Recent orders
Standard Testing
Standard Testing
Standard testing in schools involves the practice of offering learners a common test to gauge their overall understanding and conception of all things learnt. Therefore, according to educationists and other academic scholars, standard testing enjoys numerous pros that make it an acceptable model of measuring educational standards. Alternatively, it has retrogressive and backward suggestions that lower the quality of education among others. It means while concerted efforts are being made to increase the standards of education across all schools, standard testing hinders such measures because it employs among others favoritism in its elimination of weak learners thus preventing the dissemination of knowledge.
Standard testing, for instance, progresses the accountability of teachers, schools and students thus promoting a sense of excellent learning and increased performance. Additionally, the practice inspires learners to grasp the material they learn in school instead of indulging in memorization (Zwick, 2013). Under standard testing, the cumulative of knowledge is common hence a student of remarkable performance has a chance of boosting his or her average learning within a given time frame.
Tracking of comparative performance also becomes easier when standard testing is integrated into the tracing of student performance in classes. The scenario implies that teachers collect enough evidence of testing a student through varying periods of gaining knowledge without finding unnecessary difficulties (Brassard et al, 2008). The test also permits teachers and parents to recognize the innate gifts of the students and the area of specialization at an early stage. This discovery facilitates the ease of finding the requisite resources of supporting such a child to become a great person in the future. Consequently, talented kids are compared and offered a favorable platform of competing at higher levels.
Cons, however, encompass the reduction of flexibility among teachers in the schools. According to critics, standard testing tires teachers thus compounding the problem of teaching other pertinent subjects. As a result, teachers remain dormant in their respective fields of study. Additionally, vast materials required for the testing denies other areas the compulsory materials thus diminishing the emphasis for budgeting. This case often proves complicated in improving the learning standards. Unfairness and extreme bias equally hamper standard testing in many schools. This is because the benchmarks of offering the test do not meet the international criteria of education (Zwick, 2013). Therefore, the unfortunate learners who miss the test are denied opportunities in the job market in spite of possessing all the obligatory requirements.
Considerably, the punishment meted on district schools that display low performance in the standard testing stifles the morale of learners. The decision to reduce the funding for such schools complicates the crisis because it results to lack of enough materials required for learning and improving the performance (Brassard et al, 2008). The failure of standard testing to correctly measure learners’ judgment and creativity means it does not promote education. Instead, it subjects students to isolated measurement of skills and particular areas knowledge. It hence gives a misplaced assessment of student achievement.
It, therefore, is imperative for the government through schools and its respective heads to critically evaluate the benefits of supporting standard testing. Alternatively, it should explore the demerits of inculcating the practice in institutions and hence seek amicable solutions of resolving the problem. This is because weighing both the pros and cons of the practice will expand the opportunities of assisting learners reach their potential and inspire teachers and parents in supporting education. However, this should not lead to the total overhaul of the system in terms of funding because it would be costly for the government resulting reducing performance amongst learners.
References
Brassard, M. et al (2008). Preschool Assessment: Principles and Practices. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Zwick, R. (2013). Rethinking the SAT: The Future of Standardized Testing in University Admissions. New York, NY: Routledge.
STAMP AND SUGAR ACT
STAMP AND SUGAR ACT
Student’s name
Professor
Department of affiliation
Course
Date
Stamp and Sugar Act
In October 1774, the Congress came up with the passage of association which was supposed to end the trade with Britain. However, as some of the moderate colonists wished that there be reconciliation, it was not possible. Reconciliation between the 13 American colonies and Great Britain was not possible in 1774. This was because the 13 colonies did not agree with what the British government proposed that they have to pay a lot of taxes, yet they had served the British government during the 7-year war. Therefore reconciliation was not possible, and with the trend of the British government to collect more taxes and more revenue from the colonies to support its ever-increasing officials and army, there broke a big war against their wish. The 13 colonies refused the issue of stamp policy whereby everything a person did was to be taxed. This was refused with so much aggression that in March 1766, the stamp act was repealed (Morgan, & Morgan, 1953).
The colonists, therefore, reacted so fiercely to the sugar act. The act was to tax Americans even more after their resources were drained during the seven years of war. Therefore this was one of the reasons why the colonists very much refused the stamp act. Apart from this, the Americans did not want to be overtaxed, and therefore they refused the stamp act (Morgan, & Morgan, 1953). The Britain government brought in the sugar act to prevent the smuggling of molasses from India into America and, at the same time, increase taxes for the people who wanted to bring items into America from other countries (Trethewey, 1969). This was also opposed, and James Otis and Samuel Adams led the opposition.
References
Morgan, E. S., & Morgan, H. M. (1953). The Stamp Act Crisis: Prologue to Revolution. UNC Press Books.
Trethewey, R. J. (1969). The Economic Burden of the Sugar Act. The American Economist, 13(1), 63-71.
Stakeholders and Shareholders
Stakeholders and Shareholders
Name
Institution
Stakeholders and Shareholders
As highlighted in the article by Investor Guide CITATION Inv18 n t l 1033 (2018), the terms stakeholder and shareholder are usually considered to mean the same thing while they have different meanings. Although the term shareholder falls within the definition of stakeholder, the latter is not always the owner of a company’s shares. A company can not exist without its proprietors, as well as other key stakeholders whose interests are served by the company. It is, therefore, essential to understand the meaning of the two words and to determine the degree of importance of these groups to ascertain the extent of effort exerted in serving their interests.
A shareholder is the owner of shares of a company. Their concern is the financial well-being of the company. On the other hand, a stakeholder is any party that directly or indirectly affects or is affected by the activities of an organization. They are usually categorized as either external stakeholders, who are parties outside the organization, and include the local community, government, and competitors, or internal stakeholders, who are parties inside the organization. Internal stakeholders include customers, suppliers, creditors, employees, and shareholders, too, since their financial interest affects the decisions of the company CITATION Lan19 l 1033 (Landau, 2019). Both the shareholders and internal stakeholders are essential to the business in the sense without capital, a company does not exist, and without a workforce, demand, raw materials, and access to credit during financial crises, a company cannot operate.
However, there is a case where the shareholder’s interest becomes more important than any interest of internal stakeholders. For example, a concern is owned by one person who funds the business using personal savings and runs the business on their own. The proprietor also does not make production and has a monopoly in the provision of their services.
References
BIBLIOGRAPHY Investorguide. (2018). Investorguide. Retrieved from investorguide.com: http://www.investorguide.com/article/15947/stakeholder-vs-shareholder-wfu/
Landau, P. (2019). ProjectManager. Retrieved from http://www.projectmanager.com/blog/stakeholder-vs-shareholder