Mar 21st, 2008
Every School Every Thursday — Des Moines South
Alli Banning’s second-grade class logs online to www.freerice.com to practice vocabulary. For every correct answer, the United Nations World Food Program donates 20 grains of rice.
Families will be invited to school to play a math activity or game. This is an annual event, but this year there will be new games to play. An estimation station will give students a chance to estimate the correct number of candies in different sized jars. The closest estimate will win the jar and the candy. Students will also register for a drawing for packaged math games. There will be two games given away per grade-level.
Fourth-grade students have been busy learning to write nonfiction. After two weeks of exposure to many nonfiction selections, students chose topics. They then learned how to research their topics and take notes. After note-taking, the fourth-graders wrote their first drafts, revised them and produced published pieces of nonfiction writing.
The kindergartners in Angie Tribolet’s class are doing an author study unit on Jan Brett. They have been reading many of her stories and learning how to draw her characters. They visited her Web site and found many fun games and interesting facts about Jan Brett. They voted on their favorite Jan Brett story and it was “Hedgie’s Surprise.” The kindergartners have also been learning about dental health. They learned what to do to keep their teeth clean and healthy.
On Feb. 13, the fifth-graders went on a field trip to the State Historical Building to see a performance entitled the “Voices of the Civil War.” Afterwards the students participated in workshops focusing on different aspects of the Civil War era.
Metro Waste Management in conjunction with Des Moines Water Works came to the school and did a presentation for the second-graders on littering, recycling and how we can help take care of our water system.
Tags: club, easter, egg, hunt, penguin
13 Responses to “Every School Every Thursday — Des Moines South”
everyone is entitled to their opinion, just back it up with some facts if you care to be taken seriously.cheers,h2
You know, i’m sure that you hear this all the time, and it is really nothing personal, but when you say I don’t want the Constitution used as justification to execute nihilistic Libertarian sweeping destruction of our federal government: I want it upheld. That’s why I don’t support Ron Paul.I have to wonder if you’ve really read the Constitution. To uphold the Constitution does not mean to maintain the status quo. To maintain the current level of federal government and simultaneously ‘uphold’ the Constitution would imply that the current level of federal government is constitutional.Suppose for a moment that the political ’spectrum’ of the United States had shifted so drastically towards a sprawling federal government that what used to be a rather sensible view of things (to uphold the letter of the supreme law of the land? sounds good to me…) has instead become ‘extremist.’ It is unfortunate that this situation exists but it appears to be the reality. I suppose there are arguments to be made for ‘Big Government,’ whether or not I agree, but in essence it comes down to how much faith you put in the Constitution as the wisest and most supreme law of our country. If you do accept this, and understand the Constitution (I don’t mean the ’spirit’ or the ‘intent,’ it isn’t divination or something; simply the letters on the page), then I simply do not understand the fuss. It is basically a laundry list, all you have to do is go down the policy stances of various candidates and check it against the Constitution and…well…thats it! It is confusing to me when posts like yours somehow profess a desire to uphold the Constitution, and then disparage people like Ron Paul as some sort of mindless bulldozer.I am also dissapointed in your attitude that because, in your opinion, Ron Paul, or Dennis Kucinich, or Ralph Nader for that matter, don’t have a very good chance of winning, I am expected to ‘be realistic,’ in order to ‘make a difference.’ I fail to grasp how compromising my personal beliefs, let alone the principles this country was founded on, will make the greater difference. Throughout history (and I am not trying to dramatize the ‘08 election), it has been those who have not compromised who have brought about the most meaningful change. If I am compelled at every turn to bend this way and that, to shift and mold my convictions so that they may enjoy ’success,’ then do I really stand for anything at all?
why?
Too bad people who agree with you are using one of those grease monkey scripts to filter out Ron Paul from their reddit page.
ronpaul did 911
That sounds great. It really does. I want it to happen. Given what you know about the history of things the Federal government is put in charge of, do you really think it will?I think what’s more likely with a national standard is that it will be the same sort of bad compromise the Texas and California textbook selection process leads to. If it isn’t mediocre, it will upset somebody powerful enough to stop it. If it is mediocre, it will limit the ability of great teachers to do a great job teaching without forcing bad teachers to do an acceptable job.
It serves them right.
Ignorance never prevails!
If karma implies some kind of acceptance within the community of posters that think worl.dne.ws is a real source of information, and the guys who tell blatant lies in the title of their posts in order to get them to the front page, and the group that thinks 9/11 was an inside job, and the crowd that turns every conversation into a diatribe against bush and cheney and religious people — I’ll just hang with my karma ranking of 1 for now.
<strike>Actually, at the very end of the Green Eggs and Ham, the protagonist discovers he’s been manipulated into this ridiculous preference.</strike> Which is roughly how I think a lot of Ron Paul followers would eventually feel if he ends up as president.I’m happy to talk about why I don’t like him. His monetary policy is strongly reminiscent of Hoover’s, and in Hoover’s case they substantially exacerbated the great depression. While the excesses of large government have certainly contributed to the economic problems the US is now facing, they are serious enough that it just doesn’t make sense to abandon one of the only macroeconomic controls available to the nation. Not at this stage, at any rate. Things are going to be hard enough without the government hobbling itself.Also, he seems to see the government and the nation as made up strictly of laws and not men (and women.) I know this is a common meme in US political thought, but it doesn’t bear a moment’s scrutiny. Any organization’s leaders have a duty to shape the organization’s identity and sense of purpose by celebrating actions which support that identity, but Ron Paul seems to have no interest in this duty. I wasn’t surprised to learn that he voted against a resolution to celebrate Rosa Parks with a medal, but I was disappointed. I realize his motives weren’t racist, but anyone who thinks the cost of her medal outweighed the national benefit of such a celebration doesn’t understand that to lead effectively means shaping the organization and rewarding support for its goals (socially, not just economically), as well as administering its day-to-day affairs.Along the same lines, his interest in dismantling large swaths of government programs scares the hell out me. Many of these programs are indeed boondoggles, and I would be happy to see someone bring an end to them. But it would take tremendous skill, political sensitivity and administrative acumen to do this without causing massive disruption to US society. I don’t think Ron Paul supporters have really thought through what the country would look like in six months if you suddenly cut off welfare, medicare, FEMA and federal highway programs, and brought everyone back from Iraq and threw them out of the military, for instance. It would be terribly chaotic.I am sympathetic to much of the libertarian agenda, but most contemporary libertarians are ideologues, and Ron Paul appears to be no exception. This is a critical time for the US, posing many intractable problems, and flexible, sensitive leadership will be necessary to navigate them. I think an ideologue is exactly the wrong person for the job, in these circumstances. The country needs someone flexible who will put addressing its problems ahead of serving an ideology.
Here’s why I don’t like him. Or Clinton. or any of the others:http://reddit.com/search?q=%22grossly+oversimplified%22
Voting records are perfect for finding out what a candidate supports and rejects.Rmuser is far nicer than I am. Paul is a racist homophobe.
I like pie.