Description Allocate at least 2 hours to complete this field experience. Visit a local disability advocacy organization and interview an administrator regarding: Relationship of special education to the organization, and function of educational agencies; Continuum of placement and services available for individuals with exceptionalities; Publications relevant to individuals with exceptionalities; Information provided on exceptionalities; Activities relevant to individuals with exceptionalities; Culturally responsive factors that promote effective communication and collaboration with individuals with exceptionalities, families, school personnel, and community members; Roles of professional groups and referral agencies in identifying, assessing, and providing services to individuals with exceptionalities; and Any resources to assist in programming for individuals with exceptionalities. In 250-500 words, summarize and reflect upon your interview and explain how you will use your findings in your future professional practice. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required. This assignment uses a rubric. Review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion. You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Document the hours and locations that you spend in the field on your Clinical Field Experience Verification Form. Submit the Clinical Field Experience Verification Form with the last assignment by the assignment due date. Directions for submitting can be found on the College of Education site in the Student Success Center.
Description Option #1 RELATIVISM IN HABITS OF THE HEART In commenting globally on what they make of the "Brian Palmer" case study, the authors of Habits of the Heart say the following: ''Despite the combination of tenderness and admiration he expresses for his wife, the genuine devotion he seems to feel for his children, and his own resilient self-confidence, Brian's justification of his life thus rests on a fragile foundation. Morally, his life appears much more coherent than when he was dominated by careerism, but, to hear him talk, even his deepest impulses of attachment to others are without any more solid foundation than his momentary desires. He lacks a language to explain what seem to be the real commitments that define his life, and to that extent the commitments themselves are precarious.'' So Brian is cast as a certain kind of relativist. Interestingly, Margaret, Joe, and Wayne are also supposed to be somehow caught up in relativism. Well, Margaret certainly. But Joe and Wayne? Option #2 SEXUAL HARASSMENT? Peter Wenz briefly describes a case in which two graduate students complained that another student's desktop picture of his bikini-clad wife created a ‘hostile work environment". What would lead the department head to agree with that complaint, as Wenz reports? Put another way, how would someone have to be thinking about pictures of wives and hostile work environments and co-workers and whatnot in order to make the complaint credible? PreviousNext
Description An English teacher in a two-year technical college has several students in his composition course whose ignorance of the English language has proved invincible. He has given them extra work and extra counseling from the first week of the semester. They have been diligent in their efforts to improve. Though they are in a construction technology program and will undoubtedly be employed in jobs that require little writing skill, the composition course is required for graduation. In the instructors’ judgement, the students would not be able to pass the course legitimately if they took it three times, so he raises their F grades to Ds. Identify the moral issues and the parties involved and discuss with respect to the principle of utility, taking care to identify the benefits and burdens that pertain to the parties affected.
Description Week 1 Discussion Topic #1: What Would You Do? To ensure that your initial post starts its own unique thread, do not reply to this post. Instead, please click the "Reply" link above this post. Please read the general discussion requirements above, as well as the announcements explaining the discussion requirements and answering the most frequently asked questions. If you are still unsure about how to proceed with the discussion, please reply to one of those announcements or contact your instructor. After reading Chapter 2 of the textbook, including the “Ring of Gyges” story from Plato’s Republic, think about what you would do if you found a ring like the one the shepherd in the story found. What is one thing that you are unable or unwilling to do now, but would do if you had that ring? (Note: you are not being asked to describe what you would do if you had any power you wished. The ring in this story gives its wearer a specific power, and you are asked what you would do with that particular power.) The more honest everyone is, the more interesting this discussion will be. No judging, just thinking and discussing! In the course of the week’s discussion, you will need to do the following (not necessarily in this order): Reflect on yourself: What is the reason you would do that? Try to explain as concretely as possible what your reason(s) would be for using the ring in the way you envision. If you think that your use of the ring would be considered unethical by most people, why would you do it anyway? What does that say about the importance of “ethics”? If you think that your use of the ring would be considered ethical by most people, Reflect on society: Would most people in our society consider what you do to be ethical or unethical? Why do you think this is, exactly? Engage with the text: Based on what you said in response to the first two questions, does your response agree or disagree with Glaukon’s claims about ethics? (You will need to discuss your interpretation of Glaukon’s claims in responding to this question.) Discuss with your peers: Read the posts of your peers and discuss their response to these questions. Consider, especially, whether or not you agree with their interpretation of Glaukon and what challenges this discussion raises about ethics. Remember that how you choose to address these questions is up to you; there's no required procedure (for instance, you don’t have to answer each in a separate post or anything like that). The main thing is to get thinking and talking about these questions, and I look forward to reading your responses.
Description I will upload a file that have many questions, I want you to only answer three questions from them. If you have any questions just let me know
Description Ordinarily oppone nts of censorship direct their attention against the government patroling political speech through its formidable legal apparatus. But, nowadays, there may be more to fear from individuals and informal groups patrolling unpopular opinions and punishing them without reliance on the police power of the state. What about this? A CEO or chairman of the board of a restaurant chain remarks in an interview that he/she thinks that gay marriage ought not be legal. Would it be morality permissible - not legally, which would be a different issue entirely - to organize a national boycott against that company? Or to bring pressure on the corporation to fire the CEO in favor of some person with ideas more congenial to protestors? What is there to be said on either side of this issue? Minimum 600 words
Description You began this session considering a moral-ethical dilemma you yourself faced that you either resolved or failed to resolve, but hopefully learned from. You may never have given much thought to ethical theory nor what ethical premises/paradigms you have unconsciously held. Now that you've had an opportunity to explore ethics formally, create a reflective assessment. Revisit your ethical memoir: what ethical theory best applies to your experience? Which significant author you have studied most speaks to your own ethical paradigm as you are (re)forming it now? If you didn't resolve your ethical dilemma when you experienced it, what would you do now and why? Additionally, explore your process of transformation in this course. Discuss your experiences of the course, your beginnings, and where you are at now with your team or partners and create an oral presentation that reflectively assesses your learning experience and the collaborations you engaged in throughout this session. Are we a society of learners who greatly benefit from interactions? Or are we islands, whose individual systems and beliefs are exclusive to ourselves? [Note: You may find it useful to write your thoughts out in an essay form, but the essay is not required in the drop box. Instead, focus on visual and audio quality, poise, and grace in the execution of this assignment. Let your content and stylistic choices reign creatively, and let your message be compelling, persuasive, and convincing.]
Description 1. According to Feary, why does she say that ‘…it is doubtful that the existing types of sexual harassment education currently being offered by human resource consultants are likely to be very effective”? Why does Feary believe that sexual harassment in the workplace is morally wrong and it ought to be legally prohibited? What are the five (5) key reasons she cites for her position? Post your thoughts and comments to all the above questions.
Description Wenz portrays it as an inconsistency that Americans so often oppose abortion but are willing to make exception for conceptions resulting from rape or incest. Is it consistent? (Should rape and incest be linked like that?) 600 words
Description No sources needed. Opinion based. Extremely short responses is all that is required. What prompted Fluehr-Lobban to pass moral judgment on the societies she was studying? How does she justify herself as an anthropologist who is sensitive to the feelings of the people she was judging? How, in the opinion of Fluehr-Lobban, is “cultural relativism” being misused by some anthropologists? What is the downside of taking a more active role in getting reform? Imagine that you are an anthropologist and that the native hosts you are studying refuse you access to the population being studied. Does Fluehr-Lobban recommend soft-pedalling the activism? Post your thoughts and comments to all the above questions after reading the article by Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban.
