Yearbook Terminology: Longitudinal Analysis

The sections are objectives, topic materials, assignments, discussion questions, and participation. There is also details, credit hours,

And most students wish that they could just complete a project because they WANT to! That’s kind of how I see the yearbook. We could go any direction with it! We could do a classic, “A Year to Remember” all the way to a twist on Google’s “You Are Here.” I would do good working on backgrounds and creating unique ideas for layouts. I enjoy creating designs for really anything. I often create binder covers for friends, make magazine collages, and in August I organized my cousins My Little Pony/ Frozen birthday party. I made her invitations, designed her cake, etc. The great thing about yearbook staff is that our “free will project” isn’t something we’ll work hard on and then throw away after it’s graded! The finished product is something hopefully all of our class will keep into their adulthood to look back on and remember where they came from and what shaped them into who they

One unit I taught during placement was the history of residential schools, this is a topic I was familiar with because I wrote a thesis paper about residential schools and how they impacted the loss of culture suffered among indigenous communities in Canada. I wanted students to connect emotionally with the material and realize that this happened to a large group of people who are apart of Canada and it’s identity. My students really enjoyed this unit, and they were able to make connections with the school aspects, and

In each trial, the participants were presented with a sequence of words on the left side of the window. Each word was presented for one and a half seconds. After all the words were presented, the response buttons were presented on the right side of window. These response buttons were labeled with words from the sequence along with new distractor words that were not part of the sequence. The goal of the participants was to click on the response buttons and identify all the words that were part of the sequence. The independent variable for this study was the types of words that were presented on the test (response buttons). The dependent variable was the percentage of each types of items reported.

These are but a few of the provocative headlines to capture the attention of faculty and administrators in recent years. Such essays, for many, introduced terms like trigger warnings, microaggressions, and safe spaces, now commonplace in media coverage of academic life in the 21st century. The stories they tell involve a wide range of issues, but the overarching themes that bind them include concerns about restrictions on free speech, student sensitivity, and evolving campus policies regarding acceptable content and language in and out of the classroom. My role today as a member of

In this paper I will address a due process rights afforded to a student in a scenario presented by The American College of Education. I will explain the substantive and procedural due process rights as they relate to student discipline in the situation. I will give concepts, and examples relating to freedom of speech and privacy. I will address the IEP educational rights as I understand it within the scope of California and the federal IDEA legislation.

Facts: In May of 1983, proof pages for the school newspaper was given to Principal Robert E. Reynolds. Upon review, Reynolds discovered that the paper, the Spectrum, included two articles that he deemed inappropriate for the school paper. One of the articles was about a girl who blamed her father for her parent’s divorce and the other was about school life as a pregnant teenager. Student Cathy Kuhlmeir, along with two other former Hazelwood East students, brought suit in the District Court (Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, n.d.).

In May of 1983, some students in the journalism class at hazel wood high school in Missouri, made the final edition of the school newspaper. They then gave the newspaper to the adviser, Howard Emerson, who wa a newbie. He gave the principal the final review of the paper before it was published. When the principal, Reynolds, reviewed the paper, there were 2 articles that he didn’t like. The first article was about teen pregnancy, including some comments from students that were pregnant at the school. Names weren’t given, but Reynolds thought there was too much information on the topic and he was concerned about the privacy of the students. So he took that article out. The second article was about divorce, and this one included a lot of personal stuff. Reynolds was not happy about what the students said about their families. One student said a lot of revealing things about their dad, and the dad hadn’t been given a chance to explain himself. He also didn’t want 9th graders to be reading about sex and birth control, which were in both articles. Reynolds took out the second article also, and published the rest of the paper.

Reason Filed: Students at Hazelwood East High School had two articles omitted from a school sponsored student newspaper by the principal. The

Fraser. On April 26, 1983, The student in question, Matthew Fraser delivered a speech nominating a fellow student for a student office at an assembly that was held during school hours as part of the school’s program in self-government. Throughout this speech, he repeatedly referred to his successor with an “elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor.” Before the speech was given he conferred with teachers on if the text was appropriate, two of which stating that it wasn’t. Shortly after the speech was given, the principal issued the student and three day suspension and revoked his right to speak at graduation. His father soon filed a suit, considering it a violation of his First Amendment rights. The matter was resolved by the Burger Court. The case was ruled in favor of the school with a 7-2 vote, The majority opinion, given by Chief Justice Burger, concluded that since the school was simply enforcing it code of conduct-their belief that his profanity interfered with the educational process-was justified.The fact that he had been warned by two teachers beforehand to not give the speech meant that he was aware of its risks, further justifying their reasoning. This was supported by justices Brennan, White, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, and O’Connor. The dissenting opinions, given by both judge Marshall and Stevens, stated that the school failed to show how the speech was considered

APPLICATION: The nine appellees have the right to get a free public education. Education, in this case, is considered a property right to the students. The state of Ohio violates the students’ rights by taking away their property without giving them a chance to claim their side of the story. The court explained that the right to have an education should be for everyone and the disciplinary actions that Principal Goss implemented on these students violate that right. Not only does it crush important property rights, but it has the potential to affect the students by inhibiting them of opportunities in the future. The students who are under suspension could have trouble finding employment after graduation. The serious disciplinary issues that were recorded in his or her permanent school records can prevent them from opportunities they face later

At a public high school assembly of roughly 600 high school students, Matthew Fraser made a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office. Fraser had discussed the subject matter of his speech before the assembly to two teachers. Fraser’s teachers had informed Fraser that the speech should not be delivered because the speech was inappropriate and that it could lead to severe consequences. In his speech, Fraser used what some students believed was a graphic sexual image to promote the candidacy of Fraser’s friend. Bethel High School had a disciplinary code that enforced a rule prohibiting conduct that substantially interfered with the educational process

Common Core consequences for students exhibitions; nor can the effect of educational execution be known, since there is no known exploration to date that has distributed goal, methodical perceptions of instructors and classroom conduct subsequent to the coming of the Common Core Standards Then again, the accessible examination does report educators' impression of their ability to show viably, drawing on an expansive assemblage of exploration demonstrating how firmly such recognitions track with genuine classroom

This question which is narrowed down by the results in a complicated statistical form does not address the fact that each comparison group that Margo chose was not labeled as deficient in the classroom or on their standardized test as the Team Read readers were when they were chosen for Team Read. These results that were detailed in Margo’s evaluation lacked credibility as the sample comparison group was generally not the same as the Team Read program participants. The participant often took what is referred to as a similar test but differs in comparison which can cause validity issues around the board for the independent evaluator.

First of all, I had initially deemed question six to be a bad question, when I assessed my pretest because only two of my students answered it correctly. However on the post test, this category saw significant growth moving from two correct answers to eight, and the girls went from a average score of one out of six to a three out of six, and the boys went from an average score of zero out of six to two out of six. Even though I was not able to teach this topic successfully the way I had anticipated, it showed me that I was still successful to a small handful of students.