Public Transport in London and Paris

Question: Compare between the public transport of London and Paris? Answer: The transportation system of London and Paris is very good, as London and Paris is one of the developed cities in England and France. In this essay, we will discuss the transportation system of London and Paris and also make the similarities and the differences between the transportation systems of these two cities. The transportation in London includes; Underground Railways, Double Decker Buses, Docklands Light Railways, Overground Railways and River services. The public service system in terms of transportation in London makes the city more developed than other cities. The transportation system of Paris includes trains, trams, buses and metro. People also use cycles as a transportation system in Paris. It is one of the popular transportation systems for the people in Paris. Both in London and Paris, the transportation system are very advance, and the general people used these transportation facilities very well. The general people of London and Paris use the public transport system for their day to day life for the local transportation. At first we will discuss the similarities about the transportation facilities uses by the general public of London and Paris. The general public of London and Paris use buses, trains and underground railways for their day to life transportation, as these two transportation systems are common in both the cities (Khan, 2010). The fair of London is much more than Paris. People of London used to make monthly fares system that helps them for travelling purpose within the London city. The people of Paris also make monthly fares system for their travelling purpose, but it takes much cheaper price than that of London. Both in London and Paris there is a monthly card system available for the public transport system. In Paris by using monthly card system general people can travel unlimited in all direction, but it depends on the chosen location and stage. While in London people cannot used their monthly card unlimitedly for travelling in all direction. In London, there is a new card system in which, the card deducts the money by calculating the travelling time and the distance. But at the same time, there is the certain cost that will deduct from the card, no matter how many times people travels. In Paris, the cost of travelling also includes VAT, while on the other hand VAT is not there for transportation (Dabla nc, Diziain and Levifve, 2011). Both the transportation system of London and Paris includes train for the public services. According to the (Buzsi and Csete, 2015) In Paris there are sixteen tube lines in which there are around 303 stations and which covers a network of 220 kilometers and near about 1500 million people used to travel per year. In London, there are 11 tube lines in which there are around 250 stations that cover a network of 400 kilometers and near about 1250 million people used to travel per year. If we talk about the buses than in London city, there are more buses than Paris, and it provides its services to the public of London more than two times in comparison with Paris. Other than these, there are more transportation facilities in London and Paris, and almost every mode of transportation is more advance in London than Paris except few. In London, the organization those who are dealing with the public services in regarding with transportation is more accurate and advance, as they are using new te chnologies for continuous improvement of the transportation. The transportation in Paris is also advanced than other cities but not as good as London, and they are also taking less fair in comparison with the London city (Sloan and Sloan, 2011). The public transportation of London also gives advantages to the students of London city, as they provide their services to the student in cheaper cost. This is also common in the transportation system of Paris; they are also providing discounts to the students of Paris. In London, the bus transportation provides their services in all day and night, whereas the bus transportation system of Paris stops for some hours in the night. The transportation facilities for the students of London are very helpful for them, as they can travel by buses throughout the day and night with a discount. In the other hand, the students of Paris city may suffer while travelling in the night, as the bus transportation stop during the night. Both in London and Paris, the transportation system are very advance, and the general people used these transportation facilities very well. The general people of London and Paris use the public transport system for their day to day life for the local transportation. It can be concluded that the transport system of London and Paris is of very high quality and is very healthful for the travelers of the country. General vehicles such as buses, trains, and underground railways are used by the people of London and Paris in case of transportations. The fare structure of Paris is much cheaper than that of London. Facility of the monthly card system for the public transport is available in both the countries, but it is not unlimited for every direction. Also, a new card system facility is present in London in which the money is deducted regarding the time and distance travelled by the public. Also, there is a reduction of the minimum price that does not matter with time. VAT system is included in the travelling cost of Paris. Trains are also available in the transportation service of both the countries. Regarding the train services, tube lines provided in Paris is about 16 whereas in London it is about 11. From the discussion provided in the essays, muc h other information regarding the transportation system of London and Paris can also acquired which help the general public in case of travelling. So we can conclude that the transportation system of London and Paris are advance and help the public for their day to day transportation. References Buzsi, A. and Csete, M. (2015). Sustainability Indicators in Assessing Urban Transport Systems. Periodica Polytechnica Transportation Engineering. Dablanc, L., Diziain, D. and Levifve, H. (2011). Urban freight consultations in the Paris region. European Transport Research Review, 3(1), pp.47-57. Khan, A. (2010). Bayesian predictive travel time methodology for advanced traveller information system. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 46(1), pp.67-79. Sloan, K. and Sloan, T. (2011). Dispersion of continuous improvement and its impact on continuous improvement. International Journal of Technology Management, 55(1/2), p.43.

Catch-22 Essays (671 words) - Catch-22, Doc Daneeka, Yossarian, Orr

Catch-22 In Catch-22, Joseph Heller reveals the perversions of the human character and society. Using various themes and a unique style and structure, Heller satirizes war and its values as well as using the war setting to satirize society at large. By manipulating the classic war setting and language of the novel Heller is able to depict society as dark and twisted. Heller demonstrates his depiction of society through the institution of war (i.e. it's effects and problems during and after war). Hellers satire of war and his anti war themes evoke pleasure and disquietude to show the mess of war, the victimization of the conscripts, and the monstrous egotism of the top brass. Catch-22 shows how the individual soldier loses his uniqueness not as much from the battlefield like other novels set during a war, but from the bureaucratic mentality. An example of this Lt. Scheisskopf's obsession with parades that he sees the men more as puppets than as human beings. At one point in the novel, he even wants to wire them together so their movements will be perfectly precise--just as mindless puppets would be. This theme also appears when Colonel Cathcart keeps increasing the number of missions his squadron must fly--not for military purposes, but to solely enhance his prestige. One other example of this theme is in the novel, when Yossarian is wounded. He is told to take better care of his leg because it is government property. Soldiers, therefore, are not even people, but simply property that can be listed on an inventory. In a bureaucracy, as Heller shows, individuality does not matter. In form, Catch-22 is a social satire--it is a novel using absurd humor to discredit or ridicule aspects of our society. The target in Catch-22 is not just the self-serving attitudes of some military officers, but also the Air Force itself as a mad military bureaucracy. The humor in the novel along with descriptive styles such as: Doc Daneeka, roosted dolorously like a shivering turkey buzzard; the mountains, blanketed in a mesmerizing quiet, Yossarian, wet with the feeling of warm slime, lavender gloom clouding the entrance of the operations tent These descriptive styles help depart from pure realism--they serve to transcend physical reality by making sensations metaphors for states of mind and by attributing unusual qualities to objects, making the reader take a second look at familiar objects and feelings. These help to create new and altered perceptions of the world--common in satires as they try to solve the problem being satirized by having those satirized (the human character) realize its faults. One example of the absurd humor are the deaths of some of the men. The war kills men in both expected and unexpected ways--some die through anti-aircraft fire, while others did in odd ways; Clevingers plane disappeared in the clouds; Dunbar simply disappears from the hospital; and Sampson is killed by a propeller of one of the bombers. This departure from pure realism (i.e. the exaggeration, the grotesque, the comic-like characters, the unusual deaths) is aimed to first make the reader laugh, then look back at horror at what am used them--and this is the technique Heller applies to satirize society. Catch-22 is the principle that informs the military-economic machine, giving it power and making war possible in the first place. It is the law that says what it commands is right because it is commanded, and the illogical must be done because the command says it is logical. Catch-22 is the untouchable power that has usurped mans control over his own life and handed it over to an institution that manufactures fatal and incredible death traps. Heller gives us the feeling that this power could possibly be beyond even the institution that uses it. An abstraction can be evoked any time we find man subjugated to the absurd- it is reason, we would be told for his subjugation . . . Book Reports

Hamlet Essays

Hamlet Essays Hamlet Essay Hamlet Essay Lorem Nathaniel nomen meum, et ego hodie loqui de Satanism, male maxime religionum semper, translated from latin one of the languages most used by Hollywood to depict Satanists means Hi my name is Nathaniel, and today I will be talking about Satanism, one of the most misinterpreted religions of all times. When most people think about Satanism they think about Latin speaking devil worshipers who sacrifice things from goats to babies. While this may have been true a few hundred years ago, it is now no longer like that and the Modern Church of Satanism tries to make sure that everyone knows that.See, the current Satanic church is more of a form of Atheism or agnosticism. From their very own website, the Modern Satanic Church, says The most important virtue in Satanism is the enjoyment of life. You are God. This is your world and so everyone and everything in it has been placed here for your own enjoyment. Anton Szandor LaVey the founder of the Satanic Church, whi le respected by the community his work is often seen as false. One of the main points of the church is to change the ways of old, they frequently test their old traditions and philosophies, and if it is not found to be useful, or doesnt serve a purpose, they are thrown out to make way for more functional teachings. One of the most important things that the church says, is that no matter what, A Satanist needs no church. They say A person need only declare themselves as Satan and strive to be a god by living a Satanic lifestyle. Yet we must not deny our underlying nature as a social animal. To satisfy this need, the Modern Church of Satan created a community where like-minded individuals can congregate. It is incredibly fulfilling to be associated with others who thirst for knowledge and success, who are compelled to better themselves and who knowingly squeeze every moment out of life, living each day as if it may be their last.

Developing an Ethical Business Environment Essay

Developing an Ethical Business Environment - Essay Example (Kuhn, 2005, 12) Organizational management involves several serious tasks that concern not only the whole company but also its stakeholders. This is the reason why the need for the fine application of ethical leadership is essential for the pursuance of rightful managerial policing processes. Management, as known to many is a performed function in every organizational set up that is essential for arranging the activities of certain business groups. The said act of organizing a business group indeed requires a high level of leadership skills. As for this reason, governance then is considered a responsibility that demands effort and patience in dealing with other people (Humes-Schulz, 2002, 15). As the present human society advances to being economically global, the need for management especially on commercial business organizations is heightened. Hence, there are necessary points of consideration when good governance is being talked about. Today, as management of businesses deal with multicultural differences of the people making up the company, it could be noticed that the challenges in dealing with organizational matters becomes harder to deal with, hence, requiring more skillful attitudes and acts towards the responsibility of organizational management (Cragg, The Shopping Mall Challenge). Certainly, the following organizational issues are the major responsibilities that the leaders must address in their daily activities: - High Profile organizational Failures This concerns the issue that is concerned with the failure of the company, which in some way becomes controversial and in a way destroys the company's reputation in the business industry. Leaders of the organization should see to it that a certain measure of damage control should immediately be taken into consideration to be able to answer to the doubts raised against the company through the existence of the said issue. - Higher expectations on the part of the public sectors and regulators Since the business organizations are mostly aiming for globalization, the public then as well as with the regulators within the society have higher expectations form the organizational governance. Since the aim for progress is high, the effort to be placed forward should also account for the goals that are to be reached. - Increasing litigation and concerns about legal liability Because of being multinational, the business organizations today are subjected to more complex and more systematic legalities that give them their capabilities and limitations in operating with their business on certain countries around the world. - More takeovers, mergers, acquisitions Since the organizations are expected to become larger, the issue concerning the takeovers and merging of the organizations with other business companies, it easy to conclude that the responsibility of the governing department of any business organization subjects the leaders to resort to different resolutions to be able to deal with the said business transactions with other. - Global Competition and Technological change Carrying these things into consideration

Genes and Environment Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Genes and Environment - Research Paper Example DNA is present on the chromosomes in a coiled helical manner and controls the cellular metabolism as it has nitrogen base that contains four different nitrogen bases- Adenine (A), Guanine (G), Cytosine (C), Thymine (T). A pairs with T with a double Hydrogen bond while G pairs with C with a triple nitrogen bond. On the other hand, RNA also contains A, G, and C but instead of T, it has U, the Uracil. The exact sequence of the base pair is required for the formation of a particular protein any change in the sequence of the base pairs changes the structure and function of the protein molecule and hence the cellular metabolism is affected (Alberts, 2002; Snustad, 2002). DNA controls the cellular environment as well as the metabolic processes, synthesizes mRNA molecule by the process of transcription, RNA, in turn, synthesize polypeptide chain by the process of translation. Polypeptides are the basic structure of the protein molecules. These proteins are responsible for the formation of en zymes which control the cellular mechanism and hence influence the survival of the organism (Alberts, 2002; Snustad, 2002). Genes possess information to maintain the cellular environment and trigger the formation or stoppage of the formation of the polypeptide. Depending on the cellular requirement the genes are switched on and off. Genes are the heritable units i.e. they pass the genetic traits to the offspring. The genetic makeup of the organism is called the genotype while genes also govern the external appearance of the organism, the phenotype. It is because of genes an offspring resemble parents in appearance and behavior to a certain extent. Thus, genes are the most vital components of life and carry out all the biological processes (Alberts, 2002; Snustad, 2002). The number of genes varies from organisms to organisms. For instance, micro-organisms possess single chromosomes and therefore they have limited genes. Viruses, which are considered to be the connecting link between the living and non-living entities carry either DNA or RNA. For their replication and multiplication, they pass only the genetic material to the host cell and this genetic material takes control over the host cell machinery to make multiple copies of the viral particles. Thereby highlighting the fact that genes retain all the information required for the formation of the complete organism, from the single cell to multicellular organisms (Alberts, 2002; Snustad, 2002). Multicellular organisms possess a greater number of chromosomes, for instance, human beings have 23 pairs of chromosomes carrying different genes located on different chromosomes to carry out different physiological and biological processes (Alberts, 2002; Snustad, 2002). Interaction of genes As genes are chemical entities, they are liable to interact with various physical and chemical molecules. These chemicals interact with the genetic molecules and potentially alters their characteristics. Alteration of genes is cal led mutation (Alberts, 2002; Snustad, 2002). Alteration of genes occurs in many ways either in terms of addition, deletion, duplication of base pairs. These alterations are responsible for various genetic anomalies.

How Self Evaluation is implemented for school improvement

How Self Evaluation is implemented for school improvement The aim of the study is to investigate how School Self-Evaluation (SSE) is implemented for school improvement. There is an increasing international trend of democratisation and decentralisation of education, from the bureaucratic national to an autonomous school based education, in terms of financial management, human resource management and curriculum management. The Department of education observes that with the democratisation of education and associated decentralisation of authority, schools are increasingly being held accountable for their performance (DoE, 2004). School Self-Evaluation is defined as a procedure involving systematic information gathering which is initiated by the school itself and aims to assess the functioning of the school and the attainment of its education goals for the purpose of supporting decision-making and learning for fostering school improvement as a whole (Schildkamp, 2007). Paradoxically, the quality of education that is offered, especially in rural schools of South Africa, is decreasing dramatically. This is confirmed by national and international assessment bodies like the Systemic Evaluation (SE), the Trends in Mathematics and Science Studies (TIMSS), the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), and the Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality (SACMEQ). The Department of Basic Education, (2010) contends that both the Systemic Evaluation in 2004 and SACMEQ in 2000 indicated that less than one in four Grade 6 learners passed minimum standards in mathematics (DBE, 2010). It further stipulates that the international tests that South Africa participates in show that the top 10% of learners in South Africa do worse than the top 10% of learners in other developing countries such as Kenya, Indonesia and Chile (DBE, 2010). School improvement is defined as a systematic, sustained effort in changing learning conditions and other related internal conditions in one or more schools with the ultimate of accomplishing educational goals more effectively (Van Veltzen, Miles, Ekholm, Hamemyer, and Robin, 1985). The above observations do not presume that the decline in the quality of education in South Africa is due to the democratisation and decentralisation of education, but rather depicts an inevitable demand for a more relevant mechanism, at school level, to be put in place to ensure high quality education and continuous school improvement. This condition imposes that an effective implementation and monitoring of School Self-Evaluation (SSE) is indispensable. Vanhoof, Maeyer and Petegem (2011) confirm that schools are increasingly required to assume a greater share of the responsibility for developing and guaranteeing educational quality (Vanhoof, Maeyer and Petegem, 2011). SSE is a school-based evaluation that is supposed to be implemented by principals, School Management Teams (SMTs), School Governing Bodies (SGBs) and the community, on an annual basis, to ensure continuous improvement and high quality education in all schools. problem statement and rationale for the study School self-evaluation was introduces by the former Minister of education, Professor Kader Asmal in 2001. It is the initial phase of Whole School Evaluation (WSE), preceding external evaluation. In his foreword, the minister states that the National Policy on Whole School Evaluation introduces an effective monitoring and evaluation process that is vital to the improvement of quality and standards of performance in schools (DBE, 2002). This policy aims at improving the overall quality of education in South African schools, and its purpose is to facilitate improvement of school performance through approaches characterised by partnership, collaboration, mentoring and guidance (DBE, 2002). According to the National Education Policy Act (No.27 of 1996), the Minister is mandated to direct that standards of education provision, delivery and performance are monitored though out the country. It remains a worrying factor that rural schools seem not to be considered as part of South African sch ools by these education policies. This view is confirmed by the New Vision for Rural Schooling, (2005) which states that the states commitment to social justice in all matters and especially to universal access to education, written into the Constitution, remains unfulfilled for a large number of children, youths and adults living in rural areas (DoE, 2005). A plethora of education policies have been developed in the new political dispensation, but the serious challenge is that they do not translate into school improvement. Schildkamp and Visscher (2010) argue that enormous resources are invested to develop and implement school self-evaluation instruments, but how schools actually use the instrument has never been thoroughly evaluated longitudinally (Schildkamp and Visscher, 2010). Furthermore, they contend that several studies report a lack of effect of school self-evaluation feedback, but this lack of effect may be caused by a lack of use of school self-evaluation feedback (Schildkamp and Visscher, 2010). McNamara and OHara (2008) note that there has been a remarkable rise in the regulation of public services and servants, especially in education, in an attempt to counterbalance the autonomy of schools. Furthermore, external evaluation and inspection has been an important element of this trend, however as their limitations become more apparent, the concept of internal or self evaluation has grown in importance (McNamara and OHara, 2008). These authors proceed to warn that the greater emphasis an evaluation system places on teacher appraisal and accountability, the less useful that system is likely to be for school improvement and professional development (McNamara and OHara, 2008). The European Parliament and Council on European Cooperation in Quality Evaluation in school education, in McNamara and OHara (2008), argue that improvements in European schools evaluation provisions are dependant on the enhancement of schools abilities to evaluate themselves and call for all member states of the European Union (EU) to encourage school self-evaluation as a method of creating learning and improving schools (McNamara and OHara, 2008). This analysis is echoed by the OECD report which views development of school evaluation skills within the education system as being a critical component of the drive to improving educational provision in OECD member states (McNamara and OHara, 2008) During the apartheid era, prior 1994, traditional quality assurance approaches like school inspection were vehemently opposed by teacher unions who felt that their members were intimidated. When WSE was introduced, there was hope that this democratic process would bring satisfaction to educators and yield better learner attainment results, particularly in previously disadvantaged areas, but that positive change is still being awaited. Despite the surfeit of education policies, South Africa is facing a serious challenge of a growing trend of dysfunctional and underperforming schools, especially in previously disadvantaged areas. Efforts by the government to swivel this proclivity have been in vane. This is confirmed by the fact that the government has made some strides to develop education policies that should have culminated in school improvement, but that outcome has not yet been realised. The Whole School Evaluation policy was introduced in 2001 to improve school performance, but c onversely, schools are performing worse as time goes by, as revealed by national and international studies like Systemic Evaluation, TIMSS, SACMEQ and PIRLS. It should be a worrying factor to every educationist as to why this education policy is not yielding the expected outcomes. It is a cause for concern to find out if this policy is being implemented as prescribed by the relevant policy document. Even though the Mpumalanga province of South Africa has reported an 8,9 % improvement in grade 12 results in 2010, it is still the lowest province in terms of learner attainment in the country, sitting at 56,8 % (MDoE, 2011). Poor performance is shoddier in rural schools where socio-economic challenges and challenges of providing qualified teachers, adequate physical and financial resources are still overwhelming. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that a good number of these rural primary schools are multi-graded farm schools. As a principal of one of the rural primary schools in the neighbourhood of one of the worse performing secondary schools in the sub-region, I have an obligation to find out the root course of underperformance in rural school. It has also come to my realisation that during school visitations by the circuit management, district office or provincial external evaluation team, the school self evaluation instrument is neither enquired about nor monitored. There is no link or correlation between inspection and school-based evaluation. According to the WSE policy, schools must complete and submit self evaluation forms A and B before the end of March on an annual basis (DoE, 2004). On the contrary not even a single school submits such a document to the regional office. I have also noted that in my three years of experience as a principal, not even a single official from any of the structures of the education department has ever enquired about the self evaluation instrument. One then tends to wonder what purpose is this education policy serving. Whether they are meant to improve the quality of education or they were just developed for symbolism still remains mysterious. I am therefore determined to come out with a turn around strategy to ensure effective implementation of the self-evaluation instrument of the WSE policy so as to ensure accountability and improvement in the education quality of rural schools. This study will investigate how and to what extent the school self-evaluation instrument is utilised in rural schools. It will further explore the perceptions of school principals towards school self-evaluation. Lastly, it will determine how school self-evaluation could be better utilised to ensure school improvement and quality education. It is my conviction that if school self-evaluation can be efficiently implemented, school improvement and quality education can be achieved. Moreover, the school self-evaluation findings must easily accessible to all stakeholders, analysed, and its recommendations must be implemented so as to realise the desired outcomes of school improvement. This study will advocate for keeping all stakeholders informed about the performance of their school, and encourage them to positively contribution to the improvement of their school. It will also assist different officers in all structures of education, from the school principal to the provincial Superintend ent Generals, to perform their designated duties diligently. Finally policy makers will get feedback of implementation of the policy such that they can evaluate its impact and make possible amendments if necessary. main research question In order to address the problem statement, this study must give an explicit answer to the following question:- How and to what extent is school self-evaluation implemented for school improvement in rural schools? structure of the proposal Section 1 of the proposal is the introduction of school self-evaluation, enunciation of the problem statement and rational, and elocution of the main research question. Section 2 portrays the context of the study and section 3 presents the literature that has been reviewed. Section 4 will demonstrate the research design and methods that will be implemented and section 5 will illustrate the timeline for the whole research process. Section 6 will give the outline of chapters and section 7 will be the list references. Context for the study The study will take place in the rural schools of Mpumalanga province. Mpumalanga is one of the provinces that have the lowest socio-economic status. Consequently, most schools are in quintiles one and two, indicating that the learners in these schools are from destitute families. Learners have to travel for over five Kilometres every single day, to get to school, posing absenteeism problems to educators. Some of these schools have no electricity and sanitation, such that introduction of the new forms of technologically advanced equipment is implausible. Mpumalanga has the least percentage decrease in the number of learners at farm schools. The new vision for rural schooling states that between 1996 and 2000, it decreased by -65% (DoE, 2005). This figure shows that there is a steady increase in the number of learners at farm schools. The Ermelo sub-district has three circuits with ninety seven schools, out of which only eight are in town. The rest of them are located in very remote farms such that access to such schools for the support teams in a daunting task. There are no secondary farm school, but combined schools. This is because the enrolment of these schools does not allow them to be fully fledged secondary schools. A good number of primary schools have multi-graded classes, combining learners from different grades into one class. This situation does not only present management problems but pedagogical challenges as well. It is unbearable for educators to manage curriculum delivery under such adverse conditions. Even though conditions seem to be unfavourable for provision of quality education, rural schools are also expected to improve their performance. School self-evaluation must be implemented just in the same way or better than it should be implemented in urban schools. The WSE policy however recognises that the inauspicious conditions may retard the pace of school improvement. A provision was made in the policy, to evaluate each school based on its contextual factors. One of the principles of the WSE policy is seek to understand why schools are where they are and to use the particular circumstances to the school as the main starting point of evaluation (DoE, 2001). literature review introduction This section reviews researches that were conducted in Ireland, Netherlands, England and South Africa, based on School Self-Evaluation (SSE). A comparison is made to identify and best international practices and set them as a benchmark for implementation of School Self-Evaluation for school improvement in South Africa. A DISCUSSION OF research conducted internationally AS WELL AS studies in south africa SCHOOL SELF-EVALUATION IN IRELAND In Ireland, the first system of evaluation that was piloted between 1990 and 1999 is the Whole School Evaluation (WSE). This system culminated in a series of rancorous industrial disputes that lasted until 2003. The reason for these quarrels was that educators viewed evaluation as reductionist and managerialist interference in their profession while stakeholders such as parents, learners and business community demanded hard data from a transparent school evaluation process (McNamara and OHara, 2006). In 2004, a new framework for school evaluation, Looking At Our School (LAOS), was implemented (McNamara and OHara, 2006). McNamara and OHara explain that the School Self-Evaluation (SSE) is based on a broad framework for inspection and evaluation of schools that includes five areas of evaluation that are subdivided into 143 themes for self-evaluation, which are used to prepare for external evaluation by the inspectorate (McNamara and OHara, 2006). In short, SSE precedes external evaluati on and it is conducted by each schools stakeholders, unlike external evaluation which is conducted by external officials called inspectorates. McNamara and OHara (2006) also contend that Ireland is adopting a model of quality assurance that emphasizes school development planning through internal school-review and self-evaluation, with the support of external evaluation carried out by the Inspectorate (McNamara and OHara, 2006). This model concurs with MacBeaths idea which argues that the role of external evaluation and inspection is merely to ensure that internal systems of evaluation and self-review are implemented effectively (McNamara and OHara, 2006). In their study, McNamara and OHara (2006) reveal that principals expressed their view that any form of external evaluation was by its nature superficial, underestimated the non-academic achievements of schools and raised deep concerns among teachers, yet to the contrary, self-evaluation with no external mandate or monitoring was perceived as a major success (McNamara and OHara, 2006). According to McNamara and OHara, self-evaluation in Ireland had its negatives. Firstly, LAOS documents lack suggestions as to how schools should collect the data on which the effectiveness and credibility of the whole system must rest (McNamara and OHara, 2006). Secondly, the judgments in the areas, aspects and components requires data that in the present system does not exist- there is, for instance, no data regarding the ability and general expectations of pupils (McNamara and OHara, 2006). McNamara and OHara argue that evaluation, whether external or internal, mandated or self-driven, requires at a minimum the collection and analysis of real data on which firm conclusions can be based (McNamara and OHara, 2006). Thirdly, the Chief Inspector shifted the responsibility of addressing weaknesses identified during inspection to self-governing and self-evaluating institutions. McNamara and OHara argue that the weaknesses identified during inspection should not be a responsibility of sch ools to address them since they do not have the capacity to control over resources, teacher tenure and conditions of employment, and issue. Moreover, schools cannot solve all problems themselves in-house-that is a fiction (McNamara and OHara, 2006). After the court judgment, the honours of whether to release none, some or all of the Inspection Report lies solely on schools management team. Fourthly, LAOS is silent about the appropriate role of parents, teachers and learners in the school evaluation process. One other worrying factor is that the concept of an ongoing self-evaluation was said to be puzzling to most schools (McNamara and OHara, 2006). Lastly, McNamara and OHara (2008) lament that the lack of any guidelines in LAOS as to criteria or research methods that might inform judgments has led to what amounts to data-free evaluation in practice, and moreover, it is clear that without such guidelines and the provision of training and research support for schools, the situation is not likely to change (McNamara and OHara, 2008). The study by McNamara and OHara reveal acceptance of the new themes of self-evaluation to give a comprehensive picture of all schools activities and not just their academic outcomes (McNamara and OHara, 2006). According to McNamara and OHara (2006), the above point was particularly stressed by respondents from the two primary schools designated disadvantaged, which felt very strongly that the affirmation of good practice provided by the inspectors was of extraordinary importance to teachers in disadvantaged school who rarely feel valued or supported. This was perceived as a considerable achievement in an education community deeply suspicious of evaluation, inspection and appraisal (McNamara and OHara, 2006). SCHOOL SELF-EVALUATION IN SCOTLAND Croxford, Grek and Shaik (2009) state that despite the change from Conservative to Labour government in 1997, education policy in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom (UK) continued to reflect an emphasis on quality assurance and a belief that competition and setting standards would enhance quality and ensure accountability (Croxford et al., 2009). They further stipulate that Scotlands approach to Quality Assurance and Evaluation (QAE) has a greater emphasis on self-evaluation by schools, whereas England had a stronger focus on hard performance indicators (Croxford et al., 2009). The Inspectorate is a major influence on the formulation of education policies. In 1980, the Inspectorates set up a Management of Education Resource Unit (MERU) that later became the Audit Unit, to promote good management achieve value for money in education. It started publishing papers that identified characteristics of effective schools in an attempt to encourage secondary schools to evaluate thei r own practice and performance (MacBeath and Mortimore, 2001). In 1990/91 it began publishing annually information for parents series-reports giving the details of schools attainment data; school costs; attendance and absence rates and school leaver destination for secondary schools. In 1991, it published the role of school development plans in managing schools effectiveness as well as statistical information about examination performance per school, which was used for school self-evaluation. Standards Tables were used each year to compare the performance by subject departments within each school and nationally, the Relative Ratings and National Comparison Factors, respectively (Croxford et al. 2009). The Scottish Office Education Industry Department (SOEID) in Croxford et al. ( 2009) state that the process of self-evaluation and development planning were set out more explicitly by the Audit Unit publication How good is our school? (HGIOS?), which provided a set of performance indic ators of what a good school should look like (Croxford et al. 2009). Schools were encouraged to use the same performance indicators as those used by the HMI in school inspection to identify, report and take action where required on strengths and weaknesses (Croxford et al., 2009). In 1997, HMI set out its vision of working in partnership with local authorities and schools through the quality initiative in Scotland schools. This was endorsed in the standards in Scotlands schools Act 2000. According to Cowie and Croxford, in Croxford et al. (2009), this act places local authorities under great pressure to implement the required quality assurance procedures by the threat of adverse inspection by HMI of education (HMIE) (Croxford et al., 2009). A new professional group of Quality Improvement Officers (QIO) has been established to challenge and support schools. They scrutinise statistics on school performance, seek to ensure a robust self-evaluation structure within schools and identify areas that need to be addressed (Croxford et al., 2009). They carry out a regular cycle of visits to schools to: assess the schools progress with its school development plan; discuss improvement issues with management and staff; and support the schools management in making improvements (Croxford et al., 2009). The local authorities themselves are inspected by HMIE, with special regard to their own self-evaluation and the extent to which they support and challenge their schools (Croxford et al., 2009). In Scotland, schools are required to evaluate their own performance each year using the 30 quality Indicators from HGIOS and their performance on the indicators is extremely judged on a regular basis through inspection of schools carried out by HMIE. The indicators are based on key performance outcomes, delivery of education, policy development and planning, management and support staff, partnership and resources, leadership capacity for improvement (Croxford et al., 2009). Self-evalua tion procedure requires schools to look at each aspect of provision and ask: How are we doing? How do we know? What are we going to do now? For each indicator, schools must gather evidence in order to evaluate their performance, on a six-point scale from 1 [unsatisfactory], to 6 [excellent] (Croxford et al. 2009). SCHOOL SELF-EVALUATION IN ENGLAND Prior 1990, the government of England implemented a top down strategy to school monitor performance of schools. A change was seen in 1997 when the government showed some commitment to support and promote school self-evaluation (Turnbull, 2007). The Department for Education and Skills (DfES), 2004 notes that in 1999, a revised framework was of inspecting schools that included guidance for schools on using it for school self-evaluation, and not just inspection was introduced (DfES, 2004). Local authorities had been providing support for head teachers as they increase their efforts to manage and lead the self-evaluation process and procedures now expected in their schools (Plowright, 2008). The Office for standards in education (Ofsted), in Plowright (2008) contends that the school that knows and understands itself is on the way to solving any problem it hasà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ self-evaluation provides the key to improvement (Plowright, 2008). In his empirical research, Plowright discovered that head teachers held a positive view of the use of self-evaluation in contributing to school improvement (Plowright, 2008). The introduction of the new inspection framework in September 2005 in England culminated in an obligation that every school had to maintain and submit an online Self-Evaluation Form (SEF) that records the judgments of its current performance and its priorities for improvement (Bubb, Early, Ahtaridou, Jones and Taylor, 2007). According to Ofsted in Bubb, et al. (2007), intelligent accountability is based on a schools own views of how well it serves its learners and suggests that all schools need to be able to answer two key questions: How well are we doing? And how can we do better? Bubb, et al. (2007) further argue that even though the SEF is not statutory but all schools seem to use it, which is unsurprising as their inspection is largely based around the SEF which includes the performance data (Bubb, et al., 2007). The areas of evaluation are: the characteristics of the school; views of learners, parents/carers and other stakeholders; leadership and management; overall effectivenes s and efficiency (Bubb, et al., 2007). Leung, 2005 emphasises that unless teachers beliefs are changed, and shared meaning is achieved, for example believing in the importance of evidence-based evaluation methods for self-evaluation and the importance of continuous self-improvement, there will not be commitment towards the reform initiatives and success cannot be guaranteed (Leung, 2005). She further warns that restructuring, changing only procedures, designing performance indicators and mandating the public announcement of evaluation results cannot help us but providing assistance to schools, supporting professionals networks and providing school-based on-going school development is vital (Leung, 2005). Scholars like Hargreaves and Fullan ascertain only that recruiting can facilitate educational professionals to transform their old beliefs and practices (Leung, 2005). In their research on 38 schools across England, where they were investigating self-evaluation and school improvement progress, Bubb, et al. (2007) discovered that SEF are completed in many different ways, ranging from individual efforts by head teachers to involvement of external consultants to collective efforts by all staff members (Bubb, et al., 2007). They also found out that some dissatisfaction demonstrated by support staff who felt left out and expressed that they could have made crucial contributions if they were not excluded. The process started with training the whole staff so as to raise awareness of the process and its requirements. Each staff member, including heads of departments, would the complete his/her form under supervision of their Senior Leadership Group (SLG) (Bubb, et al., 2007). In her study, Turnbull, (2007) discovered that head teachers in England saw that self-evaluation in some form became a reality of practice through the intervention of Local Education Authorities (LEAs), reflecting the growing impact of globalisation and accountability of schools (Turnbull, 2007). SCHOOL SELF-EVALUATION IN SOUTH AFRICA Prior 1994, schools performance was monitored through inspection, but there was no requirement or expectation of schools to undertake self-evaluation in South Africa (Turnbull, 2007). Some form of self-evaluation was introduced in 1998 through the Developmental Appraisal System (DAS), and Whole School Evaluation (WSE) in 2001 for full implementation in 2003 (Turnbull, 2007). These systems aimed at involving all educators in evaluating their practice, enabling self-evaluation of the WSE and impact of management, and they were to be monitored by the external supervisors from the provincial office of the Department of Education (DoE) (Turnbull, 2007). Both systems failed to realize their objective and a new Integrated Quality Management System (IQMS) was introduced in 2003, combining DAS, WSE and Performance Measurement (PM). School Self-Evaluation (SSE) is the initial phase of the two-phased WSE. The second phase is external evaluation conducted by provincial supervisors in a three year cycle. Both phases utilise the same instrument for evaluation. There are 9 key areas of evaluation namely: basic functionality of the school; leadership, management and communication, governance and relationships; quality teaching and learning and educator development; curriculum provision and resources; learner achievement; school safety, security and discipline; school infrastructure and parent and community (DoE, 2001). The process of evaluation cycle includes pre-evaluation; school self-evaluation; detailed on-site evaluation, post-evaluation reporting and post evaluation support. Each supervisory team will have a team leader who has the responsibility to build a brief profile about the general level of functionality of the school and to share with the school the procedures that will be followed by the evaluation team. The team leader also has overall responsibility for the evaluation process and the conduct of the supervisors. Supervisory teams will comprise accredited supervisors capable of evaluating the nine areas for evaluation. Members should have the experience to evaluate at least one subject/learning area and have an awareness of the key elements of good provision for Learners with Special Education Needs (LSEN). The number of supervisors will normally be within the range of four to six, depending on the school size and resources available. Evaluations will normally be conducted between th ree to four days of the week, depending on the size of the school. A school will be helped by district support services to formulate and implement an improvement plan based on the recommendations in the report and provide the school with support as it seeks to implement the plan (DoE, 2001) The findings in Turnbulls research disclose that all educators interviewed identified that the various attempts to introduce self-evaluation had failed, though all saw that the concept was one that should be in place, but attempts to use self-evaluation to improve the quality of teaching and learning in individual schools were taking place, with individual teachers working together on classroom practice and in some schools using IQMS, with senior team ensuring that every member of staff was observed at least once a year, met with the observer, and those seen to have issues being visited (Turnbull, 2007). The failure of introduction of self-evaluation is attributed to two groups of factors. The first issues are managerial and they include: the linking of the use of self-evaluation to the annual pay increments making it impossible to award someone less than satisfactory even though he/she deserves it, especially in township schools; the unwieldy nature of the system needed to implement policy; and the lack of capacity of the local DoE to either monitor the process, or provide support for schools where a need was identified. The second issues are cultural/historical and they include: the limited experience of educators of any form of self-evaluation and limited training provided; the limited practical training of the majority of township teachers and principals; the impact of the previous political system leading to a resistance to change; and in township schools the real danger o

Advantages and Disadvantages of Single Parent Homes

The purpose of this paper is to express the advantages and disadvantages of single parent homes. As compared to over forty to fifty years ago, single-parent families are common in today’s world. A single parent is a parent with one or more children, who is not living with any of the children’s other parents. The percentage of children who live with two parents has been declining among all racial and ethnic groups throughout the years. It has been found that children in single-parent homes generally fare worse than those in homes with two parents. In today’s single parent households there are many advantages and disadvantages. Even after you weigh the single parenting pros and cons you will see that the disadvantages of single parenting usually outweigh the advantages. The biggest concerns about single parenting are the children. Single parenting is not an easy thing to do. You must be both mother and father to a child or children. Youth from single mother homes, especially those living in poor communities, are at higher risk for adjustment difficulties (Shook et la, 2010). National estimates from the United States have found that the poverty rate of single parent homes was 43. 5% as compared to 21. % of cohabitating families and 7. 6% for married families. Single and cohabitating parents also had fewer assets, less stable employment and higher levels of material hardships. Among single parents and never married mothers, they may be even worse off than divorced mothers, because they had lower levels of human capital or family support and were less likely to receive child support (Gibson-Davis and Gassman-Pines, 2010). Research has shown that low income parents were more likely to use harsh discipline, engage in erratic and inconsistent parenting practices, and provide less cognitive stimulation. Economic well-being has also been directly linked to parental psychological health, because financial strain increases stress, anxiety and depression, further compromising parenting ( Gibson-Davis and Gassman-Pines, 2010). Growing up in a low socioeconomic household increases vulnerability to a wide array of risk factors that can have long-term developmental effects among children (Taylor et la, 2010). Stress and psychological vulnerabilities negatively influence parenting quality through behaviours such as ineffective monitoring of children, harsh or hostile parenting, and inconsistent parenting. Distressed parents are typically less affectionate and report feeling less capable in disciplinary interactions with their children. These types of poor parenting behaviours predict lower levels of children’s positive social behaviour and higher ratio of behaviour problems. Children from single mother families are at increased risk of maladjustment as a result of exposure to adverse environments resulting from poverty, parental internalizing symptoms and ineffective parenting (Taylor et la, 2010). Children from single parent families have very poor and behavioural outcomes. The transition to adolescence is a particularly vulnerable time as youth begin to exhibit lower social competence, declines in academic performance and increased levels of delinquency do to the lack of monitoring from their parent. It is proven that children living in single parent homes, in poverty ridden neighbourhoods are more likely to drop out of school, both so they could go and work to help with the household income or do to the lack of interest in academics. Pregnancy rates also increase for children between the ages of 15 to 17 years of age who live in single parent homes. There are also signs that children who have gone through a divorce may have problems with depression, and emotional stress. It has been found that adolescents from single parent families were found to be three times more likely to be depressed than those living in two parent households. Single-parent homes are also associated with criminal activity, such as murder, rape and other violent crimes. And they are also more likely to use drugs. Problems found in the single parent household may not be because of the parent who raised the child, but can be linked to other things that are also related to single parenting. The effects of coming from a low income family can include things like lower education levels, lower economic achievement and can result in leaving the child feeling isolated and lonely. It would appear that being a part of a single-parent household indicates a negative family environment. It should be said however that many single parent families find a balance and successfully thrive in today’s world. Single parents often worry that their children will somehow be damaged from living in a single parent family. While a single parent family may not be the ideal situation for raising children, many two parent families are also less than desirable. Kids can actually benefit from living in a single parent family. A home filled with conflict is the least desirable home environment for children. When the child’s prior two parent household included frequent fighting between the adults the child can benefit from living in one parent home provided that the conflict is stopped. Children observe adult relationships and usually apply what they have learned to their own relationships as adults. By residing with only one parent, the child may actually have a chance to observe healthier adult relationships. Children learn valuable lessons from dealing with hard times and having a difficult lifestyle from many of their peers. A single parent may actually have more time for the kids that a married parent would have. Since there is no longer a spouse around at mealtime, meals don’t have to be as substantial and can be structural around kid-friendly ingredients. The opportunity to spend time in two separate homes can be a good experience for your children. They will see different approaches to life and hopefully, take the best of both homes to use in establishing their own households as adults. Kids who live with one parent tend to develop independence faster than their peers. Since the parent will probably have a job and other many other duties, the kids may have to learn to do things for themselves such as preparing a single meal or participating in household chores. The kids also learn that they need to be ready to take care of themselves, since they, too, could end up on their own or in a single parent situation someday. Another benefit of a single parent household is the child may become extremely close with the parent they live with. Because in some circumstances children only have one parent so the child will want to form a strong bond with the only parent they have. Your kids will have more opportunities to develop responsibility. Although no one wants their kids to grow up before it is time, as part of a single parent family it will be easier for your kids to feel like partners in the family as opposed to â€Å"just the kids†. They will have more opportunities to contribute and grow into responsible adults. The single-parent and the children will learn resiliency. Resiliency, the ability to â€Å"bounce back† when negative things happen, is one of the most valuable skills one needs to survive in this world. Facing some of the difficulties of a single parent household, the parent and child will have numerous opportunities to practice resiliency. Face difficult situations with a positive attitude and hope, and learn to look outside the box when seeking solutions. They will develop a skill that can get them through the toughest of times together. Even though woman face greater financial problems, they tend to be more nurturing to their children by telling them they love them, hugging them, and showing affection towards them. In conclusion it is apparent that single parent households, whether headed by a mother or father, have more to deal with than two parent households. Single-parent households will continue to exist in society. It is also evident that children in two-parent households generally fare better than children who are raised by only one parent. With single parenthood being such a commonality in today’s world, it is important to take a close look at the research out there regarding this type of family unit and the effects it can have on children. With this knowledge, individuals are better able to address the many challenges accompanying single parenthood. Parenthood is challenging. Single-parenthood is excruciatingly challenging, I know because I am a single parent myself.