Why Barbie Is a Good Influence free essay sample

Barbie is Just a Piece of Plastic â€Å"Seen through Rose-Tinted glasses:† The Barbie Doll in American Society. By Marilyn Motz; supports the highly debated topic that the toy Barbie produced by Mattel is a bad influence, on young girls. Motz is claiming that the young female child envisions herself as Barbie, and with Barbie resembling an older more mature woman. Something that Barbie’s age group cannot obtain, in till they grow older and more mature themselves. However, Barbie is just a toy, her resemblance, her actions, as a doll is, solely up to the child. Adults looking into their daughter’s childhood are simply over thinking what a three to eleven year old can produce inside her mind. Parents see themselves as a protector for their child in particular their daughters. The guardians of the child are over thinking the idea that Barbie is some kind of sex symbol. A parent who allows their child to watch television is more in danger of a bad influence, than a toy named Barbie. We will write a custom essay sample on Why Barbie Is a Good Influence or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Motz exclaims â€Å"a girl playing with a Barbie doll can envision herself with a mature body. And later in the same paragraph â€Å"focusing on bodily changes of the female body associated with puberty, of course to the and of puberty girl do not know. † (Motz paragraph 5 pg 17) Girls in this group understand Barbie is a character and is fictional. Real danger of influence runs deep in music artist and television characters. Groups, artists, and television characters such as Hannah Montana currently known as Miley Cyrus, Spice Girls who wore scantly clad clothing in the 1990’s, along with some famous artist like Brittney Spears, and the list of negative influences could go on and on. These are real threats to a developing females mental state. Their real and they are everywhere. Barbie is good for young child’s development. It allows for the child to use her imagination. How she dresses her Barbie, and what scenario the child is playing out in her room. The juvenile is using the brain creating and developing the imagination, and her creating different situations with different appearances for Barbie is developing all these skills and ideas. Our children of today are sheltered, yet guardians and surrounding adults lack in giving guidance to what is right. Motz exclaims in her essay that Barbie is very materialistic. Which can be considered very true to what she is portrayed on the television screen through advertisements and other types of media, but with proper parenting this could be the opportunity for the parent to guide the child to work for the accessories that are sold separately. To give the young child that nothing in life comes free, and doing chores or work these things could be obtained and allow the child to want to strive for that life style through hard work and dedication. This is taught through the parents, and is something determined by her upbringing not a toy. Children look up Barbie’s, but not as much as content or characters on television. Experiences through the five senses create a child’s values, thoughts, and actions. Barbie acts as a friend. This is similar to a young child having an imaginary friend. Children are exposed to so much through the senses, it can be sensory overload, and the idea that Barbie’s mature features have an extreme effect on a child’s mind, is highly unlikely. The way the doll is dressed, her materialistic items, and other ideas that can be portrayed through the doll is less impactful on a young child. Barbie’s are more of a friend to a young child, through observation Barbie acts kind of like a imaginary friend. Some of the youth takes around with them everywhere, and maybe even having a place setting at the table for the plastic toy. Barbie is toted around everywhere just like Linus from the peanut series Charlie Brown. Linus totes his blanket around everywhere he goes, and its kind of like a security thing. Barbie has slim negative affects on a young child’s brain. Adding another positive to Barbie’s arsenal of characteristics is the opportunity for the consumer of the Barbie product to dress her in way one could imagine. She is also sold ready for different careers anything from being a business woman to an astronaut getting ready to head into space. This tells the child she can be anything she wants to be, and the world is endless possibilities that it is up to you to obtain. I agree, that maybe some apparel that is being sold to dress Barbie in has potential to be inappropriate for some ages, but this is where the guardian of that particular child should take proper action in deciding what is right. If you think that the Barbie outfit is inappropriate then don’t purchase it for your child. There should be some filter to what is right. Barbie is a great ageless toy that is good for developing children. It provides stimulation for the mind, and can create a bigger better imagination. Parents concerned for the possible negative influence Barbie has on children. Should consider watching some of their children’s programming, and maybe use some parenting to guide their child to what is right and wrong. Barbie can be such a great developmental tool use for positive things. A child’s surrounding environment with television, billboards, maybe a magazine lying around is so much more damaging a plastic doll. Barbie is just like a friend like Woody from Toy Story.

Examining the Pros and Cons of Standardized Testing

Examining the Pros and Cons of Standardized Testing Like many issues in public education, standardized testing can be a controversial topic among parents, teachers, and voters. Many people say standardized testing provides an accurate measurement of student performance and teacher effectiveness. Others say such a one-size-fits-all approach to assessing academic achievement can be inflexible or even biased. Regardless of the diversity of opinion, there are some common arguments for and against standardized testing in the classroom. Standardized Testing Pros Proponents of standardized testing say that it is the best means of comparing data from a diverse population, allowing educators to digest large amounts of information quickly. They argue that: Its accountable.  Probably the greatest benefit of standardized testing is that educators and schools are responsible for teaching students what they are required to know for these standardized tests. This is mostly because these scores become public record, and teachers and schools that don’t perform up to par can come under intense examination. This scrutiny can lead to the loss of jobs. In some cases, a school can be closed or taken over by the state. Its analytical.  Without standardized testing, this comparison would not be possible. Public school students in Texas, for example, are required to take standardized tests, allowing test data from Amarillo to be compared to scores in Dallas. Being able to accurately analyze data is a primary reason that many states have adopted the Common Core state standards. Its structured.  Standardized testing is accompanied by a set of established standards or an instructional framework to guide classroom learning and test preparation. This incremental approach creates benchmarks to measure student progress over time. Its objective.  Standardized tests are often scored by computers or by people who do not directly know the student to remove the chance that bias would affect the scoring. Tests are also developed by experts, and each question undergoes an intense process to ensure its validity- that it properly assesses the content- and its reliability, which means that the question tests consistently over time. Its granular.  The data generated by testing can be organized according to established criteria or factors, such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and special needs. This approach provides schools with data to develop targeted programs and services for improving student performance. Standardized Testing Cons Opponents of standardized testing say educators have become too fixated on scores and preparing for these exams. Some of the most common arguments against testing are: Its inflexible.  Some students may excel in the classroom yet not perform well on a standardized test because theyre unfamiliar with the format or develop test anxiety. Family strife, mental and physical health issues, and language barriers can all affect a students test score. But standardized tests dont allow personal factors to be taken into consideration. Its a waste of time.  Standardized testing causes many teachers to teach to the tests, meaning they only spend instructional time on material that will appear on the test. Opponents say this practice lacks creativity and can hinder a student’s overall learning potential. It cant measure true progress.  Standardized testing only evaluates one-time performance instead of a students progress and proficiency over time. Many would argue that teacher and student performance should be evaluated for growth over the course of the year instead of one single test. Its stressful.  Teachers and students alike feel test stress. For educators, poor student performance may result in a loss of funding and teachers being fired. For students, a bad test score may mean missing out on admission to the college of their choice or even being held back. In Oklahoma, for example, high school students  must pass four standardized tests  in order to graduate, regardless of their GPA. (The state gives seven standardized  end-of-instruction (EOI) exams in Algebra I, Algebra II, English II, English III, Biology I, geometry and U.S. history. Students  who fail to pass at least four of these exams  can’t get a high school diploma.) Its political.  With public and charter schools both competing for the same public funds, politicians and educators have come to rely even more on standardized test scores. Some opponents of testing argue that low-performing schools are unfairly targeted by politicians who use academic performance as an excuse to further their own agendas.