Info, news and more....
Ever since the launch of Google+ there has been lots of speculation, interest and excitement about it's potential and about just what is going on within it. Only some of those who have received invitations have actually been able to get in and try it out. For days now, the Google+ site has had this posted:
Google+ is in limited Field Trial At the moment, we're testing with a small number of people, but it won't be long before the Google+ project is ready for everyone. Leave us your email address and we'll make sure that you're the first to know when we're ready to invite more people.
Twitter has been full of tweets of people trying to get invites; so that they can at least try to gain access to Google+. I admit to being one of those people who really want in. Getting an invite doesn't mean you will get in for sure; but it does move you up in the access line it would appear. Certainly, it seems that lots and lots of the people within my Twitter and Facebook networks who are not yet in. Of course, I understand that Google is working on rolling things out and that stuff like this takes time. That said, what I find interesting is that pretty much every single "notable social media person" that I know of has gotten into Google+ long before many of the rest of us. Over the weekend, I started thinking about why so many social media folks are in with only a few of the rest of us. I posted a few comments about it here and there online. Is this a coincidence or perhaps pure startegy on the part of Google? Of course, by having all of "social media folks" in before so many of the rest of us, they can blog, tweet and generally raise interest about the potential of what Google+ has to offer. This has clearly created further interest and hype; which leads to an online demand for access. So, I guess it is no surprise at all that this has happened. It reminds me of people standing in line for the iPad. We all want it....but certainly we won't all get it right away. Tonight I came across this quote from an article in the Montreal Gazette. Looks like I am not the only person noticing that it is mostly the "significant" folks who are in the Google+ circles long before many of the rest of us.
The most recent attempt to kill Facebook was launched last week with Google’s brand-new online social network called, Google +. Currently, it’s a closed environment that can only be accessed if you’re invited, and by the looks of the online chatter, Google is allowing people with significant Social Media experience in first to see how it stands up, performs and gets chatted about prior to opening the flood gates for all to use.
From: New Google + doesn't add up to a Facebook killerRead more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Google+doesn+Facebook+killer/5048772/story.html#ixzz1RCgpkGrp
The country's highest court has agreed to hear a human rights case challenging the way B.C. public schools treat special-needs students.
The case was launched more than a dozen years ago by Rick Moore, who alleged that the North Vancouver school district discriminated against his dyslexic son when it failed to teach him to read. Jeff was eight years old, in Grade 3 and struggling to learn.
Aware of his severe disability, his teachers referred him to the district's diagnostic centre so he could get special attention, but the district closed the centre for budgetary reasons before Jeff could be enrolled.
His father, desperate to get help, pulled his boy out of his neighbourhood school and took him to an independent school with hefty tuition that caters to children with learning disabilities.
Jeff, now 24, learned to read, graduated from high school, attended postsecondary school and is employed full-time as a plumber.
In 1997, Rick Moore filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, claiming the North Vancouver school district and the B.C. Education Ministry discriminated against his son by not accommodating his disability. The tribunal held public hearings and decided in his favour with a 2005 decision that was considered groundbreaking.
But the ruling was appealed and quashed by the B.C. Supreme Court, which found that Jeff had received service equal to or better than that accorded other learning-disabled children. The B.C. Court of Appeal upheld that ruling last year in a 2-1 decision, but the dissenting views of Justice Anne Rowles gave Moore hope and his lawyer, Frances Kelly, a chance to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The court's decision Thursday to hear the case put Moore over the moon. "It's fantastic," he said in an interview. "It's such a big deal to me that we are going to finally settle this once and for all."
Moore said his concern was never just about his son because Jeff got the help he needed. "He was one of the lucky ones," he said. "Jeff understands that his ability to succeed is because he got to the right school."
Moore said he was driven to take the case as far as he could because he couldn't accept that the educational services provided to his son should be judged according to what is offered to other learningdisabled students, insisting that public schools should be expected to help all children succeed. Learning-disabled children have IQs similar to typical students.
That view was backed by Justice Rowles, who wrote in her dissenting opinion: "Reading is part of the core curriculum and is essential to learning. The accommodation sought by Jeffrey and other SLD (severely learning disabled) students is not an extra, ancillary service; instead it is the way by which meaningful access to the service can be achieved."
North Vancouver school officials wouldn't comment on the Moore case while it's before the courts, but Julie Parker, director of instruction, said a lot has changed in schools since 1997. All students are now screened for learning disabilities in kindergarten and interventions are provided for the 15 per cent in need of extra help. "I think North Vancouver is one of the leaders [in special education]," she said in an interview.
The Supreme Court of Canada is expected to consider the Moore case early next year.
Last week The Early Years Report: Early Learning in PEI: An Investment in the Island's Future was released by the PEI Government. Below is a summary of the recommendations that were listed in the report. April Ennis, Vice President of Parents for Choice and Quality Society live streamed the release of the report from press conference via her iPhone. To view the press conference regarding this report and also the release of the PEI Preschool Excellence Initiative watch here.
May 19, 2010
Dear Editor,
Today Bill 47 was passed by the PEI government; just prior to the closing of the Spring legislative session. This Bill makes a simple wording change (replacing "shall" with "may") in the Child Care Facilities Act. "SECTION 1 amends a provision of the Child Care Facilities Act regarding the Child Care Facilities Board issuing licenses for the operation of child care facilities by referencing the application process and changing the word “shall” to the word “may”. "This change will now allow the Child Care Facilities Board to choose NOT to issue a child care license to an applicant who applies for licensing to operate a child care facility on the Island. The criteria for how the Board will determine such license refusals has not been made public; nor has this issue been fully discussed in any form of recent, open public consultation process that directly involved parents. In essence, this change now gives the Board complete power to determine whom, how and where a new child care program may be developed. It is important to note that the Board consists of a range of individuals; some of who are operators of currently licensed child care facilities. This change to the Act will now also protect existing operators (some of which offer lower quality child care) from new programs being established in areas where high quality early learning and care options are desperately needed. This change will also reduce program choice for families in many communities, as new programs will only be able to open if the Board chooses to license them. For more than two years, I have been actively working with mothers, fathers, grandparents, child care centres, industry professionals and concerned citizens of PEI to prevent a change such as this from passing through the PEI Legislature. Both choice and quality, as related to early learning and care, was seriously compromised with the passing of Bill 47. It is indeed a sad, sad day for Prince Edward Island children and families.I urge Islanders to contact their MLA today and discuss Bill 47 with them. Please ask your MLA these 3 questions:• Does Bill 47 ensure that there will be ample early learning and care choices available in all Island communities?• Does Bill 47 enhance early learning and care quality or entrench lower quality programs?• Is there not a conflict of interest for child care operators to serve on the Child Care Facilities Board; especially when the Board will now have the ability to refuse license applications for new programs?Yours truly,Jane Boyd[[posterous-content:pid___0]]Two studies prepared by the Society for Research in Child Development underscore the value of quality parenting and child care in the early life of a child.
One study followed 1,300 children from their births in 1991 till the time they turned 15.
It found teens that attended child-care centres with higher-quality programs scored better on tests of cognitive and academic achievement than those who attended programs with lower-quality care.
The teens in higher quality daycare centres also had fewer behavioural problems such as rule breaking, arguing and hanging out with peers who get into trouble.
The finding was consistent among children from middle-class, low-income, two-parent as well as single-parent families.
"This evidence of long-term effects of early child-care quality is noteworthy because it occurred in a large economically and geographically diverse group of children," notes study author Deborah Lowe Vandell, a professor and chair of education at the University of California, Irvine.
However, teens that spent the most hours in child care during their first 4½ years reported more risk-taking behaviour and greater impulsivity than those who spent less time in child care.
The second study followed 1,300 children from birth to the fifth grade.
It found parents who visited their child's school and encouraged educational progress in the home had children with fewer behavioural and emotional problems.
The study shows those children had fewer aggressive and disruptive behaviours, and less anxiety and depression.
At the same time so-called pro-social skills such as co-operation and self-control were higher.
However, the high rate of parental involvement didn't seem to improve a child's academic achievement.
The second study was conducted at the University of Pittsburgh.
Both studies are published in the May/June issue of the journal Child Development.
CEO of Work, Family & Life Consulting. Focus on work-life, employee wellbeing, early learning & care issues. I live, work & play in 140 characters & beyond.
