Modern Marvels :: Technology

As vainglorious as it may seem, there are actually a few people out there who think they are the picture of perfection. I definitely excluded myself from that group when I was born, on October 29, 1991, with 3284932273 flaws. Although the list of my short-comings is extremely extensive there is one that is leading to my inevitable downfall, my dependency of technology is extremely high! If my memory serves me correct, when I was younger I had an excellent memory. I was able to recall almost any information within the blink of an eye. Whether it was a telephone number or an address I knew it. It took one piece of technology to change this virtue, that device was a cell phone. When I was 12 years old, I obtained my first cell phone for my birthday. Prior to that day there wasn?t a thing in the world I thought I needed more. I stored phone numbers and other important information that at one point in time I remembered unmistakably. Now it?s as if I suffer from a mild case of amnesia. If I can barely keep in mind school deadlines, how can I retain a phone number from the lost portion of my brain? When I have my ?senior moments? and I can?t remember a thing, I am in total distress. I suffer mentally and physically, my headaches are unbearable at times. My computer has made just as much of a contribution to my demise as my cell phone, over the years it as accomplished myriad milestones. The internet is better than it has ever been, information can be quickly retrieved, and entertainment is around nearly every corner. Although the computer conveniences millions of people it hurts them just as much. I don?t know a person in the world (familiar with technology) who doesn?t like technological advancements, but it encourages laziness. There are a lot of people in the world who sit around and use the computer for every aspect of life. They basically live their life through a computer screen, they schedule, pay bills, organize financial information, shop, and a slew of other activities. Not looking on the brighter side of things, this lifestyle can lead to ghastly consequences such as obesity and many other health problems. Many people take for granted the technology that we abuse and habitually overuse in our daily lives.

Current Childminding Legislation Essay

1.1 Current Childminding Legislation The following is an overview of the current legislation which has an affect on childminders, parents and children. Equality Act 2010 The act replaced previous anti-discrimination laws with a single act to make the law simpler and to remove inconsistencies. The act covers nine protected characteristics. The characteristics applying to home-based childcare include disability, race, religion or belief and gender. Childcare Act (2006) The act lays out registration and inspection arrangements, providing for an integrated education and care framework for the Early Years and general childcare registers. It introduced the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) in England. The Early Years Register and the General Childcare Register provide a regulatory framework for childcare under the act. Children Act (2004) Identified as the most influential law for home-based childcare, it outlines that the general function of the Act is for the Children’s Commissioner to be concerned in particular with the views and interests of children so far as relating to the following aspects of their well-being: physical and mental health and emotional well-being; protection from harm and neglect; education, training and recreation; the contribution made by them to society; social and economic well-being. These five outcomes for children are recognised as the overarching aim of the Early Years Foundation Stage, namely the Every Child Matters outcomes of staying safe, being healthy, enjoying and achieving, making a positive contribution, and achieving economic well-being. Health Protection Agency Act (2004) Established the Health Protection Agency. The Agency has numerous functions in relation to health, including the prevention of the spread of infectious disease. Care of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations (2002) COSHH deal with preventing or reducing workers’ exposure to hazardous substances. All parts of COSHH apply if a home-based childcare provider employs any staff. Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (2001) This act protects persons from discrimination on the grounds of a disability, and it requires that reasonable adjustments must be made to services, provisions and/or premises so that disabled persons do not suffer significant disadvantages compared to non-disabled persons. Children are covered by this legislation as they are persons in the eyes of the law. Data Protection Act (1998) It protects sensitive personal data being published without a persons consent. Where children are involved consent has to be given by a parent or guardian. Protection of Children Act (1999) The Act states that the Secretary of State shall keep a list of individuals who are considered unsuitable to work with children. Human Rights Act (1998) The Act incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. Children are covered by this legislation although not specifically mentioned. Code of Practice for First Aid (1997) The Act sets out standard practice and guidance for trained first aiders and gives tailored advice to show different people in industry what they need to do to meet their legal responsibilities for health and safety. Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995 This Act is not currently applicable to registered childminders but acquiring a basic Food Hygiene Certificate is considered good practice. Local authorities require registered childminders to register with their local Environmental Health Department and obtain the following document: ‘Safer food, better business for Childminders’ available from the Food Standards Agency. Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) (1995) This act specifies what kind of accidents and incidents that happen in the work place are required to be reported to RIDDOR. Code of Practice for the Identification and Assessment of Children with Special Educational Needs (1994, revised in 2001) This Code of Practice provides practical advice to educational settings, including early years settings, on carrying out their statutory duties to identify, assess and make provision for children’s special educational needs. Children Act (1989) This Act was introduced in an effort to reform and clarify the existing laws affecting children and the current child protection system is based on it. Children’s rights were acknowledged for the first time in UK law. Amongst other things, the act legislates to protect children who may be suffering or  are likely to suffer significant harm. Public Health (Control of Disease) Act (1984) This act states the need for notification and possible exclusion periods for certain infectious diseases. Exclusions for children include exclusion from schools, places of entertainment or assembly. Education Act (1981) This Act became law in 1983 and tried to provide adequate safeguards, rights and duties for all those concerned with the education of children with special educational needs and to ensure these children’s rights to be integrated into the life and work of the community. It also recognised parents’ rights regarding their children’s education. ROLE OF REGULATORY BODIES Regulatory bodies in the UK are Ofsted (England) Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales (CSSIW) Standards (Wales) Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Local Health and Social Services Trust (Northern Ireland) The fundamental role of these regulatory bodies is to ensure that children receive the best possible care in all the settings a child attends away from their home. The systems they have in place will also reassure parents, guardians and carers who have to be able to entrust their child to an organisation or individual to look after. The following information looks at the role of regulatory bodies in relation to home-based childcare. All home-based childcare providers are required to register with the regulatory body of their country. The regulatory bodies in the UK all have similar registration requirements and regulations in place. The regulations make sure that all home-based childcare providers follow the same structure of care, learning and development for children, which also apply to all  other Early Years settings (daycare centres, nurseries, etc.). This structure is implemented to improve the quality and consistency of care in all Early Years settings and therefore also helps to create a framework for an important partnership – the partnership between parents and professionals. In England this structure is called the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS – birth to five years old) which promotes children to learn through play; covers basic welfare requirements such as safeguarding children; making sure that people who care for children are suitable as well as the premises and equipment used; covers the learning and development requirements for children. It also promotes equality of opportunity for all children Regulatory bodies have systems and processes in place to control the registration process and the inspections carried out on registered home-based childcare providers. They also have the power to investigate a complaint or concern raised against a childcare provider to make sure the welfare requirements are met. If it emerges that the necessary requirements are not met, regulatory bodies are in a position to take action against the childcare provider. All these systems are in place to ensure that children receive the best possible care in all the settings they attend away from their home.

History of the US Court Seamons v Snow Case Free Essay Example, 500 words

Brian Seamons (Plaintiff) was a junior student at Sky View High School in Smithfield, Utah, and a member of the school s football team. On October 11, 1993, Brian was assaulted in the locker room by his teammates. As he finished showering after practice, he was grabbed, forcibly restrained, and bound him to a towel rack with adhesive tape while his other teammates watched. To add humiliation, one of his teammates brought the girl he once dated to see him in his state. The next day, October 12, Brian together with his parents went to the police, school administrators and other authorities including his football coach and the school principal to report the said incident. On October 13, Brian and his parents had a meeting with his football coach, Doug Snow (Defendant) and school principal, Myron Benson (Defendant). Coach Snow ensured Brian and his parents that he would support Brian s decision and encouraged him to remain on the team. Brian eventually decided to remain on his team and attended the meeting scheduled by Coach Snow to discuss the incident with his team captains. Coach Snow wanted to mend the feelings of his team since they have coming games and this would create distractions if the issue continues. We will write a custom essay sample on History of the US Court: Seamons v Snow Case or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/page Coach Snow gave Brian a time to think through the situation before deciding. Brian decided that he will not apologize to his teammates. This time Coach Snow that they can t have him on the team. Brian Seamons filed a civil action against his football coach, school principal and school district under 42 U. S.C. 1983. The district court has granted summary judgment in favor of all the defendants. Brian appealed this action to this court. Issues: Whether or not the district court erred in their decision to grant all the defendants the motion to dismiss all of Brian Seamons claims? Holding: The United States Court of Appeals, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court s dismissal of all claims except the free speech claim. The court remanded the district court s decision and held that Brian Seamons properly stated a claim under First Amendment and the district court s dismissal had been premature. The judgment of the district court is REVERSED with respect to defendants Douglas Snow and the Cache County School District, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The judgment with respect to Defendant Myron Benson is AFFIRMED. Rationale: According to the United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit, they have reviewed the whole record of summary judgment in the light that is most favorable to the party contrasting the summary judgment based on Weir v. Anaconda Co. , 773 F. 2d 1073, 1079 (10th Cir. 1985) and Riley v. Brown Root, Inc. , 896 F. 2d 474, 476 (10th Cir. 1990). Finally, if the district court made any findings of fact, they are not permitted to the reverence due to findings of fact made after a trial on undecided factual issues based on Riley, 896 F. 2d at 476-77 n. 5 which ruled that determinations made in ruling on summary judgment are not reviewable under the clearly erroneous standard of Rule 52(a), but are reviewed under Rule 56(c) to ascertain whether there is an absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Additional comments: I agree with the decision of the Court of Appeals to remand the decision of the district court dismissing Brian s claim of free speech under the First Amendment. I believe that Brian should have been tried accordingly and the district court should have reviewed the facts presented by both parties before deciding to dismiss the summary judgment to warrant time in the federal courts. Additional question: Should a 16- or 17-year-old high school football player alleged to have committed an act of hazing to be tried as an adult? Why or why not? For me, a 16 or 17-year-old high school football player alleged to have committed an act of hazing should not be tried as an adult. I believe that students aged 16-17 years old are still not adults as their cognitive skills are still developing. They are still children by heart. Their behaviors are still impulsive and they still do not have the sense of minding the consequences of their actions. If they have committed an act of hazing, they probably see this action as a tradition of their organization and since no one has really intervened in them and told them it is illegal to do so, they may have established such acts as legal or allowable. I believe they just lack guidance and proper intervention; they should be given a chance to be tried not in the adult criminal justice system.