Elementary School Controversy

Graff states that, “In the dark, all intellectual disagreements are gray”(7). This displays that what people say and what people hear is vastly different. When there is a disagreement between two intellectuals in the same field, they “share a public language of ideas and arguments that transcends their ideological differences and separates them from many students and other Americans” (7). Therefore, when students hear these, they clearly experience a misunderstanding that can, and will not be understood unless these students experience the same intellectual thinking that these intellectuals

“Seventh Grade” and “Melting Pot” both have conflicts. In “Seventh Grade” Victor has an internal conflict and in “Melting Pot” there are external conflicts. An internal conflict is a conflict that is happening in someone or something’s mind. An external conflict is a conflict that is happening in the real world, it is not in someone’s brain. Both stories have conflicts that are vastly different.

These errors may have been as a result of SRO being new and not being familiar with school protocol. Also, according to the established due process requirements from Goss v. Lopez (1975), since Truant continued to deny the charges, he should have been able to explain the evidence and given the opportunity to present his version of the events. He was given the opportunity to explain what happened in class, but not for testing positive on the drug test. By his statement it is not clear if he was told that he tested positive for amphetamines. If he does have a diagnosis of ADHD and taking medication, that would explain the positive result of the urine sample. But, since this conversation has not taken place with his parents, this issue remains in question. Since he did indeed test positive this is in violation of Offense #3 (Narcotics, Alcoholic Beverages, and Stimulant Drugs – A student shall not be under the influence of any

A more recent case which is similar to Everson v. Board of Education, is Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn. The taxpayers of Arizona were challenging the fact that a state law was providing tax credits to those who were donating to school tuition organizations in order for the schools to provide scholarships to those attending private/religious schools. The claim was that this was a violation of the Establishment Clause (Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 2016.), which is the first of several pronouncements within the First Amendment within the U.S. Constitution, or the first ten amendments within the Bill of Rights, which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” (Bill of Rights, 2016.). The Supreme Court had ruled 5-4 and argued that the plaintiff did not have enough information and standing to bring to the suit. Justice Kagen, in her dissent, stated that “cash grants and targeted tax breaks are means of accomplishing the same government object; to provide financial support to select individuals or organizations.” (Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 2016.). Although the ruling was made on “narrow grounds”, according to Peter Wooley, a political science and direction of the PublicMind Poll, the plaintiff in one “guise or another will be back another day” (Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 2016.).

The idea or policy alternative that should be going further in the policy process than it has is having a school curriculum that is common to all States.

Not everybody likes school but, elementary school is and will always be my best five years of school. Elementary school, miss one day nothing happens. High school, miss one day you're failing three classes. Kindergarten, you get naps because little kids are not use to being up that early. That’s the only year you get a nap because they try to get you ready for the next year. Fifth grade, they changed the rules this year at Lincoln Elementary school, they don’t let you have recess anymore because they are trying to get you ready for middle school. In middle school you don’t get recess.

Many times when we hear from someone who has been on both (or more) sides of an issue their message has a little more meaning than usual solely because they can provide more insight from the other side. During his presentation Mr. Pearce said that ‘we need to learn to argue and not quarrel. That arguing with others gives us the opportunity to learn more about the other person(s),’ (Pearce). Mr. Pearce’s message was very applicable to the world that we live in today because we are becoming divided and less understanding of others and their beliefs. Not everyone is going to have the same values and beliefs and we need to learn to accept that as well as hear them out as to why they hold those beliefs and accept their reasons even if we believe them to be

We should not be blind to arguments made by our peers and professors, rather we should argue for our specific beliefs. If these beliefs turn out to be incorrect, we should be willing to change our stance on the issue.

Conflicting perspectives arise when two individuals experience the same situations, events or personalities, but take meaning from these experiences in opposing ways. Because of these contradictory views, we –as the audience – must challenge our assessment of the truth.

One of the main issues raised by the case commonly known as the Everson vs board of education case is whether or not the separation of church and state is a good thing. Me personally, I only agree partially with the idea that religious groups ought to have their own political parties not because I am against government officials using their own religious perspectives and values to impact the political domain and rule the country; however, keeping the religion separated from the government ensures the vitality of the religion itself and fosters the cohabitation of multiple religious confessions, each one with its own views and beliefs, within the same environment especially in a democratic society as in America. While there are strong arguments on both sides, I have noticed that the major element in understanding this issue is the interpretation of the concept itself.

The Supreme Courts court's 7–2 decision held the First Amendment which applied to public schools. The administrators would have to establish "constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom". The court said you can't expect students or teachers to "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate". They felt that school district's actions evidently stemmed from a fear of possible disruption rather than any actual interference. The court ruled that the actions of the students did not disrupt school and their activity was "constitutionally protected symbolic speech".

Since the emancipation of slavery, the African Americans had a continuous fight for their complete emancipations and for their civil rights for over one hundred years. The white Americans couldn’t accept and see the African Americans as free human being and equal as them. Their ignorance was making them blind, building in themselves a hate that was unbearable to a human kind to do to the others. That hate overcome any reasonable behave that forced the law to intervene several times for consecutive years.

I believe that a community should want their city, or state, or whatever the case may be to succeed as one. There may be some cons on why we shouldn’t give up some of our freedom, or the right to do whatever we please just so our community can succeed. But I feel that the success of a community does depend on what people in the community decide to do. Three reason I feel this way are because if

During the late 1870s, the construction of boarding schools for American Indians began. The purpose of these schools was to introduce the American Indians the skills necessary to function in the American society. In other words, the white American society forced the Indians to assimilate into the white culture and strip them of their Native American traditions. There has been a lot of controversy about whether or not the assimilation of the American Indians was to benefit them, or to get rid of the ethnicities the society disliked. So many people say it was imperative because that was a way to help Indians survive in the American society. However, other people object to this belief because they consider it racism. So what was the easiest way

I find this issue very important since I have always criticized all types of religions for being significantly intolerant with each other. However, as Rees states in the article “According to data from the Virginia State Police, anti-Semitic acts are the most common hate crimes motivated by religion in the commonwealth.” Which makes the situation even more disturbing because it makes me ask the following question: Why does it have, the Jewish community, that people hate so much that makes them do these threats in schools? These types of situations make me realize that we, as human beings, are having less tolerance with each other way of thinking in general.