other. identifications. 2 Special-Education Population by Disability 2000-01 and 2009-10 3. 4% 1. 5% 4. 8% 5. 3% 7. 6% 9. 9% 5. 1% 5. 8% 21. 8% 5. 7% 10. 6% 6. 3% 37. 5% 7. 1% 22. 0% 45. 4% n = 6. 30 million students ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1. 5% 3.4% 4. 8% 7. 6% 9. 9% 45. 4% 22. 0% 5. 3% Autism Developmental Delay Other Health Impairment Emotional Disturbance Mental Retardation Specific Learning Disability Speech or Language Impairment Other Disabilities ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 2000-01 n = 6. 48 million students 5. 8% 5. 7% 10. 6% 6. 3% 7. 1% 37. 5% 21. 8% 5. 1% Autism Developmental Delay Other Health Impairment Emotional Disturbance Mental Retardation Specific Learning Disability Speech or Language Impairment Other Disabilities 2009-10 Note:. The. special-education. population. in. 2009-10. was. slightly. larger. in. raw. numbers. than. it. was. in. 2000-01,. but. the. proportion.of. students. with. disabilities. among. all. students. declined. from. 13. 3. percent. in. 2000-01. to. 13. 1. percent. in. 2009-10.. 5 SH I FTI NG TREN DS I N SPECIAL EDUCATION FI N DI NGS Students with Disabilities by State The. national. figures. mask. stark. variation. among. the. states.. As. Figure. 3. shows,. Rhode. Island,. New. York,. and. Massachusetts. topped. the. list. with. the. highest. rates. of. disability. identification. in. 2009-10;. Rhode. Island. was. the. only. state. to. have. more. than. 18. percent. of. its. student. body. enrolled. in. special. education.. At. the. other. end. of. the. spectrum. were. Texas,. Idaho,. and. Colorado.. Texas’s. rate. of. disability. identification. was. less. than. half. of. Rhode. Island’s,. at. just. 9. 1. percent. (see. Figure. 4. for. complete. state. identification. rates).. These. vast. disparities. call. into. question. the. extent. to. which. true. incidences. of. disability. vary. among. state. populations,. or. to. which. some. states. over-identify. or. under-identify. students. with. disabilities. 10 3 Identification Rates of Students with Disabilities, by State 2009-10 WA MT OR ID WY NE NV CA UT CO KS IA IL MO TN AR MS TX LA FL AL GA SC IN OH WV KY NC AZ NM OK VA SD ND MN WI NY MI PA. VT ME NH MA RI CT NJ DE MD D. C. ? 9. 0? –? 10. 99% ? 11. 0? –? 12. 99% ? 13. 0? –? 14. 99% ? 15. 0? –? 16. 99% ? 17. 0? –? 18. 99% AK US AVERAGE HI About. half. of. the. states. saw. increases. in. their. rates. of. special-education. identification. between. 2000-01. and. 2009-10,. while. the. other. half. saw. decreases. (see. Figure. 5).. The. national. proportion. of. students. with. disabilities. rose. and. fell. over. that. time. period,. landing. 0. 2. percentage. points. lower. in. 2009-10. (at. 13. 1. percent). than. in. 2000-01. (at. 13. 3. percent).. Texas’s. rate. of. identification. fell. from. 12. 1. percent. to. 9. 1. percent—in. raw. numbers,. a. decrease. of. about. 47,000. students.. Pennsylvania,. on. the. other. hand,. saw. an. increase. in. students. with. disabilities. from. 13. 4. percent. of. the. student. body. in. 2000-01. to. 16. 7. percent. in. 2009-10—or,. in. raw. numbers,. an. increase. of. 52,000. students. 6 SH I FTI NG TREN DS I N SPECIAL EDUCATION FI N DI NGS 4 Identification Rate of Students with Disabilities, by State 2009-10 18. 68 17. 80 17. 36 17. 25 17. 16 Massachusetts Maine Rhode Island New York 5 Percentage-point Change in Identification Rate, by State 2000-01 to 2009-10 3. 29 2. 39 2. 05 1. 80 1. 80 1.76 1. 35 1. 16 1. 14 1. 12 1. 72 2. 53. Pennsylvania Wyoming Vermont West Virginia Vermont Pennsylvania Indiana New Jersey Wyoming New York Minnesota Ohio 16. 66 16. 84 16. 55 16. 52 15. 60 15. 55 15. 57 15. 74 South Dakota North Dakota Kentucky New Hampshire Delaware Kentucky Illinois New Hampshire Michigan Massachusetts Nebraska South Dakota Oklahoma Wisconsin Missouri Ohio 14. 80 14. 75 14. 71 14. 97 15. 04 Oklahoma Indiana Alaska Delaware Kansas 0. 99 0. 98 0. 71 0. 71 1. 10 Minnesota 14. 66 Mississippi Washington Oregon Illinois D. C. 14. 64 14. 34 14. 15 14. 58 0. 46 0. 52 Wisconsin Arizona Utah 0. 39 0. 38 0. 14 0. 42. North Dakota Oregon Kansas 14. 26 14. 12 Nebraska California New Jersey Maine 0. 09 0. 08 0. 03 0. 07 South Carolina Michigan Alaska Iowa Florida 14. 09 14. 06 13. 98 13. 79 13. 55 13. 14 13. 99 13. 94 United States -0. 04 -0. 26 -0. 28 -0. 53 -0. 61 -0. 61 -0. 20 New Mexico Arkansas Virginia Montana Nevada Arkansas Colorado United States Mississippi Louisiana 13. 42 13. 03 12. 53 12. 30 12. 25 11. 94 11. 28 11. 28 11. 13 11. 17 12. 21 12. 41 12. 57 Maryland Missouri Virginia Iowa Louisiana -0. 60 Washington Connecticut Tennessee Maryland -0. 70 -0. 74 -0. 85 -0. 85 -1. 03 -1. 03 -1. 43 -1. 43 -1. 54 -1. 72 -1. 41 -0. 75 -0. 72 D. C. North Carolina Hawaii Utah Montana West Virginia Georgia Florida Rhode Island Connecticut Alabama Arizona Nevada California 10. 67 Colorado Georgia 10. 45 10. 27 9. 89 9. 13 10. 58 South Carolina Hawaii Idaho North Carolina Tennessee Idaho Texas 0 5 10 15 20 New Mexico Texas Alabama -2. 32 -2. 98 -3. 5 -1. 75 0 1. 75 3. 5 -2. 52 -2. 01 DISABILITY IDENTIFICATION RATE (%). PERCENTAGE-POINT CHANGE IN IDENTIFICATION RATE 7 SH I FTI NG TREN DS I N SPECIAL EDUCATION FI N DI NGS Specific Learning Disabilities As. the. most. prevalent. of. all. disability. types,. the. category. of. specific. learning. disabilities. (SLDs). provides.a. unique. look. into. shifting. disability. populations.. The. nationwide. population. of. students. with. specific. learning. disabilities. shrank. at. a. notable. rate. over. the. decade. leading. to. 2009-10:. SLD. numbers. fell. from. 2. 86. million. students. and. 6. 1. percent. of. the. national. student. body. in. 2000-01. to. 2. 43. million. students. and. 4. 9. percent. of. the. student. body. in. 2009-10. 11. Some. of. this. drop. was. likely. due. to. an. increasing. national. awareness. of. autism. and. a. subsequent. shift. from. incorrect. SLD. identification. to. autism. identification.. A. few. other. hypotheses.are. worth. mentioning.. First,. growing. populations. of. students. with. developmental. delays,. which. may. in. some. states. substitute. for. autism. diagnoses. of. three-. to. five-year-olds,. and. with. OHIs,. which. has. become. somewhat. of. a. â€Å"catch. all†. category,. may. be. responsible. for. some. of. the. SLD. decrease,. in. addition. to. growth. in. autism.. Second,. SLD. numbers. may. have. dropped. due. to. the. proliferation. of. Response. to. Intervention. (RTI)—a. method. of. providing. targeted. assistance. to. young. children. who. have. difficulty. learning—and. other. early-reading. interventions. (see. Response to Intervention).. Lastly,. the. identification. of. SLDs,. though. strictly. outlined. in. policy,. appears. more. subjective. and. prone. to. human. error. than. the. identification. of. most. other. disabilities;. thus,. SLD. identification. is. perhaps. more. affected. by. related. changes. in. policy,. budget,. personnel,. etc. Rates. of. SLD. identification. varied. across. the. fifty. states. in. 2009-10.. As. shown. in. Figure. 6,. just. 2. percent. of. the. student. body. in. Kentucky. was. labeled. SLD. in. 2009-10,. while. over. 8. 4. percent. o f. Iowa’s. student. body. was. classified. as. such.. Similarly,. in.2009-10,. Kentucky’s. SLD. students. comprised. only. 13. 1. percent. of. the. state’s. entire. special-education. student. body,. while. in. Iowa. they. accounted. for. 60. 4. percent.. Across. the. entire. United. States,. SLD. students. comprised. 4. 9. percent. of. all. students. and. 37. 5. percent. of. all. students. with. disabilities. in. 2009-10.. Massachusetts. saw. the. greatest. percentage-point. decrease. in. its. SLD. population. between. 2000-01. and. 200910.. There,. SLD. students. fell. from. 9. 8. to. 5. 9. percent. of. all. students. during. that. time.. As. a. slice. of. the. specialeducation. pie,. in. fact,. Massachusetts’s. SLD. students. went. from. 58. 7. percent. of. all. special-education. students. to. just. 33. 3. percent.. Despite. this. declining. proportion,. however,. Massachusetts. still. identifies. the. second. overall. highest. rate. of. disability. in. the. nation. (see. Behind the Numbers in Outlier States. on. page. 13). Response to Intervention esponse. to. Intervention. (RTI). is. a. method. of. providing. targeted. and. increasingly. intensive. assistance. to. young. children. who. have. difficulty. learning.. RTI. began. to. gain. ground. with. the. enactment. of. the. No. Child. Left. Behind. Act. (NCLB). in. 2001,. which. provided. schools. with. Reading. First. grants. to. introduce. it. and. other. early-reading. strategies. into. general. education.. But. the. program. spread. more. rapidly. in. the. aftermath. of. the. 2004. reauthorization. of. IDEA,. which. allowed. districts. to. spend. 15. percent. of. the. law’s. Part. B. funds. on. RTI. and. other. early-intervening. services,. and. to. use. RTI. as. one. part. of. a. comprehensive. evaluation. process. for. identifying. students. with. SLDs.. In. 2007,. just. 24. percent. of. R districts. reported. that. they. had. implemented. or. were. in. the. process. of. implementing. RTI;. by. 2010,. this. had. risen. to. 61. percent. of. districts. 12 . Indeed,. SLD. may. be. the. disability. population. most. affected. by. early. interventions. like. RTI,. because. such. interventions. can. help. prevent. the. misidentification. and. mislabeling. of. struggling. students—who. may. simply. learn. better. with. enhanced,. tailored. instruction—as. students. with. SLDs.. At. the. same. time,. modifications. in. pedagogical. approach. and. lesson. planning. can. help. to. offset. the. challenges. faced. by. those. students. with. true. but. mild. SLDs.. 8 SH I FTI NG TREN DS I N SPECIAL EDUCATION FI N DI NGS 6. SLD as a Proportion of All Students and All Students with Disabilities, by State 2009-10 ALL STUDENTS Iowa 8. 42 7. 63 7. 41 STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES Nevada Iowa 60. 37 47. 47 45. 06 42. 92 42. 78 42. 73 42. 11 42. 74 44. 25 45. 81 48. 11 Pennsylvania Rhode Island New Jersey Delaware Oklahoma New York 6. 43 6. 29 6. 17 6. 85 Pennsylvania Alabama Arizona Delaware Iowa’s SLD Trend: True or False? New Hampshire South Carolina D. C. 6. 05 5. 99 5. 96 5. 92 5. 85 5. 73 5. 95 5. 97 South Carolina Oklahoma California Texas Utah I Florida Massachusetts Illinois Florida 42. 40 42. 09 41. 87 41. 21 Alaska Ohio Hawaii Montana Alaska D. C. New Mexico South Dakota Alabama Nevada Indiana 5. 48 5. 36 5. 13 5. 11 New Mexico New Hampshire United States New Jersey Ohio Illinois 40. 92 38. 88 38. 46 38. 16 37. 51 38. 87 39. 76 Michigan Montana 5. 03 5. 03 4. 97 5. 01 5. 05 Wyoming United States Arizona Oregon Utah Kansas Maine Rhode Island Tennessee New York Colorado 36. 68 Nebraska Hawaii 4. 89 4. 92 4. 93 4. 95 36. 43 36. 28 35. 53 36. 11 Michigan Washington 4. 82 4. 82 4. 75 Virginia South Dakota Oregon Kansas 34. 94 34. 53 33. 25 32. 06 31. 93 31. 36 31. 51 33. 16 34. 15 34. 57 35. 07 35. 22 West Virginia Vermont Virginia 4. 69 4. 59 4. 61 Massachusetts North Carolina Indiana. North Dakota Washington Wisconsin Missouri Tennessee California 4. 50 4. 38 4. 11 4. 47 4. 52 4. 31 North Dakota Mississippi Wisconsin Arkansas Vermont Georgia Maine Idaho Connecticut Maryland Nebraska North Carolina Connecticut Mississippi Maryland Arkansas 4. 08 4. 00 3. 99 3. 85 3. 70 3. 74 3. 87 4. 04 29. 99 29. 94 29. 36 29. 02 29. 15 29. 81 30. 63 Minnesota Colorado Texas Wyoming Louisiana Georgia Idaho 3. 60 3. 07 2. 97. West Virginia Minnesota Kentucky Louisiana Missouri 28. 69 28. 66 27. 86 13. 10 28. 94 owa. was. a. notable. exception. to. the. general. SLD. trend,. as. one. of. only. four. states. that. reported. an.increase. in. its. proportion. of. SLD. students. from. 2000-01. to. 2009-10.. The. Hawkeye. State. illustrates. the. extent. to. which. data. reporting—rather. than. actual. shifts. in. disability. incidence—may. affect. the. numbers. reported. to. the. public.. . At. 8. 4. percent,. Iowa. had. the. highest. rate. of. SLD. in. the. nation. for. 2009-10.. However,. the. state. does. not. assign. particular. disability. categories. to. its. specialeducation. students;. instead,. it. uses. a. single. â€Å"eligible. individual†. designation. for. all. students. with. disabilities.. To. meet. federal. disability. reporting. requirements,.which. call. for. population. counts. disaggregated. by. disability. category,. Iowa. examines. a. random. sample. of. Individualized. Education. Programs. (IEPs). each. year.. Reviewers. decide,. based. on. the. services. described. therein,. which. type. of. disability. is. likely. being. served. 13. Thus. Iowa’s. high. rate. of. SLD. relative. to. other. states. may. result. from. judgment. errors. made. by. IEP. reviewers,. who. examine. student. services. rather. than. symptoms.. Further. inaccuracy. could. arise. from. outdated. expectations. that. SLD. students. should. comprise. a. large. proportion. of. all. students.with. disabilities:. Beyond. Iowa’s. high. SLD. rate,. the. state. also. reports. low. rates. of. autism. and. OHI,. and. each. of. these. rates. has. remained. relatively. stable. in. the. state. over. the. last. decade.. Given. that. national. SLD. numbers. have. been. dropping. considerably,. while. autism. and. OHI. numbers. are. rising. quickly,. Iowa’s. incidence. rates. may. simply. be. based. on. old. assumptions. Kentucky 0 2 4 6 8 10 2. 04 25. 25 0 20 40 60 80 SLD IDENTIFICATION RATE (%) SLD IDENTIFICATION RATE (%) 9 SH I FTI NG TREN DS I N SPECIAL EDUCATION FI N DI NGS Personnel As. special-education. numbers. have.increased. over. the. last. few. decades,. only. recently. declining. for. the. first. time,. the. cost. of. educating. these. students. has. continued. to. increase. at. a. fast. rate. 14. Because. 85. percent. of. special-education. spending. supports. personnel,. special-education. staff. is. obviously. the. main. source. of. swelling. expenditures. 15 Schools. employ. a. diverse. range. of. professionals. to. teach,. support,. and. assist. their. students. with. disabilities.. In. addition. to. special-education. teachers. and. paraprofessionals—employees. who. might. provide. one-on-one. tutoring,. assist. with. classroom.  management,. conduct. parental-involvement. activities,. or. provide. instructional. support. under. the. supervision. of. a. teacher—a. school. might. retain. a. number. of. more. specialized. professionals. such. as. Audiologists,. speech. and. language. pathologists,. psychologists,. occupational. therapists,. physical. therapists,. social. workers,. and. more. 16. Because. shifts. in. these. populations. are. difficult. to. trace. over. time. (mostly. due. to. changes. in. federal. reporting. requirements),. this. analysis. focuses. on. teachers. and. paraprofessionals,. which. together. constitute. over. 80. percent. of. all.  special-education. personnel. 17 The. ratio. of. teachers. to. students. fluctuated. over. the. last. decade,. reaching. its. peak. in. 2005-06. and. declining. quickly. thereafter. (see. Figure. 7).. Public. schools. employed. sixty-five. special-education. teachers. per. thousand. special-education. students. in. 2000-01—or. 412,000. teachers. overall;. that. ratio. rose. to. seventy. per. thousand. in. 2005-06,. and. then. fell. to. sixty-three. per. thousand—or. 405,000. teachers. overall—by. 2008-09.. (Personnel. data. were. not. available. for. 2009-10. as. of. publication. ) In. contrast,. the. number. of. special-educati.

Help Remember The 1980s :: essays research papers

You're an '80s child if... 1) Snap bracelets were always getting you in trouble at school. 2) You played with "My Little Ponies". 3) Friendship bracelets were ties that couldn't be broken. 4) You’ve ever read Nancy Drew, The Hardy Boys, The Babysitters Club, or Sweet Valley High. 5) You know all the words to "Ice Ice Baby". 6) You wanted to be The Hulk for Halloween. 7) You had a crush on one of the New Kids on the Block members. 8) You wanted to be on Star Search. 9) You can remember what Michael Jackson looked like before he had Plastic surgery. 10) Heaven forbid you wore one of those T-shirt rings or a scrunchi on one side of your shirt during your youth. 11) You were styling with your French rolled pants. 12) You wore multiple pairs of socks in the middle of the summer just so you could Be "hip" 13) You had puff painted your own shirt at least once. 14) You owned a doll with 'Xavier Roberts' signed on its butt. Cabbage Patch Kids! 15) You knew what Willis was "talkin' 'bout." 16) You know the profound meaning of "Wax on, Wax off" 17) You were upset when She-ra, Princess of Power, and He-Man cancelled. 18) But the commercials in between were for Barbie and the Rockers and you knew all the words to all their songs. 19) You can remember watching Full House and Saved by the Bell for endless hours, back when they were new episodes. 20) You have seen at least 10 episodes of Fraggle Rock. 21) You hold a special place in your heart for "Back to the Future." 22) You know where to go if you "wanna go where everybody knows your name." 23) You wanted to be a Goonie. ("Goonies never say die.") "Yes!" 24) You remember Madonna in her cone stage. 25) You knew "The Artist" when he was humbly called "Prince." 26) You even wore fluorescent-neon clothing... 27) You could break dance, or wished you could. 28) You remember when ATARI was a state of the art video game system. 29) You remember M.C. Hammer. 30) You can still sing the rap to "Fresh Prince of Bel Air". 31) You own any cassettes. 32) You owned a pair of LA Gear, Keds, or Converse tennis shoes. 33) You carried your lunch to school in a Gremlin or an ET lunchbox.

Ethics and Morality

â€Å"In philosophy we have a problem knowing the origin of right and wrong, there are various theories and ideas but we do not seem to have a definite answer to this question. † By Jamee Ford In life people are brought up in different homes, surrounded by different people and are taught different ways of life. As we grow up we are taught the difference between what is considered right and what is considered wrong, which is based on what is socially acceptable.We learn from a young age how we are expected to behave, the rules we have to abide by given from family and the morals we should have and grow up with. In this society it is difficult to find the origin of right and wrong for there are so many theories and ideas, but yet there is no definite answer. I believe morality comes from us citizens, the law, our feelings and our religion can give a certain indication to how we set our values, but I belive it is an objective fact that what is said to be wrong is wrong and what i s said to be right is right.A minority of people believe that morality comes from God. These people have a lot of faith and get their morals and understanding of right and wrong from their belief in god and their bible. For example in the Bible, there are the 10 Commandments, a list of what is acceptable and unacceptable according to God. But what if we don’t believe in god, where would our sense of right and wrong come from? If we can’t change people’s options and feelings on what is right and wrong just by saying that it is acceptable or unacceptable, then why is it okay to say God can.Without god, would their still be morality? Because if god made it acceptable to kill other people, that still wouldn’t make it okay, so I believe this theory is unproven and morality and our right and wrongs can’t come from this theory. Another theory that has brought to the attention of the origin of right and wrong is The ‘Feeling Theory’ and the â €˜Boo-hoorah’ theory. The feeling theory is an example of how morality does come from us. We make things right or wrong by approving or disproving of them. If a person has certain feelings about another person’s actions, it is saying something about them.If they disprove of an action, it is considered morally wrong to that person. This theory is people making a claim about what they think; they are claiming whether the action is right or wrong. The ‘Boo-Hoorah Theory’ is another example of how morality comes from us but involves expressing what we think is right or wrong rather than making a claim about it. Something is neither true nor false and according to this theory there is no fact of the matter just an expression of what the person observing thinks.The feeling theory and the boo-hoorah theory are both wrong for everyone is different and raised differently with different beliefs (everyone has different feelings). So technically one person can trul y believe that it is okay to kill while another says it’s not okay, these two people are contradicting one another which rules out both theories. Some children are brought up in an abusive home environment; does this mean that morally they think its okay to treat people differently based on how they were raised?All people are raised in a different environment, under different circumstances so if morality comes from us then morality would have to include a whole lot of different views. Another important theory is that morality and our right and wrongs come from the law. Morality and the law often correspond, our morals are what we consider right and wrong, While the law is what has been decided as right and wrong for us. Both murder and stealing are things we consider morally wrong and are also against the law. In the perfect world we all want the law to coincide with morality, but in reality most likely will never be like that.For example drugs are illegal and the law will no t accept any sort of behaviour involving drugs, but in some cases people justify that is morally acceptable to deal drugs use it for personal use because of financial situations and pleasure. So they morally justify it in their own head for it to be okay. Even though morality can be guided by the law, helping us understand the differences between right and wrong, morality can’t come from the law, for there are a lot of things the law accept but us civilians see it as wrong.As we can see morality cannot come from the above theories, for they all leave the question of the origin of right and wrong UN answered. I believe that morality comes from us and that things are right and wrong anyway. I believe G. E Moores theory of the extra fact (the six sense) that can detect wrongness. I truly believe this for it is true that there is that something inside of us, guiding us and helping us know what is right and wrong. We on’t necessarily have to be taught about all the wrongs i n life to just get that gut feeling that mugging an elderly person is just wrong, why do we feel that? Why don’t we do it? It is because it is something that is just there. Also everyone in the world is different, we all come from different backgrounds and everyone has been brought up differently, in different environments. So therefore we all have different feelings and beliefs, for someone can truly believe that stealing is acceptable, when another thinks it is wrong.Morality is based on how you feel and how you treat people, expecting the same in return; you wouldn’t want someone to hurt you, so why would you want to hurt them. There are no proven facts to where right and wrong comes from but it is something that is just there. It changes over time, and things that were once believed as right are now seen as wrong. So therefore we cannot place judgements for we don’t know what morality and right and wrong will be seen as in ten years time, it’s based y ou as a person.

A Long Way Gone

Ishmael Beah’s work â€Å"A Long Way Gone† captures the essence of the situation in war-stricken Sierra Leone. It tells us how a young boy was forced to become a soldier to preserve his life and live to tell his story. Although Beah was from an underdeveloped nation, he had the dreams and thoughts of any normal teenager from the West.He speaks about his family, his friends, his rap band and his love for music. All these things tell us that no matter how far apart we live and how different we believe we are, we are all essentially the same at the core of our beings.It is heartbreaking to learn that such dreams of millions of children like Beah are crushed down and ripped apart by the institution of war. Beah, after being captured, was trained to kill without any regrets. His circumstances also forced him to be addicted to drugs at a tender age. His mind was made so numb that he could no longer consider the value of human life. It took him a lot of courage, determination and several years of his life to become a normal person, while being forced to undergo the trauma of being doubted and feared by the people around him.Beah’s book gives voice to the innumerable number of children around the world that have been reduced to weapons of war. It makes us further realize that war not only kills human life, but also crushes the soul of the surviving. He was eventually rehabilitated by the UNICEF, but the plight of several other Beahs around the world still trapped in wars sends an uneasy, chilling feeling down my spine. We all go through childhood only once, which happens to the most unadulterated and exciting part of our lives. Nothing that the Governments around the world and welfare agencies do will restore the childhood of thousands of children like Beah.Although many experts might not consider it as accurate history, I feel that Beah’s work portrays the rape of childhood innocence. Many of these critics are from developed countries that have had secure childhoods and have no idea whatsoever of being in the middle of a war zone. Beah mentions that he himself had no idea of the scope of horrendousness that war could bring, when people from nearby towns told him about it. Hence, it is naturally hard for a person who has just seen war on television to understand Beah’s situation in its entirety.Some critics question Beah’s integrity as they feel that is impossible for a grown-up to remember his past in great detail. However, I feel difficult and painful incidents in one’s life can leave behind a deep, lasting scar for life. Hence, it is my opinion that Beah could have very well remembered his dark past vividly, even if he had tried hard to forget it. I perceive Beah’s story as a tribute to many innocent children whose stories are seldom heard It is my opinion that it is extremely insensitive to disregard the tears of another human being, which goes to show the cynical nature of our lives tod ay.If we ourselves cannot have empathy for a child deeply tortured by war, we are not so different from the tyrants mentioned in Beah’s narrative. Moreover, no work of history can be completely accurate and does suffer from unconscious bias of the historian. Hence, I consider Beah’s book as a reasonably accurate time capsule that depicts the how war makes good people do bad things and also reminds us of the fact that ‘war has no winners’. Reference: Beah, I. (2007). A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

The Great Gatsby-Tom and Gatsby Comparison Essay Example

The Great Gatsby The Great Gatsby-Tom and Gatsby Comparison Paper The Great Gatsby-Tom and Gatsby Comparison Paper Tom and Gatsby are the same in the aspect of their values, but they differ in their life styles. Both Gatsby and Tom was adulteress because Gatsby wanted Daisy who was married and Tom was cheating on Daisy. But in contrast Tom was the big strong guy and Gatsby was smaller and not as well built. Tom and Gatsby were both rich and thought that money could buy anything and everything they wanted, both Gatsby and Tom used their money to impress people. Gatsby uses his for parties to get Daisy to come, and on other people for example when Lucille tore her gown on a chair, Gatsby paid for it to be replaced. Gatsby used his money to get what he wanted and Tom used his money and his strength to get what he wants. Gatsby wanted to be perceived as an intellectual person by telling them all that we went to Oxford when he really went to Oggsford, where as Tom was an athletic person and he was smart and we know this because he went to Yale. Toms athletics can be seen because he is always ridding and the strength he shows when Daisy knuckle was black and blue and then she says, You did it, Tom. I know you didn t mean to but u did do it. That s what I get for marrying a brute of a man, a great big hulking physical specimen of a-. Gatsby tries to be perceived as an intellectual with the huge library of books that he has. Tom and Gatsby have in common that they both want something the other has, Tom wants Gatsbys fancy car and this is seen when Tom ask Gatsby to borrow his car, on the other side Gatsby wants Daisy, who Tom sees as his property, and this is seen throughout the whole book with the parties Gatsby through to impress Daisy, and with all the things he does for her, like buying her things. Both Tom and Gatsby think money can buy everything. Tom unlike Gatsby uses racial slurs and comments to define people. Gatsby respects Daisy and wants her to have everything, but Tom just uses her like when he would go off and cheat, and he also mistreats her, because sometimes he hits her, or hurts her. He thinks of Daisy as property not as a person, and does not think he needs to treat her well since she is his. Tom and Gatsby both share the trait of being dishonest; Tom shows this when he sends Wilson to kill Gatsby instead of telling him that it wasn t Gatsby driving the car that it was Daisy, and Gatsby is dishonest in the way that he made his money and what he did to do what he was. Tom and Gatsby both had things in common and things that were different but I would say that they are more alike.

Biography of Winslow Homer essays

Biography of Winslow Homer essays Winslow Homer is widely regarded as one of the forerunners of the great nineteenth-century American Painters. Homer was a New Englander by birth and long ancestry. Circa 1636, Captain John Homer, an Englishman living in the west of England and active in maritime shipping, immigrated to America. He settled in Massachusetts where, almost two centuries later, his descendant Winslow Homer was born in Boston on February 24th 1836. Winslow grew up in the nearby village of Cambrige, a short walk from Harvard University. His mother was, like his father, of old New England Yankee stock, and he undoubtedly inherited her artistic talent. She encouraged him as a child, when he started to show an aptitude for drawing, she was a skillful amateur watercolorist. Around the age of eighteen Homer became apprenticed to a Boston lithographer, John H. Bufford, here he learned to copy other peoples drawings onto printing stones, he also produced sheet-music covers and other commercial works. His o nly form of training was at local art classes, where he learned the basic principles and styles of art. He also studied under Frederick Rondel, a well-known painter in Boston. This lasted for roughly two to three years until he grew tired and set himself up as a freelance illustrator at the age of 21. Much of his work was published in the newly popular pictorial weeklies including Harpers Weekly, which was one of the most popular magazines in its day. His illustrations almost always focused on the life he observed around him in the city and country. He drew his illustrations on wood blocks that were then engraved by others, following the usual practice of the time. In 1859 he moved from Boston to New York to be closer to the Harpers office and also because he was now determined to become a painter. New York was the center of the American art world. He took a few lessons at the National Academy but soon discontinued them, finding t...