Health

Click Here!

Easter

Technical Writing: A Communication Key

Technical writing is a vital part of everyday business operations. It encompasses almost any writing done for your job from emails and memos to incident and recommendation reports. Succeeding in today’s world requires excellent communication skills. Those that have the skills required tend to go farther in their careers than those that do not. Technical writing is just one of the many tools available to help anyone succeed. Technical writing follows the fundamentals of any piece of writing. The author needs to remember key concepts such as audience and purpose. These concepts apply to all technical writing. When the audience isn’t considered before writing a set of instructions, the information contained within those instructions can easily be lost. An example of this would be if you were to write a set of instructions on how to brush your teeth for an eight year old child, but used terminology geared towards a medical student. Most eight year olds do not know the word bicuspid. Similarly, purpose must always be considered in your writing. Knowing the purpose of your writing will help you decide what information should and should not be included in the writing. Using the example of brushing your teeth, you wouldn’t want include the history of the toothbrush in your instructions. Email has become one of the most widely used communication tools in the world today. It can be used to share ideas and opinions across the globe in a matter of seconds. With as quick, simple, and cost effective as email is, it has quickly fallen below the standards of acceptable writing. People often send email without regard to the writing process. Emails constantly contain spelling and grammar errors, a lack of formatting and a lack of formal greetings. Remembering to keep emails professional and up to the standards of the business world can make the sender standout among their peers.

Improving American Education: The Fight for Teacher Tenure Reform

It is often questioned as to why the United States is behind the majority of other world powers when it comes to education, specifically kindergarten through high school education. Many reasons have been given over the years to justify America’s lack of superiority in this category, such as large class sizes and outdated facilities and equipment. Countless studies have been conducted to try to answer this question, each coming up with their own variations of the same explanations. Out of all the studies conducted on this topic, very few of them look at American teachers and school administrators as possible source of the mediocre performance of American students. The majority of teachers in the United States are tenured, making them nearly impossible to fire based on their performance and the performance of their students. Tenure, as applied to employment, is defined as “status granted to an employee, usually after a probationary period, indicating that the position or employment is permanent” (Dictionary.com LLC). If teacher and school administrator retention and employment eligibility depended upon the performance of their students rather than their tenure, American education as a whole would have a better chance at catching up to and possibly surpassing the rest of the world powers in one of the most crucial components of national stability. When compared to the other countries of the world, American student achievement ranks in the middle. In 2007 fourth and eighth grade students from around the world participated in the “Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study” (TIMSS). Thirty-six countries participated at the fourth grade level and forty-eight countries at the eighth grade level. The study, conducted every four years since 1995, compares the math and science achievements from around the world at these two age levels (Institute of Educational Sciences). The average score for United States fourth graders was 529 out of a possible 1000. This average ranked the U.S. eleventh out of thirty-six. For eighth graders the U.S. average score was 508, which ranked the U.S. at ninth out of forty-eight (Snyder and Dillow). The overwhelming majority of public school teachers in the United States are backed by powerful teachers unions. The largest two such unions are The National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), which combined represent more than four million education professionals nationwide. These two unions are some of the biggest contributors to political campaigns as well as some of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington D.C. and all fifty state capitols. The foundation of their agendas, for which they spend so much of their money promoting, is that education professionals should be retained based on tenure first. In most school districts in the United States, tenure can be attained in as little as three years. Once tenure has been granted to a teacher, dismissal of that teacher for reasons other than their personal conduct becomes next to impossible. The primary goal of the teachers unions is to promote legislation that keeps tenured teachers from being fired. The mission statement of AFT states as its first objective “…to improve the lives of our members and their families… (American Federation of Teachers)”. Statements such as this and the actions of the union lobbyists show that the unions concern is for retaining tenured teachers and not for the improvement of the American education system. During the United States’ last economic recession, many school districts were forced into teacher layoffs due to budget cuts. The tenure related rule of “last hired, first fired” was used often in determining which teachers would lose their jobs. The teachers that were laid off were not chosen based on their teaching quality but rather how long they had been a teacher with the particular district. It is impossible to know the effect on educational quality these layoffs caused as many potentially excellent teachers were let go while many less effective tenured teachers were retained. The United States is not the only country in the world that has a tenure system in place for teachers. In fact, the majority of educationally top performing countries in the world do have teacher tenure. The main difference between these countries and the United States lies within the requirements to becoming a teacher. In the United States the basic requirement to becoming a public school teacher includes earning bachelor’s degree and obtaining a teaching certification. The basic requirements in other countries around the world can be much more difficult to achieve. In Finland for example, to become a teacher, one must earn a master’s degree in education. Only one in ten applicants to Finland’s education master’s degree programs is accepted (Abrams). In contrast to Finland, in 2007 only fifty-two percent of United States public school teachers held a masters degree (National Center for Education Statistics). The teacher hiring process in the United States is also different than that of other countries. Some countries look at an individual’s performance in high school as criteria in hiring. In South Korea new teachers must pass an induction test for the subject matter for which they wish to teach. Only forty percent of those who take the test pass (Wang, Coleman and Coley). Singapore and Japan include in their hiring decisions advanced communication skills and proper attitude. If the United States were to adopt stricter requirements for teacher hiring like those implemented in other countries, the overall quality of American teachers would improve and thus the performance of American students would also improve. Teacher tenure in the Unites States is in place to prevent any to whom it is granted from being fired without “just cause”. Just cause is defined as “a reasonable and lawful ground for action”. As it applies to employment, having just cause to terminate someone means that the person in question committed some action severe enough to warrant termination. However, proving just cause is a legal matter and not always an easy thing to do. Firing a teacher in the United States while having just cause can be a lengthy drawn out legal process. If the teacher is a member of a teacher’s union, the union will provide a legal representative to aid the teacher during this process. It involves either moving the accused teacher to a temporary new position away from those people involved in the activity in question or suspension of the teacher with pay for the duration of the process. An investigation into the alleged action has to be conducted. This investigation can take a large amount of time in itself. After the investigation, a review of the investigations findings takes place. During the review, it is determined whether or not there are grounds for just cause. Any teacher fired for just cause has the right to take their case to the appellate courts for judicial review. The appeals process can take many years to complete. If the appellate court determines that there was no just cause for the firing, the fired teacher may sue for wrongful termination. Due to the large monetary and time costs of a just cause firing, many school boards find it more convenient and economical to move the teacher to a new school or job function rather than proceed with the firing process. The lackadaisical approach to discipline of educators in America has created a system in which American students and their educations suffer. Rather than deal directly with problem teachers and face the wrath of the teachers union as well as the school board those principals or board members involved in the firing process tend to take the easy way out. School districts are then left with undisciplined teachers that believe they can get away with anything they want. The United States of America is a county founded on the principles of freedom. It is a nation that does not stand for mediocrity. Throughout our nation’s history there have been many battles for various aspects of freedom. Each of these battles had a similar outcome, one in which freedom prevailed over oppression. Today in America we are at the doorstep of a new freedom fight, the fight for freedom of education. This fight will seek to revolutionize the standards of education in the United States and establish the US as an educational super power in the world. It is time for the citizens of the United States to take control over their education and that of their families away from powerful union lobbyists and the politicians to whom they offer support. Americans must demand more accountability within each individual school district and each individual school so that every child in this country has the opportunity to receive an education that is parallel to none in the world from a teacher who can be called world-class, not tenured.   Works Cited Abrams, Samuel E. "The Children Must Play: What the United States Could Learn from Finland about Education Reform." The New Republic 28 January 2011. Print. American Federation of Teachers. AFT - A Union of Professionals. Mar 2012 . Web. Dictionary.com LLC. Tenure: Define Tenure at Dictionary.com. Mar. 2012 . Web. Institute of Educational Sciences. National Center for Educational Statistics. Mar 2012 . Web. National Center for Education Statistics. Fast Facts. Mar. 2012 . Web. Snyder, Thomas D., and Sally A. Dillow. Digest of Education Statistics 2010. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 2011. Print Wang, Aubrey H., et al. Preparing Teachers Around the World. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 2003. Print.

Do You Really Own Your Land?

One of the pillars of the American Dream is home ownership. Most people believe that they own the land upon which their home was built. Although this can be true in certain cases, for most people the land under which their home sits is not owned by them. Today’s real estate titles and deeds grant the holder the right to live in the house and on the land as long as they meet certain requirements such as paying their taxes and mortgages. If these requirements are not met, the law allows for the seizure of the land and the dwelling by means of a foreclosure. There does exist however one level of land ownership that cannot be seized for any reason by anyone. This is the land patent, issued by the United States Government. A land patent is defined as “an official document by which title to a portion of public land is conveyed from the government” (Dictionary.com LLC). At some point in history the United States owned every square inch of land in the county. At various times the government would convert public land to private land through the issuance of land patents. Land patents were issued for various reasons from payment for serving in the military during the Revolutionary War to the Civil War and to raise money for the United States Treasury by selling the rights to public land to private citizens. Land patents were also given to citizens who fulfilled the requirements of the Homestead Act of 1862, which gave land to citizens who lived on their plot of land for a period of five years and made improvements to the land, such as building a house (Homestead Act of 1862). The issuing of land patents can only be done through an act of Congress. The first land patent the United States Government issued was on March 4th 1788 and was issued to John Martin for six hundred forty acres of land in what is now Belmont County, Ohio (US Bureau of Land Management). The first land patents were given to veterans of the Revolutionary War as payment for their service in the United States Army. After these patents came the patents offered for sale to private citizens at a cost of $1 per acre. Each land patent holder was given an official United States government document outlining the location of the land, listing the congressional act allowing for the transfer of the land from the government to the citizen, and the words “To have and to hold the same, together with all the rights, privileges, immunities, and appurtenances of whatsoever nature, thereunto belonging, unto the said” citizen “and to his heirs and assigns forever” (Allyn). Each land patent is signed by the President of the United States at the time of issuance. The wording of every land patent ensures that the holder of the patent and their heirs and assigns are entitled to the land forever, regardless of taxes owed or unpaid mortgages. The patent gives full rights to the land and everything above and below ground occurring naturally to the patentee. This includes the mineral rights to the land on the patent. Ownership of the land can only be passed through probate to an heir or an assign. Because the majority of land patents were issued in the 19th and early 20th centuries, tracing their current ownership can be difficult. Real estate bought and sold today rarely includes researching the ownership of the land patent. There have been recent attempts made by people facing foreclosure on their homes to fight the foreclosure by attempting to prove rightful ownership of the land patent. Most of these attempts are unsuccessful due to the difficulty in tracing ownership of the patent over a very large period of time and the modern way in which land and building are bought and sold. Most home owners have only bought the house itself and the right to live in the house. They don’t own everything naturally occurring above and below the land as a land patent hold would own. In some cases people have even been prosecuted for fraud while trying to claim patent ownership. When a person files for land patent ownership, it begins a lengthy litigation process that is linked to particular piece of land for the duration of the legal process. Some of these people know they will be unsuccessful in the legal fight but know that by entering into this process they can buy themselves more time on the land or in the home. This legal process can lower the value of the land significantly because the land and buildings upon the land cannot be quickly sold. The fraud charges stem from the decreasing of the value of the land. The United States Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management’s General Land Office maintains a website that documents every land patent ever issued by the government. The majority of these patents are available for viewing online. The website’s database is searchable by the name of the person on the patent or by state, county, date of issue and many other options. This database is an excellent starting point for researching land patent ownership. Once a patent owned by an ancestor or for a particular piece of land is located the process of researching current ownership gets more difficult. To prove rightful ownership of an ancestor’s land patent, one would have to prove relationship to the person on the patent. Then proof would be needed for the assignment of the patent through the wills of the patentee and the wills of their heirs to the person trying to claim ownership. If this can be proven then the land patent ownership can be claimed. Although most people today do not hold the patent to the land upon which their home was built, they still own their homes and have the legal right to live in the home. Someone else however may still own the land under the house. This shouldn’t be a concern for homeowners though because it is extremely difficult to prove current land patent ownership. People shouldn’t lose any sleep over the fact that someone else owns their land and legally could remove them from their home. Works Cited Allyn, Freeman. United States of America Land Patent. United States of America: Patent 8112. June 1856. Historical Document. Dictionary.com LLC. Land Patent : Define Land Patent at Dictionary.com. Feb. 2012 . Web. Homestead Act of 1862. "Act of May 20, 1862 (Homestead Act)." Public Law 37-64, 05/20/1862. Records Group 11; General Records of the United States Government; National Archives. Historical Document. US Bureau of Land Management. General Land Office Records: Public Lands History. Feb. 2012 . Web. Wright, Paul L. and Thomas E. Muth. "Land Patents: Are They an Escape from Foreclosure." Drake Law Review (1988): 561-582. Print.

False Believing

In the essay “Study Demonstrates How We Support Our False Beliefs” by Patricia Donovan, the author writes about why people form false beliefs. Donovan uses the example of people placing the blame of 9/11 with Saddam Hussein as a justification for the United States to go to war with Iraq after the war had already begun. Although there has never been any evidence supporting this belief, Donovan explains why people form false beliefs like this. Donovan writes about a study conducted by Steven Hoffman, Ph.D., Monica Prasad, Ph.D., Andrew Perrin, Ph.D., and several graduate students from Northwestern University and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. The team conducted a series of interviews with people who believe in the 9/11 Saddam Hussein link. The researchers discovered that, even when presented with evidence that Hussein was not responsible for 9/11, the interviewees all had their own reasons to continue believing in the link. Hoffman stated, after the study was concluded, that “People were basically making up justifications for the fact that we were at war”. Throughout the essay, Donovan explains that, through the example of a link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, people need to justify to themselves their beliefs, whether true or false, because they need to be able to make sense of the things that are going on in their worlds. Donovan’s essay, while providing an interesting observation and argument, is ineffective in explaining why people have beliefs that are proven to be false. The thesis in Donovan’s essay is that people rationally justify their false beliefs out of a need to make sense of their surroundings. While this is an interesting claim, Donovan provides only one example of this type of thinking to support her thesis. Her essay was written in response to the publication of a study in the journal Sociological Inquiry. The audience for this essay was college level readers as it was published at the University of Buffalo News Center. When writing for a college level audience, there is a demand for evidence to support the papers thesis. In Donovan’s essay, the lack of supporting evidence might deter readers from believing her thesis. Had she provided more evidence in support of her thesis, her audience could easily accept the thesis as being true. The thesis of Donovan’s essay was developed as a response to a scientific study. Although the thesis could apply to the content of the study, Donovan went to broad on her thesis. The study was conducted on one specific topic, people believing in a connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. Donovan’s thesis was to give an explanation as to why people believe in things that are proven to be false. A more appropriate thesis could be to explain why people believe in the link between Hussein and 9/11. When seeking to explain how and why people rationalize certain types of thinking that can be proven false, multiple explanations backed with specific examples are required. Donovan provides only one example to explain this phenomenon. Donovan’s thesis brings to light a very interesting topic. Giving only one example to support the thesis doesn’t do this topic justice. Donovan’s one thesis supporting example is very thorough. The given example is firmly supported through statements given by academic professionals and scientific research. Donovan cites the multiple sources used in writing the original essay to which her essay was a response. Donovan gives specific conclusions reached during the course of the scientific study about which the original essay was written. Donovan’s essay was non-bias, written in a manner that reflects the topic from a research standpoint. Donovan’s essay provides an interesting theory that as a reader, I would like to have more information. It seeks to explain an uncommon phenomenon, one that, after reading the essay, makes sense. It would have been nice for Donovan to use other examples outside of the topic about which she wrote to provide backup for her explanation as to why people form and rationalize false beliefs, something which all people do at some point in their lives whether consciously or unconsciously. Works Cited Donovan, Patricia. “Study Demonstrates How We Support Our False Beliefs.” New Center August 21, 2009. University at Buffalo.