Child abuse Essay Example for Free

Child abuse Essay Child abuse is one of the biggest injustices of all time because it is a never ending cycle. Child abuse is the physical, sexual, or emotional mistreatment or neglect of a child. Children are young, innocent, and fragile. Their minds are like sponges, absorbing everything they see and feel. Thus, leading the children to being the advocate of child abuse when their older. Abused and neglected children are 11 times more likely to engage in criminal behavior as an adult. Therefore, child abuse leads the victims to not have the opportunity to a bright future. Neglect is the most common form of child abuse. Over 75% of children who experience maltreatment or abuse suffer from neglect. For every incident of neglect thats reported, an estimated two incidents go unreported. Approximately one in ten young adults (9%) was cruelly neglected by parents or guardians during their childhood. Based on the interviews with 1,761 young adults between the ages of 18 to 24, one in 6 (16%) young adults were neglected at some point during their childhood, with one in 10 young adults (9%) severely neglected during their childhood. Based on the interviews with 2,275 children between the ages of 11 to 17, one in 7 (13.3%) secondary school children have been neglected at some point, with one in 10 children (9.8%) severely neglected. Based on the interviews with 2,160 parents or guardians of children under 11 years old, one in 20 (5%) of children under 11 have been neglected at least once before, with one in 30 (3.7%) severely neglected. On March 31, 2012 (or in Scotland on July 2012), there were 21,666 children in the United Kingdom on the subject of child protection plans under the category of neglect. On March 31, 2012 (or in Scotland on July 31, 2012), 43% of all children on the subject of child protection plans in the United Kingdom were under the category of neglect. There were 18, 220 children were the subject of a child protection plan under the category of neglect in England on March 31, 2012. In England, 43% of all children subject of a child protection plan were under the category of neglect on March 31, 2012. There were 1,006 children on the child protection register under the category of neglect in Scotland on July 31, 2012. In Scotland, 37% of all children on the child protection register under the category of neglect on July 31, 2012. There were 1,040 children on the child protection register under the category of neglect in Northern Ireland on March 31,  2012. In Northern Ireland, 49% of all children on the child protection register were under the category of neglect on March 31, 2012. There were 1,400 children on the child protection register under the category of neglect in Wales on March 31, 2012. In Wales, 48% of all children on the child protection register were under the category of neglect in March 31, 2012. In England, about one in seven children who became the subject of a plan for neglect in 2011-2012 had been subject to a plan at least once before. There were 6.2 million children referred to Child Protective Services in 2011. About 3.7 million children were investigated for maltreatment by CPS in 2011. There were 676,569 children decided to be victims of abuse or neglect in 2011. The most common victims of abuse and neglect are children age 2 and under. More than 11% of victims had a reported disability. In the U.S., there are about 1,570 child victims per year caused by maltreatment and an average of 30 child fatality victims per week. Most child fatalities were under 4 years old (81.6%) with 42.4% less than one year old. In the U.S., 37% of states limit information on child deaths and accidents. In the U.S., the yearly estimated direct cost of medical care of child abuse and neglect is $33,333,619,510. In the U.S., the yearly estimated direct and indirect cost of child abuse and ne glect is $80,260,411,087. The percentage of states that do not obligate legal representation for victims in abuse and neglect is 39%. There are about 408,425 children in the foster care system. About 27,854 of those children aged out of foster care. The percentage of the general population that has a bachelors degree is 30%. The percentage of former foster children that have a bachelors degree is 3%. The percentage of the general population in jail or prison is greater than 1%. The percentage of former foster children incarcerated since age 17 that are males is 64%. The percentage of former foster children incarcerated that are females is 32.5%. The percentage of the general population who experience homelessness during a year is greater than 1%. The percentage of former foster children who experience homelessness after aging out of the system is 24%. The percentage of former foster children who are unemployed for 1 year after aging out is 61%. The percentage of former foster children who are unemployed for 5 years after aging out is 53.5%. Ronald T. is a victim of physical abuse, emotional maltreatment, and neglect.

Summit for hire? :: essays research papers

The day after Univ. of Tennessee’s Pat Summit eclipsed North Carolina’s Dean Smith for most career wins by a Division I Head Basketball Coach some suggested that she would be a good choice to lead the Vols' men's squad. UT has since hired a male coach. Yet we are still left with the question of whether Summit should be considered for, or accept any such job. The 800-pound gorilla in this argument is whether Summit deserves to lay claim to the title as "all-time winningest Division I basketball coach." In a purely statistical sense, she does. But comparing the women's and men's games is like comparing, well, women and men. They're completely different. Sadaharu Oh hit more home runs than Hank Aaron, but nobody would say the two men are comparable, since Oh played in Japan, and Aaron played in the U.S. John Gagliardi won more football games than Bobby Bowden. Again, a difference: Gagliardi coached in Division III, while Bowden spent most of his time in the I-A rank. And Summit has more wins than Smith. But we're talking about two different sports. Not better or worse, different. Smith is the men's wins champion, and Summit holds the women's title; two different sports, two different leaders. The reason Summit shouldn't consider taking the men's job is that she could end up damaging the women's game by doing so. She is a giant in her sport, the most successful coach ever and the builder of the program every other school wants to emulate. If she were to take over the UT men's team and not win big, there would be joy among those who consider women's college basketball inferior. Summit has never recruited men's players. She would have to build a new network of high school and AAU contacts to help funnel her players. She would have to deal with prep stars who believe their next dribble should be for NBA millions, not collegiate glory. That doesn't exist (yet) in the women's game. And she would face the challenge of convincing families and players that playing for a woman is no different than playing for a man. Fail to do any of that, and Summit won't get the players to compete at the highest level. And if she doesn't win -- and win big -- she will be viewed by many as the queen of the minor leagues who failed at her shot in â€Å"the bigs.

Patterns of Democracy Essay

The book Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performances in Thirty-Six Countries compared consensus democracy vis-a-vis majoritarian democracy as society’s backbone towards social and economic development. Through its discourse, it made evident that consensus democracy exhibits a more mature type of democracy as it better responds to many of the contemporary community’s social and political issues such as women’s rights, environmental awareness and voter’s turnout. The books presented ideas that broadened my perception of sociopolitical and socioeconomic issues. It has effectively demonstrated the complexities of our society and the dynamics of democracy in particular. For this, the book is a good baseline for building our political awareness and ideological stance. However, I find consensus democracy, as presented in the book, a very debatable concept. As the book relates, consensus democracy is a type of government where every sector with a valid purpose is given due representation in the socio-civic segments of society. It has been practiced and seen success in Switzerland, Belgium and even international organization such as the European Union among others. Among its identified key characteristics are the formation of a grand coalition where elite leaders of each sector recognizes the dangers of non-cooperation; exercise of mutual veto which requires consensus to confirm the majority rule; proportionality where representation in the national and civic segments of the society is equal to the sector’s population; and segmental autonomy which creates a sense of individuality and allows for different culturally-based community laws (www. wikipedia. com). Popular literature credits Arend Lijphart as is the primary promoter of this type of democracy. Lijphart sees consensus democracy as â€Å"kinder, gentler† approach compared to majoritarian democracy. The book advocates this type of democracy – also called consociationalism – not only as an antidote to countries in conflict but also as the supreme state of society. The way he presented and navigated his evidences into asserting the numerous advantages of consociationalism is obviously coming from a one-track mind. Understanding his standpoint as an avid and pious promoter of this political theory as evidenced in his early works such as Democracy in Plural Societies (1977), he must have been so immersed and engrossed on this concept. There is no question that this type of democracy works, in some situations far better even, than other democracies. Yet, as a reader, one may not help but feel overwhelmed by the bombardment of too-good-to-be-true attributes and then start to look for flaws and critique the concept. In his narration on how idyllic consensus democracy is, he missed out on several obvious contentions which real life circumstances may pose on its actual implementation. He may also have overlooked some contextual considerations that had served as crucial factors in the success of consociationalism. Therefore as a review of his work – Patterns of Democracy – it would be insightful to mention several observations from an outsider’s point of view. Consensus democracy is ideal; in fact it’s too ideal it seems too good to be true. Operating from a realist point of view, consociationalism is a fantasy. It is difficult to imagine sectors of the society – each with its own agenda and interest, some with contrasting views as the other – would come together and work for a policy that may not have any effect on their cause. There will always be an opportunity cost which one or several sectors should be willing to pay. The question now is how much each sector is willing to sacrifice for the common good. Also, the sectors which they intend to integrate in policy-making initiatives are largely issue-based. This introduces another complexity since some of them are ad-hoc groups that disintegrate once their mission has been realized, unable to sustain the support of its subordinates. Except for some constant concerns such as labor, health and education, sectors with less important concerns need not to be raised on national level regardless of its populace. Institutionalizing a long term sectoral representation and compromise agreements in a much diversified society is a serious challenge to meet, and even harder to maintain. Consensus democracy dreams of a welfare state with less violence, more equality, and greater environmental concern, and all the good things every government aspires for its people. However, the book discussion of consensus democracy makes it seem so easy to realize, eliciting false hopes, leading to unrest and eventual breakdown of the society. There is nothing wrong in setting goals but it should also be practical and pragmatic as to not mislead the people into an overnight change. The goals of consociationalism could also be interpreted as being preachy. As in the case of consociationalism in Lebanon which was tagged as â€Å"confessionalism† due to its religious linkages, consensus democracy defies the separation of church and state – a characteristic common to most democratic states. Aligning the government’s policies with that of the church’s is a U-turn back to the conservative ages which democracies have long tried to break from. Another comment on the book is that it had the impression of being too imposing. Though it may have seen several successes in some countries as in the Netherlands and Belgium, this type of democracy cannot be forced upon other states. Again, operating from a relativist’s perspective, one must realize that each sovereign state is a unique entity. In fact, recognizing pre-conditions for better application of consensus democracy is in itself a recognition that it cannot be function as effectively in other states. This is precisely the purpose of comparative politics where various forms of governments are studied to determine which would work best in a particular society. Contrasting consensus democracy with majoritarian democracy was Lijphart’s way of highlighting the positive facets of the former. However, the manner on which the comparison was presented seems to be discrediting the latter in order to elevate the status of consociationalism. It is ironic that consensus democracy calls for tolerance for unparallel views for various sectors yet he is maligning majoritarian democracy to forward his thoughts. This manner of persuasion holds no chance in a consensus democracy for it will only stir more conflict and cleavages among disparate groups. As sectors are represented by elites in a consensus democracy, it manifests an imbalance in the society; elites who have their own interests to protect, have secured places in the society and have nothing much to lose should they fail to forward their cause. This leaves the sectors they represent helpless should the elites decide go with the majority. The minority will have no power against the majority in fear of retaliating on them with a bigger impact. This scenario is highly hegemonic. Lastly, the federalism by means of identifying the racial and cultural backgrounds is not cohesive, rather it’s the opposite. Continuously referring to them as the minority will not improve the chances of garnering greater support. This will allow the so called ethic groups to detach from the coalition and pursue their own initiatives in some other venue that may not be as diplomatic as consociationalism suggests.

The Public Education System is a Failure

A child miseducated is a child lost. - President John F. Kennedy Education policy is one of the few issues vigorously debated at every level of government. Local communities (parents), counties, states, and the federal government struggle for control over control of the education system. Conservatives overwhelmingly support school choice and broad educational opportunity. We believe in a competitive environment that sees private, public, parochial, charter, and alternative schools where parents can choose the best fit for their kids. We also generally believe in voucher programs that would help children in poorer communities have the same opportunities to go to the same schools as their wealthier counterparts, almost always with a lower price-tag than simply sending them to failing public schools. Liberals love, as one might suspect, the big government solution. One central policy fits all. Appeasing the wealthy and voter rich teachers unions is their top priority, though they will always claim its for the children. This is why Democrats always favor protecting government teachers over helping kids - often minorities who need such help the most - escape a bad environment. Stomping out the competition and battling alternative forms of education, such as private schools or homeschooling, is also high on the agenda. Government always knows best, and decades of failure will not change their minds. But how do such opinions toward public education develop? Why is it that conservatives and liberals are so far apart when ensuring a successful educational system is one thing we should all agree on? Often, people take a political position based on the political party they have chosen. My position comes from my own experiences. My Life as a Public Education Student I was lured with an offer: Choose our high school and earn college credits. It was 1995 and I was heading into high school. No-one in my family had ever gone to college, and it was pretty well beaten into me that I would be the first. My family was on the lower-end of the middle class scale and private school was out of the question at this point. Luckily, as most would view it, I was zoned to go to a mostly white and wealthy public high school. But there was an alternative: a separate public high school recently started offering free college credits through a set of different magnet programs. As you might guess, a magnet program is meant to attract students to that school. The magnet school was located in a low-income, high-crime community and many thought I was crazy to voluntarily go there. With roughly 40% of students failing to graduate, the school had the highest dropout rate out of the two dozen district schools. But the option of free college credits that would eliminate over a year of college was too good to pass up for someone in my situation. I actually had a choice, though not as many as I would want my kids to have today. And as I would later realize, the system was not set-up with the students best interests in mind. I realized it was both a scam for me and the community that the school served. Importing Improvements Why was a magnet program established at, of all places, this failing public high school? In retrospect, it seems obvious. News reports at the time hinted the program was put into place for diversity reasons and to integrate the school better (the student body is roughly 5% white). But their was no real integration. The people bussed in from other communities were shoved into honors or Advanced Placement classes with each other and were effectively segregated from the rest of the students anyway. The only diversification that could be seen was in the hallways as we rushed from class to class or in P.E. So, that clearly was no reason to have the magnet program located there if you were seeking to diversify. One critical factor is that the magnet programs have requirements. Above average grades were required both for acceptance and in order to stay in the various magnet programs. The requirements are necessary and logical given that students would be taking college level classes. But it made even more sense as to why the programs were developed in this particular school: to import successful students and help get the school out of the basement. It was a pretty safe bet that the students being brought into these magnet programs, which were located in a school with high drop-out and low college preparedness rates, would both graduate and go to college. The number of magnet schools increased, and so to did the importation of better students. Is it cynical to suggest that these programs were introduced into this school for no other reason than to make the school seem as though it was improving, when they were doing little more than filling seats with kids who were supposed to go to other sch ools? Where the unable to make real change with the students they had so they attempted to stack the deck? Failing the Students who Lived in the Community I dont oppose the idea of having magnet schools. I believe the concept of letting high school students both earn college credits and decide on a career path would work well in a competitive educational system. But the model here was seemingly to make a school appear more successful by bringing in students who were highly likely to succeed, rather than actually fixing the underlying problems with the broken public education system. Nothing changed for those who lived in that community and went to that school. The school system tried to put lipstick on a pig. The magnet school would have logically fit into any other public school besides this one. If anything, it made absolutely no sense to put the school there at all. Yes, some of the kids in the magnet program were from the community, but that was a very small percentage. My classes were filled primarily with those who were brought in from outside of the community, then we were bussed out when the bells rang. The horrible irony is rather than taking good kids with few options out and sending them somewhere to be successful, they were taking good kids who were in a good situation and putting them into a pretty bad environment. This is why I and most conservatives support public choice. Eventually, we have to put the needs of children above the needs of teachers and and the governments dream of complete control over education.