The right to a free education Essay Example for Free

The right to a free education Essay Is one of the dearest rights that we, as Americans, have in this country. People from the four corners of the world, come to America to be educated and to benefit from the many advances that the American public and private educational systems offer in this country. Until recently, this did not expand to those children with developmental disabilities. As a Special Education teacher, I have seen first hand, the benefits of inclusion; not just for the individuals themselves, but also for the students within the classroom. In doing so, the school can adhere to the popular and effective principle of implementing diversity in the classroom and teaches those involved, that different does not mean bad or inferior. Inclusion offers the individual, the best possible opportunity to learn and to be assimilated into society and the community. The individual learns that he or she is just as good as everybody else and has many of the same hopes and dreams that their peers have within the classroom. Also, if it is in the best interest of the student, once he has become an adult, to enter into a group home, their efforts towards community integration, which is the goal of nearly every group home facility in this country, to have a background of inclusion. These early years are the most critical for the individual and any efforts at dissuading the parent or guardian of the student, will reap bitter rewards and will further serve as an impediment to the learning process of the individual, perhaps for his entire life. The school system focuses on one aspect of the education of an individual. Morals and ethics are no longer taught in our schools and the student, once he or she graduates from high school, their education is void of any real life experiences. Students today find themselves book smart but lack the ability to implement those skills into real life situations. One way that the school system can reverse this is through the inclusion of developmentally disabled individuals. Many times, it is the success or the failure of the individual which is paramount in deciding in whether or not inclusion for the individual is in her best interest. It is important that this remains the case. However, in a class room setting, there are twenty to thirty individuals who stand to gain a great deal through the inclusion of a special needs child within their classroom. When in college, I worked at a group home for mentally handicapped adults. There was a series of homes in the neighborhood which houses between eight and sixteen individuals with special needs. Since many of the individuals were middle aged, and therefore had not enjoyed the benefits of inclusion, their social skills with people in their own community, was poor at best. Also, the problem was two fold as the neighbors within these communities, fought hard to keep these group homes out of their areas. This was hard to believe as I found my experiences very favorable and quickly made friends with people who very much wanted to be my friend and treasured it as one of the more important aspects of their life. Therefore, I could not understand how others would see these lovely and friendly individuals as threats to their happiness and safety. In the few years that I worked at these group homes and the additional years in which I kept in contact with these valuable friends, I never heard or witnessed any incident where the feelings of the neighbors were justified. What did become clear, was that the xenophobia which was the source of such, almost hatred, towards some of the most friendly and peaceful people that I had ever known. In talking with some of the people in the neighborhood, I quickly realized that their lack of contact with members of the developmentally disabled population was the chief motivating factor in their rudeness towards the residents of this group home. Their experiences were not unique at all as many of the same stories were shared by friends and co workers who worked at other homes. Their experiences mirrored mine to an alarming degree. In the same way one may look at an individual of another race with hatred or some level of prejudice, mostly due to their lack of involvement with members of that particular race or ethnic group, so too is the result of those who have had little to no contact with members of the DD population. Inclusion helps to combat this problem to a great degree. This is one of the most helpful and practical results of inclusion. It not only helps the individual, but to a larger degree, helps introduce students to those who are different. This does not mean that the individual is to be put on display to be laughed at or to be made to feel inferior. Not at all! When children are associated with people of different ethnicities and abilities, both mental and physical, it is to their benefit in the long run. Most of the psychologists agree; Behavior is learned. Therefore, it behooves the majority, not.

Swiper as a Trickster :: essays research papers fc

Dora the Explorer is one of many of the new shows for the next generation. This is a cartoon with various settings, depending on the adventure of the day. Dora is a girl that is bilingual and has a magic backpack and a monkey named Boots as a friend. She is always helping someone get home and/or out of a jam. Dora and Boots have traveled in time and to far away lands to help. Like most kids shows of today, it is an educational show that teaches Spanish words and counting. There are also the lessons on comparison, sharing, and compromise. The lessons are hidden within the show and not jammed down the viewer’s throats. Interactivity is strongly promoted. Swiper is used to help teach the morals of right from wrong. In Dora, Swiper plays the role of the trickster. Swiper is a fox that wears a mask and gloves, like a common thief would wear. Swiper is a traditional trickster in several ways. Swiper displays several characteristics of a trickster as defined by Hynes. He is a fox, which is a common animal to be a trickster. He is very selfish as he disrupts what Dora is trying to accomplish for no reason than to annoy her. Swiper is always seen alone and doesn’t join in with others. Most of the time the tricks he plays on Dora and Boots backfire on him. In the episode Three Little Piggies, Swiper tries to steal the blue ribbons that the three pigs have won. He is stopped by Dora and her friend Boots, saying ‘Swiper, no swiping† three times, but he scares the three piggies and they run away causing problems. While trying to round up the three piggies, Swiper keeps throwing Dora off the trail of them by disguising the way to go. According to Hynes â€Å"his lying, cheating, tricking, and deceiving may derive from the trickster being simply an unconscious numbskull, or at other times, from the trickster being a malicious spoiler† (35). Swiper is a malicious spoiler as he tries to interrupt whatever Dora is doing for no good reason other than to amuse himself. Dora and her friends, saying â€Å"Swiper, no swiping†, foil him. Swiper always responds to the â€Å"Swiper, no swiping† with an Oh, man! He hangs his head while saying this. In one episode that he tries to delay Dora crossing a bridge but falls in the river himself.

Comparing and Contrasting the Philosophies

Chelsea Long Philosophy 100-005 Prompt 2 Final Essay Even though they were separated by thousands of years, hundreds of miles, and different cultures, the philosophical views of Friedrich Nietzsche and Plato can be examined and weighed against each other in many different ways. Friedrich Nietzsche, born in 1844, was a German philosopher whose main goal was to erect a new image for the people and to create a free spirit in them. Plato, born in 427 B. C. , was a Greek philosopher whose main goal was to create a new way of thinking about the world itself, knowledge itself, philosophy itself, and the individual.Both philosophers have obvious similarities; their literary style of writing is perhaps the most apparent, but also their desire to create a new way of thinking for the people in which they hoped to influence. Nietzsche thought that by standing outside of society and looking at it from a different view, one could take on the ideal of a free spirit. Analogous to this view is Platoà ¢â‚¬â„¢s view from the allegory of the cave which illustrates humans as being completely unaware of what the actual world is.Even though they lived in completely different societies, both philosophers thought that the view of the world that society holds shelters the individual from seeing the true nature of reality. However, the nature of said reality was very different for both philosophers. Nietzsche believed in a â€Å"what you see is what you get† kind of view of reality. His â€Å"amor fati† view of reality posed that in order to achieve an optimistic view; the individual must learn to love fate. This also involves accepting reality for exactly what it is and not creating a false sense of â€Å"reality†Ã¢â‚¬â€what the person would â€Å"like† to see.Because of Nietzsche’s opinion that ‘God is dead† he believed that this life was all there was, so the best way to live was to realize the true actuality of the world, and to also use the love of what is real and actual to enjoy life. Plato, on the other hand, had a completely different concept of reality. His theory of the â€Å"forms† illustrated everything that we see in this world as just a less perfect model of the actual â€Å"form† of the thing or idea. Nothing that we see in this world is actual or perfect, but is just an imperfect imitation.Plato’s divided line interpretation presents the universe into the visible realm (images, copies, plants, animals) and the intelligible realm (mathematics, ideas, and the forms); literally a two-tiered view of reality. This differs greatly from Nietzsche’s philosophy. Nietzsche rejects this â€Å"two-tiered† view of reality; he believes that having this view of reality is actually detrimental and hinders the individual from living a full and optimistic life. Although their views on how the individual is shielded by society are similar, the view on reality of Nietzsche and Plato is o ne of the main differences in their philosophical outlooks.Nietzsche and Plato both put a considerable amount of emphasis on creating the individual and viewing life as a work of art that is a canvas for knowledge and value, thus asking the question: â€Å"What constitutes a virtuous life? † Both philosophers believe in turning ones back on the morals and values that society holds and exploring these morals and values for the individual themselves. One of the most famous Greek aphorisms is â€Å"know thyself. † Nietzsche and Plato both believe that creating ourselves as individuals will lead to happiness.However, the journey of self-discovery is different for each philosopher. Plato believes that knowledge is the most important factor in the creation of virtue and happiness. Seeking after knowledge leads to the affirmation of values and virtue, which then leads to happiness. By taking the time to learn and wonder and discover understanding for ourselves, we can achieve contentment. Nietzsche, on the other hand, believes that pure academic scholarship is not the way to liberate the free-thinkers of the future.Also, Nietzsche considers the revaluation of values, which means that old values need to be reconsidered to find justification of life within life. He believes that knowledge has the ability to not take itself too seriously. Nietzsche is an advocate for uniting knowledge and play. He supposes that we create our values ourselves and do not discover them from nature or reason, as supposed by Plato. However, both philosophers believe that knowing your own ignorance and having a willingness to accept the fact that we are sometimes wrong and at fault is a vital step in creating the morals and values that we hold.Another main similarity between the philosophies of Nietzsche and Plato is the belief that the greatest individual is not the wealthiest, but the thinker, the artist, the musician, and namely, the philosopher. Both hold the love of wisdom in high regard (although Plato holds it in higher regard that Nietzsche). The goal of this is to pass on the views of one to many, therefore changing the views of society. With or without meaning to, both of these philosophers are trying to evoke a rise in society. Plato and Nietzsche both were suspicious of government and wanted people to be at war with their time.From doing so, they hoped to create a change on an individual’s outlook on life. As with most philosophers, the philosophical method of both Plato and Nietzsche was influenced by philosophers before them. Plato is the well-known protege of Socrates. Many of Plato’s dialogues include Socrates in them or are written about Socrates, such as The Apology, which is Plato’s account of the trial of Socrates. These are called Plato’s Socratic Dialogues. The philosophical views of Socrates greatly influenced the views of Plato. Nietzsche was widely influenced by the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer.After studying the view of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche’s writings sometimes included him supporting or rejecting Schopenhauer’s philosophical viewpoint. The optimism found in Nietzsche’s philosophy results from his rejection of Schopenhauer’s pessimistic philosophical viewpoint. One of the biggest differences between Plato and Nietzsche comes from their view of Socrates. While Socrates was a role model to Plato, he was the opposite for Nietzsche. Socrates often demanded the â€Å"truth at all costs† –meaning that no matter how much hurt or disorder the truth costs, it should still be told for the sake of truth itself.Nietzsche questioned to what extent truth can be endured. He then goes on to shift the term he uses for truth. â€Å"Truth† is errors believed to be true by philosophers (examples are equal things, substance, and free will). Nietzsche’s TRUTH relies on the recognition that previous â€Å"truths† are founded on errors and that knowledge is limited, which is the opposite of Socrates’ conception of truth. By letting go of previous â€Å"truths† we can thus understand the TRUTH. Not all truth comes from knowledge, but from error as well.Another main difference between the philosophical views of Socrates and Nietzsche is that Nietzsche looked at philosophy as an â€Å"intellectual science† and not a science. He viewed philosophy in more of a humanities category and as a spiritual science. Socrates, on the other hand, viewed philosophy as the most important of all sciences. Nietzsche also criticizes Socrates in other ways. He attacks his personality. To Nietzsche, Socrates â€Å"pretended† to be a rebel against society (a sort of â€Å"free spirit† in Nietzsche’s book); however, when Socrates was sentenced in Athens, he gave in and became a â€Å"slave to society. Nietzsche’s philosophy says that this life is all we have so we need to enjoy it. From lo oking at Socrates’ famous last words: â€Å"Now that I am dying, I owe the god of medicine a debt,† Nietzsche concludes that Socrates didn’t enjoy his life. Socrates is saying in his last words that life is just one big disease. This goes against all of Nietzsche’s philosophy, which unites the tragedy of existence with the comedy of life. The viewpoint of Nietzsche and Plato on the philosophical view of Socrates is a major difference between the two philosophers. Much of Nietzsche’s philosophy comes from his conclusion that â€Å"God is dead. This view on religion is another major difference between Plato and Nietzsche. While Nietzsche was considered an atheist, Plato believed in the principle of God. Plato’s â€Å"God† was the Form of â€Å"the Good. † The â€Å"Good† did not even fall on Plato’s divided line but was raised above it, shining down all both the visible and intelligible realm. Everything strives to be like the Form of the Good, but can never attain it (similar to the Christian view of Jesus –a perfect â€Å"good† that people strive to be but can never reach). Because Nietzsche and Plato had such differing views on religion, their philosophies as a whole are quite different.There are similarities that can be picked out of both men’s viewpoints –however the conceptual differences outweigh the resemblance. Plato’s and Nietzsche’s differing views on the nature of reality, the journey of self-discovery, the philosophy of Socrates, and religion cause Nietzsche to be critical of Plato. Nietzsche completely rejects much of Plato’s core philosophical view. The main aspect Nietzsche is critical of Plato is Plato’s two-tiered view of the world. Nietzsche whole philosophy is centered on the realization that what we have now is all we will ever have.Plato takes that philosophy and changes it completely – creating a whole new r ealm that is not visible to the human eye. Even though both philosophers believe in overcoming society, the importance of self-creation, knowing your own faults, and putting the philosopher in high acclaim, I would argue that the differences between the Nietzsche and Plato cannot be reconciled. The foremost cores of their philosophical viewpoints will never match up. Nietzsche will never agree with a two-tiered view of reality and one of Plato’s biggest belief systems is the Forms. Socrates will always be a hero to Plato, whereas he is not in Nietzsche’s opinion.One of the philosopher’s would have to change the entire concepts of their philosophy in order for the two viewpoints to reconcile. Personally, I agree more with Nietzsche’s philosophy. Even though I do not believe that God is dead, I do think that religion is dying in our society. We are experiencing a cultural shift toward a more secular society. In the wake of this, I have noticed people have s tarted to live their lives for the â€Å"right-now. † Also, I think that we should love fate and accept the reality of lives. In my opinion, people who live in a fantasy land aren’t truly living.People who accept their disappointments in life and are still happy and optimistic are more admirable to me. Additionally, I like how Nietzsche thinks that we should take the time to create ourselves in life. Creating yourself, to me, is the most important thing we can do. By looking away from what society tells us to do or be, we can truly becoming â€Å"free† and in doing so, live happier lives. I feel as though Nietzsche wants us to enjoy the small things in life and to take life as it comes. Honestly, Nietzsche has been my favorite philosopher to read and study, and the one whose viewpoint I agree with the most.

Financial Company Managers - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 7 Words: 1974 Downloads: 9 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Finance Essay Type Argumentative essay Did you like this example? Recent financial scandals associated to accounting and other frauds allegedly blamed to top company managers (e.g. Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia, MS, June 2 2005 17:12 Last updated: June 2 2005 17:12) have brought into public light the recurring question of whether companies are managed on the best interests of shareholders and other company stakeholders such as workers, creditors and the general community. A point that has been made frequently is that top managers may possess too much power inside their companies and that a general lack of accountability and control of their activities is prevalent in companies with wide ownership diffusion. Although this kind of scandals is certainly not new, there has been a renewed interest on the mechanisms that can effectively curtail managerial discretion over sensitive company issues that can have an impact on the welfare of the remaining stakeholders. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Financial Company Managers" essay for you Create order At the same, time, and especially after some well publicised company failures in the late 80s early 90s (Polly Peck, Coloroll, Maxwell Communications, BCCI), numerous sets of recommendations on corporate governance issues have been published worldwide and adopted, in particular, by many stock market regulators since the seminal Cadbury (1992) report in the UK. This has given place to a considerable amount of research on the effectiveness of these recommendations in providing better company governance. This paper attempts to provide a survey on the fast-growing theoretical and empirical literature on the corporate governance problem, providing some guidance on the major points of consensus and dissent among researchers regarding the nature and effects of the conflicts of interest between managers and other stakeholders, and on the effectiveness of the set of available external and internal disciplining mechanisms. This paper will also attempt to compare code of best practices companies in United States and United Kingdom. A particular emphasis will be given to the special conflicts arising from the relationship between managers and shareholders in companies with large ownership diffusion. Definitions Corporate governance is about promoting corporate fairness, transparency and accountability J. Wolfensohn, president of the Word bank, as quoted by an article in Financial Times, June 21, 1999 Corporate governance deals with the ways in which suppliers of finance to corporations assure themselves of getting a return on their investment, The Journal of Finance, Shleifer and Vishny [1997, page 737]. Corporate governance which can be defined narrowly as the relationship of a company to its shareholders or, more broadly, as its relationship to society, from an article in Financial Times [1997]. Corporate governance is a field in economics that investigates how to secure/motivate efficient management of corporations by the use of incentive mechanisms, such as contracts, organizational designs and legislation. This is often limited to the question of improving financial performance, for example, how the corporate owners can secure/motivate that the corporate managers will deliver a competitive rate of return, www.encycogov.com, Mathiesen [2002]. Some commentators take too narrow a view, and say it (corporate governance) is the fancy term for the way in which directors and auditors handle their responsibilities towards shareholders. Others use the expression as if it were synonymous with shareholder democracy. Corporate governance is a topic recently conceived, as yet ill-defined, and consequently blurred at the edgescorporate governance as a subject, as an objective, or as a regime to be followed for the good of shareholders, employees, customers, bankers and indeed for the reputation and standing of our nation and its economy Maw et al. [1994, page 1]. Literature Review Since Adam Smiths (1776) pessimistic view of publicly traded corporation much research has been performed in the field of corporate governance. Different researchers have studied the corporate governance from different perspectives. However, the direction for the traditional research of corporate governance was set up by Berle and Means (1932), when they presented a theory to separate ownership from control. Through the 1970s and 1980s research of corporate governance largely focused on the governance of USA corporations, and that research continues to expand. By the early 1990s research on governance in countries other than US began to emerge. First research focused primarily on other major world economies Japan, Germany, and United Kingdom, but later corporate governance research has emerged around the world, for both developed and emerging markets. According to Sleifer and Vishny (1996) corporate governance deals with the ways investors assure to get a return on their investment. In many countries, like in United States, Germany, Japan and United Kingdom, corporate governance systems are well developed. In those countries companies are governed through different combinations of legal protection and concentrated ownership. However, many countries like transition economies, corporate governance have no tradition and corporate governance mechanisms have far been practically non-existent. Although in many countries corporate governance is considered well developed, still there are great differences in governance tradition between these countries. According to Easterbrook (2005), international differences in corporate governance are attributable more to differences in markets than to differences in law. In Europe United Kingdom and Germany represent two different tradition of corporate governance and also two different traditions. In most of Continental Europe, with the exception of the UK, hostile takeovers are, However, rare. Franks and Mayer (1994) attribute this fact to the particular structure of most European capital markets, characterised by a small number of listed companies and a relatively high concentration of ownership as compared to the US and UK. In their analysis of UK takeovers, Franks and Harris (1989) report shareholder wealth impacts of takeovers similar to those observed in the US. Kennedy and Limmack (1996) analyse the performance of takeover targets in the pre-takeover period and its relationship with subsequent CEO turnover and find evidence consistent with takeovers acting in the UK as disciplinary mechanisms on managers. They observe that CEO turnover tends to increase following takeovers, and that target firms that do replace CEOs after takeovers (disciplinary takeovers) experience lower returns before takeover than other targets. In contrast, Franks and Mayer (1996) reject the hypothesis that in the UK hostile takeovers perform a disciplining function. They assert that the apparent rejection of hostile bids by target management seems to be derived not from managerial entrenchment but from opposition to post-takeover redeployment of assets or renegotiation over bid terms. In another UK study, Sudarsanam, Holl and Salami (1996) present the result that a better previous relative performance of bidder over target (measured by their relative market-to-book ratio) is a significantly positive influence on targets abnormal returns surrounding a takeover inefficient. The same absence of those transactions would occur if the takeover threat were a perfect controlling mechanism which forced all managers to behave in a value-maximising way.19 bid announcement but a negative one bidders returns. This result is not strictly in accordance with a disciplinary perspective of takeovers where value enhancements would be expected to occur for both targets and bidders. Sudarsanam, Holl and Salami (1996) interpret their evidence, instead, as consistent with Rolls (1986) hypothesis that bidder managers may suffer from hubris that leads them to overestimate the benefits of a takeover and pay excessive takeover premia. The UK evidence on the disciplinary role of takeovers thus appears to be, in contrast to US studies, inconclusive. Codes within United Kingdom and the United States of America These codes, issued by a variety of governmental, investor representative, and/or professional bodies have been a precedent for helping shape modern day corporate governance, both in the U.S. as well as in the U.K. (Mallin, 2004). Starting in 1987, the U.S based National Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting, also known as the Treadway Commission, has helped provide a benchmark for the role and importance of the audit committee. In the subsequent year, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ruled that all SEC-regulated companies should have an audit committee with a majority of non-executive directors in the hope that hiring an external, non-company employee, would provide a true and fair view of the corporations financial position (The Combined Code: towards a risk management culture, 2002). In addition, the 1992 Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) established a framework on public reporting and management of internal control systems (The Combined Code: towards a risk management culture, 2002). In the same year as the COSO, the 1992 Cadbury Report paved the way for major corporate governance reform in the U.K., especially at a time when corporate scandal, was rife (with the Polly Peck, BCCI, and Guinness fraud cases). The Cadbury Report outlined a host of recommendations which were targeted towards the board of directors, non-executive and executive directors, as well as those involved with the reporting and control of the Corporation. It also addressed many of the problems that may be associated with the separation of the ownership and control of corporations and suggested that the roles of the Chairman and Chief Executives should be split (Mallin, 2004). As a result, not only did the Cadbury Report establish structure and accountability for a corporations actions, it also proved to be a global example of the implementation of corporate governance. As corporations developed, apprehension over exorbitant directors remuneration packages and the inconsistent and incomplete disclosure in companies annual reports increased, resulting in the formation of the Greenbury Committee in 1995 (Mallin, 2004). The committee further strengthened the Cadbury Reports need for corporate accountability by recommending the formation of a remuneration committee comprised of independent non-executive directors who would report fully to the shareholders the amount of money that was paid to each director as well as the corporations policies on such payments (Mallin, 2004). Also, a performance based rewards system was recommended in order to lessen agency costs and improve efficiency. The ever-changing financial world results in a constant pressure to adapt previous codes to the present-day markets. As a result, such needed updates saw the formation of the Hampel Report and the Combined Code, both presented in 1998. The former of these two, tried to combine the previous codes in order to form a new code of best practice for corporations, and focused mainly on shareholders and auditors, as well as the role of stakeholders within the corporations ethos. The committee concluded that the directors as a board are responsible for relations with stakeholders but are accountable [more so] to the shareholder (Hampel Report, 1998). The latter requested that companies should be ready to explain their governance policies, including any circumstances justifying departure from best practice; and that those concerned with the evaluation of governance should do so with common sense, with due regard to companies individual circumstances (Combined Code, 1998). Methodology Given the focus of my interest, the research philosophy I will adopt is Interpretive, as it asserts the uniqueness of organisations and the complexity of best practice situations that influence individuals in their understanding of their environment. Indeed, I aim to explore the relationships of different groups of individuals i.e. the entire management and control of the company, including its organizational structure, business policy principles, guidelines, and internal and external regulation and monitoring mechanisms, and the resulting perceptions of a phenomenon i.e. Corporate Governance the code of best practice. The inductive reasoning approach is the most appropriate to my research as I aim to gain an in-depth understanding of the meanings individuals (e.g. stakeholders) attach to situations. Besides, I have the opportunity to explore closely the various dimensions of the research context (i.e. Plcs). Data collection Due to the confidentiality problem the research will be based on secondary data. As its hard to get primary data direct from the companies.The preliminary company level data will be collected from annual report of quoted company. Later more data will collect from public sources (e.g. financial reports, internet and other sources) and corporate governance report of the companies, reports from remuneration committee, and reports of internal and external audit committee. Gathered data will be analyzed both with quantitative and qualititative methods.