Internal Factor Evaluation Essay Example for Free

Internal Factor Evaluation Essay Internal factors of a college or university include faculty, students, staff, alumni, athletic program, physical plant, grounds and maintenance, student housing, administration, academic programs, fraternities, sororities, and public relations. The sum total of all weighted score is equal to the total weighted score, final value of total weighted score should be between range 1.0 (low) to 4.0 (high). The average weighted score for IFE matrix is 2.5 any company total weighted score fall below 2.5 consider as weak. The company total weighted score higher than 2. 5 is consider as strong position. And from the table above Philippine Women’s University Sta. Cruz, Laguna Campus has a slight strong internal position and there are many areas need to improve further. Strategies After we evaluate our university, we think that there are some things that the university should do like daily checking of air-cons, lights, flushes of toilets, etc. They should build clinic in case of emergency, they should also build canteen, hire an HR, and have a head of each colleges. They should also include all the other or extra fees in tuition fee. And there’s one thing that is important for us senior, we guess that they should take some actions in helping them on finding OJT. And maintain their strength or much better to improve it more.

My Educational Philosophy :: My Philosophy of Education

My Educational Philosophy Most people would say that what prompted them to become a teacher was a teacher that they had connected with and inspired them. I never really had this opportunity of aspiring to be like someone who has impacted my life. I never had a teacher that stood out to me or really tried to connect with me. Therefore, I suppose my explanation to want become a teacher is quite the opposite of the typical explanation. I don’t want to become like any of the teachers I had throughout my elementary and high school career; I want to be the opposite. I want to make sure children in future generations have someone to write about when they are writing a paper such as this one. When someone asks them, â€Å"What drove you to keep trying?† or, â€Å"What helped you succeed in school?† I want them to be able to say, â€Å"My teacher believed in me, that’s what.† I want my students to know that they can do anything. From assuring them that they can do better on the test, to helping them discover themselves and grow into confident, thriving members of society. I believe that students must first gain knowledge and then apply it. I will help them use their knowledge by giving them activities that coincide with the curriculum I am teaching them. I believe that students learn best by being engaged in real-world activities and should be active in the learning process. I hope that my classroom will be a place where my students and I can learn from each other and teach each other. I hope to learn from my students as they learn from me. My curriculum will be based on the necessity of the student. If a student needs or wants to learn something, I will teach it to him or her. My curriculum will consist of individual evaluation. I will adjust the way I teach to the way the students in my classroom learn. I believe that most students naturally want to learn and experience new things. Curiosity is a natural human characteristic. Students who want to learn want to be involved in their learning. This is why teachers must construct ways to engage students in the subject matter. This type of teaching would include opportunities for â€Å"hands-on† learning and activities requiring group work. I feel real-life examples help the students see the relevance of the material and group work will give my students valuable social and communication skills.

Assignment 205 Task A Letter

Assignment 205 Introduction to duty of care in Health, social care or children’s and young people’s settings Task B Case Study Case Study One You are a support worker for Mrs Ahmed who is 89, physically frail and lives alone. She has diabetes. Mrs Ahmed wants to eat foods that are not suitable for her medical condition, and asks you to shop for her as she is not able to get the shop herself. BiDescribe the difficulties for you in exercising your duty of care and upholding Mrs Ahmed’s right to choose.I would consult Mrs Ahmed’s care plan, and advise her about your concerns that she follow a healthy diet, stressing that she will feel much better if she does so. I would also advise her about alternative foods. BiiWhere would you go to get advice, information and support to deal with the dilemma? I would seek advice and support from my manager, and get information from Mrs Ahmed’s care plan. Case Study Two Leon Quashie lives in supported housing. He has learning disabilities. You are his support worker. Leon tells you that he has a new friend who comes to his home and plays on his games cons ole.A few days later you notice that the games console is missing. Leon tells you his new friend has borrowed it. BiiiDescribe the difficulties for you in exercising your duty of care to Leon and upholding his rights. As I am Leon’s support worker I would explain to him that I can call his friend and ask him to return the games console, if it does not get returned then I may have to inform the police. Also I would explain to Leon that I am there to protect him from being exploited or taken advantage of. I would explain to Leon he has a right to make mistakes and choose what he does with his possessions.Bivwhere could you go to get advice and support on how to ensure you uphold Leon’s rights but also follow your own duty of care? I would get advice from my manager, social worker and maybe the police. Task C Ciidentify a) Legal b) Organisational Requirements for dealing with complaints.a) The legal requirements are handled by CQC (care quality commission)b) Organisationa l requirements are Care home policies. (Manager) CiiComplaints may be received from service users, other practitioners, or the family of service users.Describe the important points to remember when responding to complaints. Listen to the complainant, give them your undivided attention, record the complaint accurately (check with the individual), tell them how and to whom the complaint will be reported to (show them your procedure), assure them that their complaint will receive attention and be resolved as soon as possible, report immediately and follow up, The complainant should be aware that their complaint has been taken seriously and a letter of acknowledgement should be sent out.

What Is the Doctrine of (Christian) Discovery

Federal Indian law is a complex interweaving of two centuries of Supreme Court decisions, legislative actions, and actions at the executive level all combined to formulate contemporary US policy toward Native American lands, resources, and lives. Laws that govern Indian property and lives, like all bodies of law, are based on legal principles set out in legal precedents that are upheld from generation to generation of lawmakers, coalescing into legal doctrines upon which other laws and policies are constructed. They presuppose a basis of legitimacy and fairness, but some of the foundational principles of federal Indian law violate Indian rights to their own lands against the original intention of treaties and, arguably, even the Constitution. The doctrine of discovery is one of them and is one of the constituent principles of settler colonialism Johnson v. McIntosh The doctrine of discovery was first articulated in the Supreme Court case Johnson v. McIntosh (1823), which was the first case regarding Native Americans ever heard in the American court. Ironically, the case didnt even directly involve any Indians; rather, it involved a land dispute between two white men which questioned the validity of the legal title of land once occupied by and sold to a white man by the Piankeshaw Indians. The ancestors of plaintiff Thomas Johnson purchased land from the Indians in 1773 and 1775 and the defendant William McIntosh obtained a land patent from the United States government on what was supposed to be the same parcel of land (although there is evidence that there were two separate parcels of land and the case was brought in the interest of forcing a ruling). The plaintiff sued for an ejectment on the basis that his title was superior but the court rejected it under the claim that the Indians had no legal ability to convey the land in the first place. The case was dismissed. The Opinion Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion for a unanimous court. In his discussion about the competing European powers competition for land in the New World and the wars that ensued, Marshall wrote that in order to avoid conflicting settlements European nations established a principle they would acknowledge as a law, the right of acquisition. This principle was, that discovery gave the title to the government by who subjects or by whose authority, it was made, against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession. He wrote further that discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title of occupancy, either by purchase or by conquest. In essence, the opinion outlined several troubling concepts that became the root of the discovery doctrine in much of federal Indian law (and property law in general). Among them, it would give full ownership of Indian lands to the United States with tribes only possessing the right of occupancy, completely ignoring the scores of treaties that had already been made with Indians by Europeans and Americans. An extreme interpretation of this implies that the United States is not obligated to respect native land rights at all. The opinion also problematically relied on the concept of cultural, religious, and racial superiority of Europeans and deployed the language of Indian savagery as a means of justification for what Marshall would admit was the extravagant pretension of conquest. This in effect, scholars have argued, institutionalized racism in the legal structure that governs Native Americans. Religious Underpinnings Some Indigenous legal scholars (most notably Steven Newcomb) have also pointed out the problematic ways in which religious dogma informs the discovery doctrine. Marshall unapologetically relied on the legal precepts of medieval Europe in which the Roman Catholic Church determined policy for how European nations would divide up the new lands they discovered. Edicts issued by sitting Popes (in particular the Papal Bull Inter Caetera of 1493 issued by Alexander VI) granted permission to explorers like Christopher Columbus and John Cabot to claim for the Christian ruling monarchs the lands they found and implored their expedition crews to convert-- by force if necessary --the heathens they encountered, who would then become subject to the will of the Church. Their only limitation was that the lands they found could not be claimed by any other Christian monarchy. Marshall referred to these papal bulls in the opinion when he wrote the documents upon the subject are ample and complete. So early as the year 1496 her [Englands] monarch granted the commission to the Cabots, to discover countries then unknown to Christian people, and to take possession of them in the name of the King of England. England, under the authority of the Church, would thus automatically inherit title to the lands which would then convey to America after the Revolution. Aside from the criticism levied against the American legal system for its reliance on outmoded racist ideologies, critics of the discovery doctrine have also condemned the Catholic Church for its role in the genocide of American Indian peoples. The doctrine of discovery has also found its way into the legal systems of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. References Getches, Wilkinson, and Williams. Cases and Materials on Federal Indian Law, the fifth edition. Thomson West publishers, 2005. Wilkins and Lomawaima. Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2001. Williams, Jr., Robert A. Like a Loaded Weapon: The Rehnquist Court, Indian Rights, and the Legal History of Racism in America. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005.