According to Toronto Star, the coach for Canada's Olympic hockey team Steve Yzerman requests players to shave their beards. Steve Yzerman made a similar request to players during the time when he coached for Canada's Olympic team in Vancouver 2010, where he got to guide the team to a gold medal with Sidney Crosby's overtime-winning goal. Though there was still no official decision made, it has caused a stir-up in the hockey community, with both agreements and disagreements. It has always been a ritual for hockey leagues, not just the NHL, (National Hockey League) to grow playoff-styled beards. Playoff beards were a superstition for hockey players who once they're in the playoffs, to not shave his beard until they are defeated or have won. This tradition started when the New York Islander players did not shave when they were in the playoffs, and ended up Stanley cup champions for four years in a row (1980-1983).
Yzerman's reasoning on why he wanted players to shave for the Olympics were so that players looked more "respectable". People who disagreed and thought that players shouldn't shave would state that it was always a tradition and should be carried over to the Olympics. Play-off beards were more than just beards, but a symbol showing the unity in a team. Though there weren't too many people who agreed to shaving, they thought that growing playoff beards was a stubborn idea, and should have been ditched long ago. They thought that shaving would make players look more respectable.
In my opinion, I disagree with Yzerman's idea. I think that players should have the choice whether they want to grow a beard or not, because that's their problem. Some players may be superstitious, and if you just suddenly told them to stop doing something that they've always believed in, it may change them mentally or even physically. It doesn't matter how you look on the ice because everyone is too busy giving all their attention to the puck, not to mention the speed of players when they're skating.
Resource(s) :
1. The history behind play-off beards You can read the original reason on how it all started and why people kept it.
2. Thoughts of playoff beards Andrew Podnieks throws his opinion out on playoff beards.
3. Do play off beards really work? A sided opinion on someone's thought if play off beards really work.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Saturday, January 25, 2014
No More Letter Grades for the Surrey School District? [Revised Post]
Recently, the Surrey School District has gotten rid of letter grades in thirty-nine elementary schools in Surrey, replacing them with detailed feedback about what the student is excelling in and what the student may need improvement in. Instead of evaluating a child's progress with the "traditional" A/B/C format, report cards will offer information about how they are doing on each task or project. This way, both parents and their children get a better understanding of the student's strengths and weaknesses. Many teachers and parents believe that this new way of writing report cards would be a good one, since they think feedback could lead to more discussions on education than the standard letter grade. However, many also disagree with this opinion.
People who disliked the idea of removing letter grades thought that a student would be more "motivated" to do better in school if they saw an F or a D on their report card. Students knew what the consequences would be if they got a low mark on their report card, and would strive to improve that mark. Getting an A was like a "goal" to a student -- if they wanted to reach that goal, they would work harder to achieve it (in other words, trying their best to get an A). Parents could also see how their child is doing in school at a quick glance, and would be able to help, even without the "in-depth constructive feedback." It's also a lot more work for teachers, since they need to constantly keep track of how each of their many students are doing in a certain assignment and subject; they would need to pay close attention to each student they teach in order to evaluate them with the "constructive feedback" system, something that would take a lot of work to accomplish.
However, the people that agree with this new system disagree with the idea of keeping letter grades. Some think that the letter grade system prevents conversation about "learning" -- instead, the topic of interest is focused on what grade the child has gotten, rather than how to improve in one's learning. They think constructive feedback is better because it gives a more specific outline about the student's strengths and weaknesses, helping parents better pinpoint what to improve on. For example, one could be good at understanding some of the information taught in Science, but not all of it; getting constructive feedback would let the parent know exactly what the child is misunderstanding, and they could get help on just that one topic, instead of re-learning everything.
In my opinion, both letter grades and constructive feedback should be given. Letter grades are more effective when a student wants to know what he or she needs to improve on in general, but constructive feedback gives you the specifics on what a student needs to improve on. Having letter grades tells a child in a quick glance what they may need to improve on (which makes them want to get better) and to let them know what they're excelling at, as well. Having a balance between constructive criticism -- which tells you where exactly to improve on your work -- and letter grades -- which tells you what you need to improve on your work in general -- is the best option.
A link to the article -- here.
A link to my original post -- here.
Here is a webpage about the history of letter grades. This post helps us understand more about letter grades in general, and why they have been used for so long.
This webpage shows a debate centering around whether or not letter grades should be eliminated. It's particularly interesting to see that 50% of adults agree with removing letter grades while the other 50% don't.
Lastly, this article talks about why constructive feedback just won't work, and why letter grades do. This was interesting to read because the man who wrote this article mentioned a lot of points that argued against having constructive feedback that many other articles hadn't touched upon.
People who disliked the idea of removing letter grades thought that a student would be more "motivated" to do better in school if they saw an F or a D on their report card. Students knew what the consequences would be if they got a low mark on their report card, and would strive to improve that mark. Getting an A was like a "goal" to a student -- if they wanted to reach that goal, they would work harder to achieve it (in other words, trying their best to get an A). Parents could also see how their child is doing in school at a quick glance, and would be able to help, even without the "in-depth constructive feedback." It's also a lot more work for teachers, since they need to constantly keep track of how each of their many students are doing in a certain assignment and subject; they would need to pay close attention to each student they teach in order to evaluate them with the "constructive feedback" system, something that would take a lot of work to accomplish.
However, the people that agree with this new system disagree with the idea of keeping letter grades. Some think that the letter grade system prevents conversation about "learning" -- instead, the topic of interest is focused on what grade the child has gotten, rather than how to improve in one's learning. They think constructive feedback is better because it gives a more specific outline about the student's strengths and weaknesses, helping parents better pinpoint what to improve on. For example, one could be good at understanding some of the information taught in Science, but not all of it; getting constructive feedback would let the parent know exactly what the child is misunderstanding, and they could get help on just that one topic, instead of re-learning everything.
In my opinion, both letter grades and constructive feedback should be given. Letter grades are more effective when a student wants to know what he or she needs to improve on in general, but constructive feedback gives you the specifics on what a student needs to improve on. Having letter grades tells a child in a quick glance what they may need to improve on (which makes them want to get better) and to let them know what they're excelling at, as well. Having a balance between constructive criticism -- which tells you where exactly to improve on your work -- and letter grades -- which tells you what you need to improve on your work in general -- is the best option.
A link to the article -- here.
A link to my original post -- here.
Here is a webpage about the history of letter grades. This post helps us understand more about letter grades in general, and why they have been used for so long.
This webpage shows a debate centering around whether or not letter grades should be eliminated. It's particularly interesting to see that 50% of adults agree with removing letter grades while the other 50% don't.
Lastly, this article talks about why constructive feedback just won't work, and why letter grades do. This was interesting to read because the man who wrote this article mentioned a lot of points that argued against having constructive feedback that many other articles hadn't touched upon.
Friday, January 24, 2014
Are vaccinations really helping to keep our bodies healthy? Revised post.
In British Columbia, there has been a spike in H1N1
flu cases, meaning that people are rushing to be vaccinated. One person has
died in a possible case of H1N1 and about forty people have been hospitalize,
approximately thirty of them in intensive care.
Some people are for the
vaccinations, they believe it is a good idea. They say that immunizations can
save children’s lives because of the advances made in medical science. Some
diseases that once injured or killed thousands of children have been eliminated
completely and others are close to extinction, primarily due to safe and
effective vaccines. This has been said because vaccines are only given to
children after a long and careful review done by scientists, doctors and
healthcare professionals.
However, others are completely
against it. They say that pharmaceutical companies can’t be trusted. An example
would be the hormone replacement therapy for women. It was claimed to reduce
the risk of heart attacks and cancer and even helped them feel younger.
Instead, their breast cancer risk doubled for the women who were on HRT, the
risk of stroke was increased by 41% and there was also a 29% increased risk of
heart attacks. The vaccines are loaded with chemicals and other poisons, such
as MSG, antifreeze, phenol, formaldehyde, aluminum, glycerin, lead, cadmium,
sulfates, yeast proteins, antibiotics, and much more. Also, some vaccines have
had problems and have been removed from the market. An example would be the
Rotavirus vaccine, which was removed from the market in 1999 due to an
association between the vaccine and life threatening bowel obstruction.
In my opinion, vaccinations are not a good idea because they can be very dangerous to people.
They are harmful to our bodies, and to inject it directly into our blood does
not make matters any better. From what I have learned, vaccines are filled with
chemicals, and to put that into our bodies, hoping that it will keeps us
healthy, it may just make you worse.
My References:
This article gave the opinion as to why children should be vaccinated.
This post gave the opinion as to why children should not be vaccinated.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Current events redo
Recently, the Surrey School District has gotten rid of letter grades in thirty-nine elementary schools in Surrey, replacing them with detailed feedback about what the student is excelling in and what the student needs improvement in. Instead of evaluating a child's progress with A's, B's, or C's, report cards will offer information about how they are doing on each task or project. This way, parents as well as children will get a much better understanding of what the student is doing well in and what he or she may need to improve on.
The Principal of George Vanier Elementary in Surrey thinks the new program has more understandings. He believes that the new system helps the children and the parents better understand their strengths, weaknesses and better discussion . Instead of having A, B or C the information will help the parents get a better understanding.
What the system we have now and the new system are similar because when I see a bad grade I will try my hardest next time to get a better grade and having the feedback will also be the same if i'm not doing good enough i will make the feedback even better then before. So these systems connect but in a different way of sharing it with parents and kids.
The Principal of George Vanier Elementary in Surrey thinks the new program has more understandings. He believes that the new system helps the children and the parents better understand their strengths, weaknesses and better discussion . Instead of having A, B or C the information will help the parents get a better understanding.
What the system we have now and the new system are similar because when I see a bad grade I will try my hardest next time to get a better grade and having the feedback will also be the same if i'm not doing good enough i will make the feedback even better then before. So these systems connect but in a different way of sharing it with parents and kids.
Monday, January 13, 2014
Suggestion for your current events blog posts
Try to give each of your posts a more accurate title. We will be doing current events blog posts for a while so if they are all titled "Current Events" it will be harder for your readers to find the post they are interested in and some readers will choose not to go into your archives if all the posts are titled so similarly. Instead consider .E. P. #1: Changing Report Cards or something else like it so that readers can identify your topic right away. Remember, pretty soon you will be sharing your blogs with your parents and they will be responding to you and your writing, so make it "easy peasy" for your less computer literate parents :)
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Current events
Canada's prime minister, Stephen Harper, described Sharon as "one of the architects of modern-day Israel" and one of its "staunchest defenders" in a statement of condolence.
"A renowned military leader, Mr. Sharon pursued the security of Israel with unyielding determination that was recognized by friends and foes alike."
Sharon played a central role in the Israeli government for several years, changing the political landscape through his leadership and vision, Harper added.
He also said that Canada values its long-standing relationship with Israel, "which is based on shared values, common interests and strong political, economic, cultural and social ties."
Sharon died Saturday at the age of 85. He spent eight years in a coma after he had a stroke at the height of his power in 2006. His death followed a week of sharp decline in his health as his vital organs began shutting down.
Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander will represent Canada at a memorial for Sharon, the Prime Minister's Office said in a statement.
Current events
Steve Yzerman whom will be leading the Canada's men hockey team in the Olympics this year in Sochi, plans on requesting the players to shave for the games instead of keeping a play-off style beard. There has been no official decision, though he had made this request before, back in 2010 when Canada won the gold medal with Sidney Crosby's overtime winning goal. Read the article here.
Steve's reason on wanting the team to shave their beards were to make them look more "respectable", and for their smiles to be more easily seen. Even though there hasnt been an official decision, the organization does support Yzerman's idea.
Some people agree with the idea of shaving, some not so much, and others didn't care much about this call. Personally I don't agree with Yzerman's idea, because I think the players should have a choice whether they want to shave or not. Some players like to keep their beard, like for play-offs, and it has been a superstition around the NHL about keeping playoff beards, along with other hockey leagues. Whether you have a beard or not during the game, doesn't really matter because all the focus is on the puck, not on how much facial hair a player has.
Steve's reason on wanting the team to shave their beards were to make them look more "respectable", and for their smiles to be more easily seen. Even though there hasnt been an official decision, the organization does support Yzerman's idea.
Some people agree with the idea of shaving, some not so much, and others didn't care much about this call. Personally I don't agree with Yzerman's idea, because I think the players should have a choice whether they want to shave or not. Some players like to keep their beard, like for play-offs, and it has been a superstition around the NHL about keeping playoff beards, along with other hockey leagues. Whether you have a beard or not during the game, doesn't really matter because all the focus is on the puck, not on how much facial hair a player has.
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Current Events Blogging
Recently, the Surrey School District has gotten rid of letter grades in thirty-nine elementary schools in Surrey, replacing them with detailed feedback about what the student is excelling in and what the student needs improvement in. Instead of evaluating a child's progress with A's, B's, or C's, report cards will offer information about how they are doing on each task or project. This way, parents as well as children will get a much better understanding of what the student is doing well in and what he or she may need to improve on. Many teachers and parents believe that this new way of writing report cards would be a good one, since they think feedback could lead to more discussions on education than the standard letter grade. However, many also disagree with this fact.
People who disliked the idea of removing letter grades thought that a student would be more motivated to do better in school if they saw an F or a D on their report card. Students knew what the consequences would be if they got a low mark on their report card, and would strive to improve that mark. Parents can also see how their child is doing in school at a quick glance, and would be able to help, even without the "constructive feedback."
However, the people that agree with this new system disagree. Some think that the letter grade system prevents conversation about "learning" -- instead, the topic of interest is focused on what grade the child has gotten, rather than how to improve learning. They think that constructive feedback is good because it gives you a more specific outline about the student's strengths and weaknesses, helping parents better pinpoint what to improve on. For example, one could be good at understanding some of the information taught in Science, but not all of it; getting constructive feedback would let the parent know exactly what the child is misunderstanding, and he or she could get help on just that one topic, instead of re-learning everything.
In my opinion, both letter grades and constructive feedback should be given. Letter grades are effective when a student wants to know what they need to improve on in general, but constructive feedback gives more specific information about what the student needs to improve on. Having letter grades tells a child in a quick glance what they may need to improve on (which makes them want to get better) and to let them know what they're excelling at, as well. Having a balance between constructive criticism -- which tells you where exactly to improve on your work -- and letter grades -- which tells you what you need to improve on your work in general -- is the best option.
A link to the article --- here.
People who disliked the idea of removing letter grades thought that a student would be more motivated to do better in school if they saw an F or a D on their report card. Students knew what the consequences would be if they got a low mark on their report card, and would strive to improve that mark. Parents can also see how their child is doing in school at a quick glance, and would be able to help, even without the "constructive feedback."
However, the people that agree with this new system disagree. Some think that the letter grade system prevents conversation about "learning" -- instead, the topic of interest is focused on what grade the child has gotten, rather than how to improve learning. They think that constructive feedback is good because it gives you a more specific outline about the student's strengths and weaknesses, helping parents better pinpoint what to improve on. For example, one could be good at understanding some of the information taught in Science, but not all of it; getting constructive feedback would let the parent know exactly what the child is misunderstanding, and he or she could get help on just that one topic, instead of re-learning everything.
In my opinion, both letter grades and constructive feedback should be given. Letter grades are effective when a student wants to know what they need to improve on in general, but constructive feedback gives more specific information about what the student needs to improve on. Having letter grades tells a child in a quick glance what they may need to improve on (which makes them want to get better) and to let them know what they're excelling at, as well. Having a balance between constructive criticism -- which tells you where exactly to improve on your work -- and letter grades -- which tells you what you need to improve on your work in general -- is the best option.
A link to the article --- here.
Current Events
In British
Columbia, there has been a spike in H1N1 flu cases, meaning that people are
rushing to be vaccinated. One person has died in a possible case of H1N1 and
about forty people have been hospitalize, approximately thirty of them in
intensive care.
Some people are
for vaccinations, they believe it is a good idea. They say that immunizations
can save children’s lives, because of the advances made in medical science. Some
diseases that once injured or killed thousands of children have been eliminated
completely and others are close to extinction, primarily due to safe and
effective vaccines. This has been said because vaccines are only given to
children after a long and careful review done by scientists, doctors and
healthcare professionals.
However, others
are completely against it. They say that pharmaceutical companies can’t be
trusted. An example would be the hormone replacement therapy for women. It was
claimed to reduce the risk of heart attacks and cancer and even helped them
feel younger. Instead, their breast cancer risk doubled for the women who were
on HRT, the risk of stroke was increased by 41% and there was also a 29% increased
risk of heart attacks. The vaccines are loaded with chemicals and other
poisons, such as MSG, antifreeze, phenol, formaldehyde, aluminum, glycerin,
lead, cadmium, sulfates, yeast proteins, antibiotics, and much more. Also, some
vaccines have had problems and have been removed from the market. An example
would be the Rotavirus vaccine, which was removed from the market in 1999 due
to an association between the vaccine and life threatening bowel obstruction.
In my opinion, I
think that vaccinations are not a good idea because they can be very dangerous
to people. They are harmful to our bodies, and to inject it directly into our
blood does not make matters any better. From what I have learned, vaccines are
filled with chemicals, and to put that into our bodies, hoping that it will
keeps us healthy; it may just make you worse.
Click here for the H1N1 Article.
Current Events Blogging revised post
No letter grades in Surrey!
Right now Surrey schools are planning on getting rid of the letter grade system and instead of having letter grades the student will be having more information on how he/she is doing in school. The letter grade system was easier because parents can see how they are doing right away on the letter grade. Know the students have some information but it will not show the students there improvements in the letter grade. Students and parents will only get feedback and info on their kids progress in school.
What the system we have now and the new system are similar because when I see a bad grade I will try my hardest next time to get a better grade and having the feedback will also be the same if i'm not doing good enough i will make the feedback even better then before. So these systems connect but in a different way of sharing it with parents and kids.
link to Surrey schools-No letter grades- Shttp://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/surrey-school-district-extends-its-no-letter-grades-program-1.2485832
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)