Job Shadowing - Southern State Community College: Fill & Download for Free

I waited 14 years to do something that I should have done my first year of teaching: shadow a student for a day. It was so eye-opening that I wish I could go back to every class of students I ever had right now and change a minimum of ten things – the layout, the lesson plan, the checks for understanding. Most of it!This is the first year I am working in a school but not teaching my own classes; I am the High School Learning Coach, a new position for the school this year. My job is to work with teachers and administrators to improve student learning outcomes.Winston Churchill famously stated, "success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts". Indeed, these words encapsulate my objectives in life. I have always put in effort even when I am not doing my best. Despite the setbacks that I have faced, I have always emerged victorious and gained valuable lessons. Ever since I was young, I have always wanted to join the University of Southern California. As such, all my efforts in elementary school and high school have always been geared towards helping me achieve my goal. Currently, I am attending Glendale Community college, where I am pursuing General Education courses. My time at the institution has been positive as my grades as a student have improved. Moreover, it has helped me grow both in character and academically.Thanks.

Each of the four Western Provinces would like to have industrial diversification. They sometimes do it with the assistance of the Government of Canada: Minister Carr unveils Government of Canada’s plan to support Manitoba’s economic future. British Columbia has been looking for it for years: B.C. aims for most diversified economy .The provincial governments of Western Canada do not have control over several of the things that strongly effect their own development. These are foreign trade, interest rates and currency exchange rates. The four provinces have to hope that the federal government will take actions that help their economic development.But, being an expat-Manitoban, and having lived in the other three Western Provinces, the four provinces are quite different from each other, economically and otherwise. Manitoba already has a somewhat diversified economy. About sixty-five percent of Manitoba's population lives in Winnipeg. Farmers, and people in resource oriented communities are a minority. Winnipeg has various sorts of economic activity going on. There is agricultural processing, but there are industries like banking, investments, trucking, very large railway yards, two universities and a community college, a performing arts sector, tourism (You do not believe it? Winnipeg draws from Northwestern Ontario, all the rest of Manitoba, Eastern Saskatchewan, North Dakota and Minnesota.) Winnipeg has its share of IT and general manufacturing. What it lacks in particular, are the heavier, “dirtier”, industries.Saskatchewan is getting to the point where the Saskatoon and Regina Census Metropolitan Areas contain half the population of the province. It is not rural the way it was.I worked in Edmonton from 1978 to 1980, for the Government of Alberta. Even at the height of the oil boom, the provincial government was talking about diversification. Some progress has been made. Calgary is one of the top five IT centres in Canada. The Calgary and Edmonton Census Metropolitan Areas contain well over half of the province's population. Alberta is the one Western Province that is a large-scale fuel producer. However, even in these bad times in the industry, the populations of the Edmonton and Calgary CMA's have been growing vigorously, and the value of construction starts remains high.The Vancouver Census Metropolitan Area is now a city of world significance. It is far off being about forestry and the fishery.One needs to remember, especially nowadays, a lot of the economic activity in any Canadian city is providing services to the people who are there. Traditional manufacturing has been declining in Canada. The service sector is the dominant employer. Even in resource-oriented Edmonton, many of the jobs are service ones, from well-paid ones to not at all well-paid. There are doctors, lawyers, medical and hospital staff, accountants, investment brokers, bankers, insurance workers, restaurant staff, educators, cosmeticians, janitorial staff, real estate salespeople and brokers, hotel staff, food court workers, etc.But, Aren't the Western Provinces Especially Rural And Limited?Any sizable economy, anywhere, starts with agriculture and commodities. Those are the only situations where there is a continuous geographic region of population. Centrally-organized economies may create population centres beyond their agricultural zones, but, it isn't practical to locate too many people where agriculture isn't there or nearby. So, Russia has Norilsk and Murmansk. Even Novosibirsk has vigorous agriculture. In fact, their climate is quite similar to that of Winnipeg.The Industrial Revolution was where, other economic activity, began to rise over top of the agricultural and commodities base. And, this gave the countries that started their Revolution the earliest, a jump over a lot of other places. All of Canada has struggled not to be a country of “hewers of wood and drawers of water.” We were struggling to industrialize ourselves out of the shadow of Britain, Western Europe and the USA. This of course was one of the primary reasons for the National Policy and the historically high tariffs that lingered into the 1970's.Most of Western Canada was a frontier when this Canadian approach started. Whatever Canadian industrial base that existed, was centred on Ontario and Quebec. That was natural for several reasons, as much as many Western Canadians chaff at it. These regions had built up at least a small local market base. That was where skilled people were concentrated. Southern Ontario and Southern Quebec had good access to water transport. To the extent that trade with the United States could happen, they are very close to very large American markets. Only a relatively small amount of railway building was necessary to connect to the American rail net. Both provinces had large sources of hydroelectric power, with some of the sources not remote. (Niagara Falls itself became a major power generator.) Except for the coast, British Columbia does not have that. The Coast Ranges create a strong barrier for the Interior. There is not that much agricultural land. And, there is no navigable river that leads from the Interior to the coast. The Fraser River is navigable for only a short distance inland. The Columbia flows out of Canada into another country.This type of developmental situation happened in a lot of countries. So, what happens to parts of a country that do not have ports, navigable rivers that can be used for water transport to their coasts, no nearby heavily-populated markets, and, which developed later? Western Canada is nothing unique. One could talk about the Pampas, “regional” Australia, and large parts of rural, inland Russia. Despite its huge population base, the USA was not much different. One could ask, why don't, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho have more diverse economies, more of the traditional industries, and bigger populations that could produce substantial local markets? They have some of the same restraints that Western Canada has.Western Canada Is An Extreme Case Of A Peripheral RegionAlbertans, I know the term “peripheral” is unpleasant when it is applied to your province, but it is not a slight. Countries build up core regions, where the biggest cities, the national government, and the most powerful bankers and investors, and a lot of the best jobs, are located. This happens even in territoriality small countries. Ask a well off resident of England's “Home Counties” (The pretty and prosperous ones around London.) if they see any part of England as peripheral, and they are quite likely to point towards Newcastle, with a smirk or maybe a look of disdain.At least Newcastle is a year-round seaport. Much of Western Canada is an extreme case. The biggest rivers flow north, away from North America's biggest markets. And, those rivers are frozen much of the year. The only seaport, or port accessible to the sea, between Thunder Bay and the Coast Ranges, is Churchill. There are no nearby, heavily populated regions. Even if it is not a cargo that the British Columbians vociferously object to, you still have to ship it over top of the Rocky Mountains, then the Interior Mountains, to get to a port.Much of the region has limited water supplies, and cannot support the water needs of some of the heavier industries. Manitoba and British Columbia have large hydro resources, but Saskatchewan and Alberta have to burn coal. Except for British's Columbia's coast and a few favoured valleys in the BC interior, the winters are very cold and very long, which is not a big selling point to a lot of potential business investors, and not that many immigrants. The only really well-populated markets in Canada are Southern Ontario and Southern Quebec. They are distant, and are, in a lot of ways, self-sufficient. Both, themselves, are big agricultural producers. And, for example, why would a Toronto wholesaler want to buy garments from Winnipeg, when there is a garment plant around the corner?What Western Canadians Want Economic Diversification That Means A Lot Of Population Growth And Some Environmental Degradation?Personally, I really like big, metropolitan cities, but I do not think that my preferences are that much shared with a lot of people from my region. So, Edmontonians, if Jason Kenney could turn your city into Toronto, would you like him even more? The residents of Kelowna, would you like it to be a western Hamilton?I do not think that, that many Western Canadian want any economic diversification, that would make their society more class stratified. When I lived in Vancouver, old-time residents told me. One of the prime effects of Vancouver becoming a “World Class” city, is that the middle and working classes got socially pushed down. The Greater Vancouver Area becoming a Pacific Rim Hub, was one of the worst things that ever personally happened them. The rising housing prices pushed up rents very badly, and made it impossible for someone who was not already in the housing market, to buy anything within twenty kilometres of town, over a rough commute. New infrastructure had to be built, lots of it, rapidly. It wasn't the new businesses that were paying for most of it. It was the taxpayer.And, to the extent that Western Canadians know about it, very few would want to do a highway 427-type Toronto, Friday evening struggle drive, to get to a natural area. Think of my Winnipeg. There are various cottage areas within about 150 kilometres. Get home to the suburbs from work on Friday afternoon. A fast dinner, load up your kids and any accompanying house pets and boot it. Within an hour and a half, you are comfortably ensconcing yourself at Falcon Lake, Grand Beach, Pinawa, you name it.Most Western Canadians, even the urbanites, live in ecological environments that are not too grossly compromised. When I lived in Vancouver, I loved the sea air. A short drive to Steveston Harbour (A little Vancouver Area fishing village that got suburbanized, and prettied up as a tourist attraction, and you can meditate in front of the Pacific Ocean. Despite my Winnipeg's meagre reputation, I certainly would not swap the air quality there for Windsor, Hamilton, Toronto or Montreal. Despite the oil refineries, Edmonton is pretty clean. There are Western Canadians who are aggressively Green, even on the Prairies. They keep on the lookout for new industries that will damage the environment, and, tell everyone else their views, very loudly. Winnipeg has two large, urban parks. Nobody wants them more crowded.Western Provincial Governments, Watching Their Diversification StepsNone of the Western Provinces wants to run on a platform of Torontofication. They are well aware that there are some industries that their residents do not want to happen. Three of the four provinces have low unemployment rates, and even Alberta, more economically than it used to be, is easing up. The four governments know what the limitations of being a peripheral area are. They are not going to hand out large subsidies, that will quickly create anger among a lot of local people. Those governments know, that they do not have control of a lot of the things that would make them more attractive to some new industries. And, in a lot of cases, they are dealing with populations who like their environment, economic, social and physical, as it is, and do not want any major changes. They will continue to encourage new industries that may be “right” for the region, create good jobs and do not disrupt the local ecology. This will go on, but there are distinct limits, and a lot of Western Canadians want it that way.Martin Levine

In short the President (of the United States) is elected indirectly because we have a system in place called the Electoral College (EC).In 1781 when the US first truly formed into a federation of states with the Articles of Confederation, the President wasn’t elected by the people at all - but rather by members of Congress. Later, when we arguably only had 11 states, the Articles of Confederation were replaced with the Constitution (North Carolina and Rhode Island didn’t sign the Constitution until after it went into effect). In the Constitution, a compromise was made between those wanting to keep the selection limited to Congress and those who wished for a popular vote of the people. This was called the Electoral College.The EC was a group of individuals, equal in size and representation to the membership of Congress. These individuals would decide who their state voted for as President, and each state was allowed to handle selection (and nomination) of their electors. This effectively maintained that the states were separate entities, deciding who would run the leader of the union of states - not the people deciding who would run the nation as one cohesive unit. In fact, most states initially selected electors through their state legislature, avoiding a popular vote for President entirely.Particularly during the founding of the US, states’ rights were the biggest topic of debate - which is why the Federalist and Anti-Federalist sides were formed. And this union of states was tentative at best - hence not even all 13 states signing on initially. So to get states to sign on to the Constitution, states rights and sovereignty had to be preserved. Anti-Federalists saw that a direct election by the people would result in weakened states power to choose the country’s leader, and a stronger federal government. Also, as has almost always been the case throughout human history, the rich and powerful politicians didn’t believe the common people could be informed enough to select the “right” person for President. George Mason made this clear when he said, “It would be as unnatural to refer the choice of a proper character for a chief Magistrate to the people, as it would to refer a trial of colors to a blind man."Another insight into why (particularly less progressive and/or southern states) argued for the EC was because of population versus popular vote representation. Remember, women weren’t originally allowed to vote in any state; non-white males weren’t allowed to vote in all but four or five states (only one in the south); and anyone who didn’t own land wasn’t allowed to vote in most states. Northern states generally allowed more of their men to vote, including freed slaves - and therefore would benefit more from a popular vote. Obviously southern states weren’t going to give up their power just because the north was (generally) more progressive - which is why the electoral college was adopted. It allowed selection of the President to be decided by the population - not the voting population - hence the 3/5 compromise, and disenfranchisement of the poor.Over time the United States grew - 13x by land mass, over 4x by number of states, and 83x by population - and the system hasn’t been maintained after the mid 1800s (aside from giving DC 3 votes, effectively treating it like a state). The EC was never perfect, but from 1789 until about 1840 most states were at least willing to experiment and modify their electoral college methodology to see what worked best. In turn, the system degraded into what we have today. The system has been bastardized into a shadow of its former self.Originally, there were no winner take all states. By 1800 only two states used the “winner take all” system (WTA), and it was done by political parties to ensure that they could maximize wins for candidates the majority (however slight) in their state supported. After a few states started to corrupt this aspect of the system, almost all of the other states followed suit, to avoid being negatively affected by effectively stolen votes in other states - since each state’s electoral process couldn’t be legislated at the federal level. And in 36 years all but one state used WTA, and the remaining one selected through state legislature. During this time, the entire Federalist Party was effectively destroyed. To be clear, at least one of our founding fathers was solidly against this system: James Madison to George Hay. After the Federalist Party dissolved, and the Democratic-Republican party was all that was left, WTA was no longer necessary, but the legislation was already set. Currently only two states don’t use WTA, Nebraska and Maine.Originally, political parties had no say in what electors were viable for selection. There was only one political party when the government was first formed - the Federalists - even though the Democratic-Republican party was formed shortly thereafter. Legislators would generally select electors, meaning the votes would reflect people’s votes, even if indirectly, regardless of political party. But then political parties expanded their power. Currently, we have a system where all electors are selected first by political parties - and then we get a popular vote to determine which political parties electors are chosen. This effectively means that it’s not the federal government or the state government that controls power in the electoral college, but rather our political parties. So the electors - the people who get to choose our President - have the interests of political parties as their top priority rather than the interests of the people first. Our first real President, George Washington warned about giving political parties power in his farewell address when he said:“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests. “Originally, it was the will of informed individuals who decided who would become our President. In some states that meant state legislators would select them, and in other states that meant the people would select someone to choose who would best represent their interests based on each elector’s political stance. Those who became electors had the job of being informed about the candidates and selecting them based on the interest of the nation. This was particularly necessary because information took so long to travel from one part of the country to another. In fact, it wasn’t until the 1860s that the east coast was connected to the west coast by telegraph, and many years later before the telephone was widely used enough to share information between more than very specific points of contact (ie newspapers, post offices, railway stations, and extremely wealthy individuals/corporations). But when political parties started deciding who would be in the pool of potential electors, the common citizen was inversely affected by a lack of available information.In other words, people loyal to their party and the will of their party became electors, regardless of how informed they were or how well their choice for President reflected the will of their voters. In the meantime, more and more information has been available to the common citizen - to the point where you can watch every time the President (or Presidential candidates) address(es) even a small contingency of reporters in real time, no matter where they are in the world. That’s not to mention that you can read all in progress, pending, or approved legislation from your home - as well as which Congress members voted for, or sponsored what. So currently, our potentially informed individuals are no longer allowed the chance to vote for President, while people loyal first to Party hold control.Originally, we were a loose federation of states. I mean, North Carolina and Rhode Island didn’t actually sign the Constitution until after it went into effect (by a few months, and over a year respectively). And even when we had those 13 states, there was a constant threat of secession - most notably around the war of 1812 - until finally the South seceded from the Union in the American Civil War. But from 1865 until the mid 1900s our loose union of individual states became more and more united. Ever since the 1959 we have been one united nation of 50 states, and currently the idea of a state seceding from the USA seems completely bizarre. While it is important to maintain a good degree of autonomy for each state, choosing a singular leader for all states in a united capacity seems an odd place to put that individual state freedom.Originally, electors were allowed to choose whoever they thought would be the best President - which was the entire purpose of the EC in the first place. They weren’t necessarily held to honor the popular vote of their state, and as I already mentioned, some states didn’t even have popular votes for President. But then as the WTA system expanded, political parties realized they couldn’t fully capitalize on their corruption unless they “forced” electors to vote according to state-wide popular majority. Currently, 30 out of 51 “states” have legal control over how their electors vote. So in those states if the elector doesn’t honor the will of their political party (ie. not necessarily the will of the people), they can be fined about $1,000, their vote can be thrown out, and they can be replaced with another elector. Electors who don’t vote according to how they were “supposed to” are called faithless electors. There have been 208 faithless electoral votes in America’s history, although only the 1796 election was truly affected by faithless electors.In summary, we have the EC with a primarily WTA system because political parties benefit most from that system. It guarantees a monopoly over electors and states, effectively blocking any third party candidates from having a legitimate chance to win a single electoral vote, let alone the Presidency. Some Democratic members have suggested abolishing the electoral college altogether - although it’s more likely for selfish reasons than altruistic ones. See, Democratic candidates for President have won the popular vote for every election for the past 30 years aside from one - which can largely be attributed to the democratic lean of people in urban areas, and the massive shift from a more spread out populace to a massive concentration in cities. So while completely destroying the electoral college would allow third party candidates a chance to compete, it would also effectively destroy the Republican party from having a chance at the Presidency in the near future. And as long as over half of the Senate is Republican, the EC is staying exactly where it is.