Are D's being extinct from report cards?

Schools starting pretty soon, and let’s say you read only half the summer reading required. You take the quiz and… and you almost failed. Your teacher told you that you got a 68% and received an “F”. With shock, you furiously told him that it is clearly a letter “D” grade instead of an “F”. Your teacher smiled back at you only to say “tough luck kid, we don’t believe in D’s anymore…the grading system is now A’s then B’s then C’s then F’s…so try harder!”

Is this fair? Are schools really enforcing the D-policy?

===>
===>
Before we're use to seeing D's as a passing grade, but at Mount Olive High School...
...
... D's = F's

Today, more and more school districts are adapting to the no D-policy. Starting this fall, districts such as “Mount Olive” in New Jersey won’t allow D’s in report cards, only A’s, B’s, C’s and F’s. The no D-policy had lead to many arguments from students to teachers to parents. A student from Mount Olive high school said “I really don’t like it, if you’re a little bit less than a C, but not quite an F, you’re still going to fail. Some kids aren’t at that level yet. They aren’t able to get that upper grade.” Many teachers also argued that there might be more students failing their classes due to the high standard. Once the standard is set higher, the possibility of more students failing is greater which can cause many negative effects to our society. Since more students have a greater chance failing, more students would not graduate, and if students can’t graduate, they won’t be able to find a decent job to support themselves or their family.

However, some parents disagree and are happy about the new D-policy because they think it’ll give their kids more motivation to perform well at school. Max Werner (president of the school board) said “People are going to have to try harder, it’s not like a nice college is going to see all D’s on a report card and want to accept that student.” If the standard is set higher, students will get more motivated to perform well, which can lead them to a better college and a brighter future. Many people have their opinions about the new D-policy and whether or not you agree or disagree, the new system will take affect this fall at Mount Olive High School District. Students who fail to reach 70 percent in any classes will result in “extra-needed help” classes or extra tutoring.

Although I like the plan under the D-policy, I disagree with the idea because I think the negative effects greatly surpass the positives’. There are many kids out there who only thrive for “D’s” because it’s good enough for them to graduate and at least find a decent job to support themselves and maybe their family. If many students aren’t able to graduate under the D-policy, it’ll be significantly difficult for high school drop-outs to find a job since now a day more jobs require at least a high school diploma. If more students can’t find jobs, the poverty rate would increase which can cause more issues for our economy and for our country.

If your interested in this topic, feel free visit

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/education/08grades.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper

-Eric Guo

No more "Happy Meals"?

Alright, I am sure that all of you have eaten a McDonald's Happy Meal at least once in your life! One of the main reasons that kids make their parents order a Happy Meal is (not because of those yummy McNuggets but) for those appealing toys!

So to sum things up:
Kids + More Happy Meals = Childhood Obesity

"A few more Happy Meals and then I will have the whole collections of these limited edition toys!"

However, San Francisco proposed a law on Tuesday, August 10 2010, to BAN McDonald's Happy Meals! (Oh nooooo! -Sad Ronald ):) This law bans all foods that contain too much fat, sugar or salt. Santa Clara earlier this year passed a similar law but it only targeted a handful of restaurants and most of them were unincorporated (Family owned). However, SF is taking it to the next step! Don't be surprised if all fast food joints (Burger King, Jack in the Box...) will soon suffer bans of their own. SF Board of Supervisors are demanding for more fruit and vegetable in meals! "Meals must include at least a half-cup of fruit and three-quarters of a cup of vegetables."

The new fries...? Yummy.

This article interested me because I too was once McDonald Toy grabber and a Happy Meal gobbler. It also got me thinking: "Do they have the right to intrude our eating habits?" I understand they are not purposely taking away toys from Happy Meals to purposely anger kids and parents (Kids throwing tantrums in public = angry parents -> personal experience!). I believe that they are doing this with good intentions. They want a healthier SF. As Rajiv Bhatia, director of occupational and environmental health for the San Francisco Department of Public Health said, "This is not an anti-toy ordinance; this is a pro-healthy-meal ordinance." What do you think? Should the government have the final say of what we want to eat?

Want to read more?! Here's the link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2010/08/11/MNJG1ES4M2.DTL#ixzz0wK3koHGE



Robin Kuang

Proposition 4.

The Abortion Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative, otherwise known as Sarah's Law, lost in the ballot of November 4, 2008 by just 3% away. What this proposition states is that girls who are under 18 cannot have abortion performed on them without informing their parents or guardians. If passed, it would have been added to California's constitution as another amendment.

What does this mean? Not only do the girls have to deal with the intial fear and the stress from finding out that they're pregnant, with the confusion and cluelessness of what do to, but now more worry would be added on. Thinking of how to break it to their families, anticipating their parents' reactions, wondering how one should deal with their families if they do not approve: all these factors negatively affect the girls as well as the babies (if they decide to keep it). We must keep in mind that not all parents are supportive of their children. Some people have religious morals and values that they stringently follow, and probably in the more worse-case scenarios, disowning their own children for breaking these rules is always an open option. Not everyone is open-minded, not everyone will be willing to hear out the underaged girl, and I believe that if America is actually the Land of Freedom, then these girls will be given the freedom of choice. A girl should not be forced to have a child if she does not want to. If a girl truly needs help, she has options, and she knows the right people to go to for advice. If a girl wants to tell her family about the abortion, then by all means, let her, but a girl should not be pushed to do the opposite, especially if their family does not provide a loving environment. As much as we'd like to believe that everything is dandy between parents and children, nowadays these relationships are slowly falling apart because of the generation gap, which entails a big difference in beliefs and in solutions. If this proposition was passed, we cannot regulate what goes on between the girl and her family.

Therefore, my stance would be no on prop 4. If the family should find out, it should be from the girl, when she is emotionally stable, ready, and trusting. To learn more about proposition 4, you can either go to:
www.yeson4.net
www.noonprop4.org


Emily June Chen.

San Francisco Parking

A 71 unit apartment complex was planned to be built at Ocean and Phelan avenues, however much controvery came about. The main issue with the construction of the housing is that it only has 7 parking spaces for everyone in the whole apartment building. Additionally, only one of these spaces is reserved for handicapped people and another for car-sharing. This leaves 5 spaces for everyone else in the entire complex whether they are handicapped or not. If anyone living in the complex, say for example, an old disabled woman, cannot get one of these 7 spots to park, then she will be forced to park far away and strenuously walk to her apartment. As a result of the limited parking spots, a multitude of people are angered. In fact, 457 people signed a petition against the project and many speakers spoke with passion against it at a recent planning commission hearing. However these people are not only against this one complex, but the fact that there are numerous accounts of reducing parking spaces.The citys planning director has been trying and will continue to try to limit parking, although he sees it much differently than the people of S.F. Some planning directors see the movement of reducing parking spaces as economical and environmental, as well as decreasing the dreaded S.F. traffic. A planning director views less parking spaces as encouragement to continue driving farther in order to park, and consequently lessening traffic and congestion. Also, less parking spaces will be an incentive to take public transit instead of driving, which could lead to less fuel emissions in the air. Lastly, it encourages public transportation as a means of saving money on gas, or a car in general. However, I along with many S.F. residents disagree with the movement. I personally dont believe that having less parking spaces can actually reduce traffic, rather,it moves it farther down the road. Also, many people have the necessity to drive their own car. For example, a mother who has kids and needs to go grocery shopping. She cant bus and carry children back and forth. Also, pet owners cant take their pets on public transit. Also, the people with jobs need to arrive at work on time, and more often than not the public transportation is late. Lastly, public transit doesnt stop as often as neccessary for disabled people. But if a person with disabilites has a car they can get as close as neccessary to their destination. Therefore, I beleive that there should not be reductions in the amount of parking spaces because they are neccessary for a wide variety of people. Overall Ifeel that fewer parking spaces is a fair attempt at an economical/environmental approach, however its not very realistic because many people need cars to get where they want to be, where they need to be, and on time.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/02/BA2M1EMDHB.DTL

Guns at home

On July 27, 2010 two boys, Bryan Gonzalez, 12, and Christian Gonzalez, 10, were found dead in a ravine on private property in Chino Hills. There were 60 feet away from their home. Investigators determine their death from gunshot wounds from a gun nearby. The owner of the gun turned out to be their father's. The father had stated that they kept their hand gun in an unlocked case. They had lived in a fairly safe and quiet neighborhood and a fellow resident stated that this incident greatly affected their community. A suicide pact or a murder-suicide were both considered by Chino investigators.

After reading this article I was pretty surprised. Not at the fact that the kids got a hold of the gun but the fact that the parents had left the case unlocked. Also, finding out that the kids were 10 and 12 shocked me too. I feel at that age you have a pretty basic understanding about guns and why you shouldn't play with them. These are just my opinions and feelings on this article, whether you agree or disagree is all up to you. I feel that guns at home are incredibly dangerous especially with children in the household. I can understand the necessity for safety and a means for security. However, violence just leads to more violence. Leaving the gun case unlocked is extremely risky and dangerous, allowing any individual to get a hold of the weapon. For whatever reason, it's just not a safe environment for children. Violence has always been an issue around the world with various opinions regarding it. These are simply mine and you are entitled to your own.

If you are interested in more information on this topic visit http://www.dailybulletin.com/ci_15625532?source=rss_viewed. Article by Lori Consalvo 7/28/2010.

-Nancy Tat

Gay Marriage Rights.

On November 5, 2008, Proposition 8, the clause which defined the only valid type of marriage, as the union between a man and a woman, was added to the California Constitution. Although this proposition was passed two years ago, the addition of this prop is still being fought today.

The U.S. was founded upon the principles of the people's right to equality and the pursuit of happiness, however Prop. 8 is a blatant contradiction to these principles. By limiting the validity of marriage to that of straight couples, the state of California is ignoring the rights of same-sex couples. Regardless of whether or not you support same-sex marriage, these couple still deserve the right to consider marriage as an option. There is currently a movement to repeal Prop. 8 on November 3, 2010. In order to place this initiative on the November 2010 ballot, signatures, are currently being collected.

What will repealing Prop. 8 mean exactly? By removing this proposition from the California Constitution, the right to marriage will be granted to same-sex couples, churches must respect the marriage between two people of the same gender and public schools will teach respect for both the marriage between that of a man and a woman and the marriage of a same-sex couple. This will take the education of equality even further, and in addition to teaching equality, the people of California will also be practicing the equality that we teach our children today.

Although you may not support the marriage of two people with the same gender, Prop. 8 represents much more than that, and by supporting Prop. 8, you are supporting our country's belief of equal rights and the pursuit of happiness, and in turn teaching future generations a basis of acceptance and respect.

For more information on proposition 8, go to http://www.whatisprop8.com/.

For more information on the repeal of proposition 8 go to http://www.signforequality.com/.

//Serafina Tulioc.

Introduction.

Hi everyone! Welcome to the Government in Spotlight Blogspot page! To put it simply, our objective here is to analyze controversial issues, no matter how ancient or recent they may be. We WILL put forth our opinions, but understand that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and these controversial issues have no right or wrong so please do not get offended by any of our posts. Furthermore, we will try to inform and educate about these reoccurences as accurately as possible and suggest ideas on how to take a stand against them. As for now, our page is currently undergoing editing, so sorry if you encounter any problems. Enjoy what there is. (: