Do you think sports drinks are good for teens? Vitamin Water, Gatorade, Powerade and energy drinks are all types of sports drinks and I am going to talk about the pros and cons for these sports drinks.
Most teenagers drink sports drinks rather than water because sports drinks have the extra sugar in it which energizes you. Most teens that play sports drink sports drink because they want to have alot more energy when they practice or is playing in a tournament.
Pros: It may be good because it is something that teens enjoy because it has flavour into it. When it comes to drinks, most teens think about the flavour more than the health. If you do a survey of teens, asking if they would choose sports drinks or water, I guarantee, most of them would say sports drinks. Teens enjoy the sports drinks which is a good sign. People should always enjoy what they eat and drink.
Cons: Sports drinks are also a bad thing because of the extra sugar. The sugar can make you gain weight and gaining weight is a bad thing if you play sports. Also, the carbonation can upset your stomach which is not a good sign. Having an upset stomach while playing sports is not your ideal day. Finally, sports drinks have caffeine in it. Caffeine should be limited for kids or young teens. Caffeine does not help you grow and when you are a teenager playing sports, you should be concerned about your height and weight.
In my opinion, I do not think sports drinks are good for teens. It has too much risks to it, especially if you play sports. Water should be the number one choice if you are thirsty. People should have eight glasses of water everyday to keep yourself healthy and energetic. They should also get all the nutrients and hydrations they can get from eating healthy food. Between the good taste and the health, people should choose health.
As you can see, there alot of good and bad things about sports drinks, but it all depends on the person's body and healthy life-style. We cannot tell what to drink and what not to drink. Teens have the right to decide for themselves.
Sources:
http://health.ninemsn.com.au/dietandnutrition/nutrition/693802/sports-drinks-the-real-facts
http://kidshealth.org/parent/nutrition_center/healthy_eating/power_drinks.html
http://www.lifescript.com/diet-fitness/articles/s/sports_drinks_exploring_the_pros_and_cons.aspx#disqus_thread
Wednesday, 30 May 2012
Monday, 21 May 2012
Year Round schooling - still in progress
Year-round schooling: Is it a Good Idea?
Summer, is the time of the year that most kids look forward too. It is the time that you can get away and go on a vacation and have usually around two months to do so. Year-round schooling is planning to change all of this. But truly is it a good thing or a bad thing?
Year-round schooling could give us shorter two week breaks between our semesters instead of short two week breaks a few times a year. I would rather have a month break than a two week break, wouldn't all of us? Although there may not be as many breaks they would be split up better. These longer breaks could mean that we would be refreshed for anew subject to learn. But does this mean that we would forget the rest between these breaks? My parents have told me they think it is a better schedule because if we wanted to go away on a holiday, they wouldn't have to worry about only going for a week. Instead, they could go on holiday for a full month without worrying about their kids falling behind in class. With this example of a year-round calendar could be very useful to the people who don't have much money but still like to travel. For example, if you wanted to go on a big trip you would have three different options of when to go so when you do go it is not so busy and would cost less. Between the breaks you would have time to save up for the things you want to do on the breaks without losing to much all at once.
Some people have other opinions on year-round schooling, and are saying it is a bad thing. For some people it would mess up the times of their work and that they would have to hire someone to watch their kids because they would be home while the parents are still at work. Usually people’s jobs offer breaks when schools have their common breaks like at Christmas time and spring break. However, if schools were on an all year calendar, they wouldn't be able to be with their kids when they have time off. I personally think that year round schooling is a better idea than the calendar we have now because since my family travels a lot we could be able to have longer trips more often. This is all the main info that I think people should be informed on.
All in all year round schooling could be a good thing or a bad thing. It all mainly depends on the way you look at it and the way you live your life. The vote for year round schooling will be very confusing. Having people weighing the odds it will make for a very difficult desision.
Year-round schooling could give us shorter two week breaks between our semesters instead of short two week breaks a few times a year. I would rather have a month break than a two week break, wouldn't all of us? Although there may not be as many breaks they would be split up better. These longer breaks could mean that we would be refreshed for anew subject to learn. But does this mean that we would forget the rest between these breaks? My parents have told me they think it is a better schedule because if we wanted to go away on a holiday, they wouldn't have to worry about only going for a week. Instead, they could go on holiday for a full month without worrying about their kids falling behind in class. With this example of a year-round calendar could be very useful to the people who don't have much money but still like to travel. For example, if you wanted to go on a big trip you would have three different options of when to go so when you do go it is not so busy and would cost less. Between the breaks you would have time to save up for the things you want to do on the breaks without losing to much all at once.
All in all year round schooling could be a good thing or a bad thing. It all mainly depends on the way you look at it and the way you live your life. The vote for year round schooling will be very confusing. Having people weighing the odds it will make for a very difficult desision.
Sunday, 20 May 2012
Missing Post
The following people who haven't posted should post as soon as possible:
Week 1: Chelsea
Week 2: Chelsea, and Jessica Y
Week 1: Chelsea
Week 2: Chelsea, and Jessica Y
Friday, 18 May 2012
Canadian death sentence in the U.S: Ronald Smith
In 1982 Montana,
Ronald Smith committed first degree murder. The victims were two cousins, Harvey Mad man and Thomas Running Rabbit.
His reason for the murder was to simply know what it felt like to kill someone. As a result Ronald
spent the past three decades locked up in Montana State Prison, but now the U.S
government is considering giving him a death sentence. However, the problem is
he is Canadian! Should a Canadian be given a death penalty in the U.S? Should Ronald
Smith be spared from the death penalty because of his Canadian origins, or
accept the punishment like any other U.S criminal? First of all we should think
about why people think the death penalty is inhuman, or acceptable, and who is
affected by Ronald’s actions, and how they feel.
For the past thirty years Ronald Smith has been in jail. The
idea of jail is for criminals to repent on their sins. If it was to only
confine the threats to public safety why would they release them back into
society? That is because the purpose of jail is for the criminals to learn
their lesson and change into law abiding citizens. So, why would that Ronald Smith had to spend
thirty years in a cell just to be put to death? Over the past three decades of
confinement, Ronald Smith has told the victim's family about his
regrets. Isn’t this evident that his time in confinement changed him? On the
other hand, if you go to another country you have to obey their laws, and part
of obeying the laws is accepting the punishments. An example would be
smuggling. If you bring drugs across the border, or guns, or anything forbidden
in the U.S and get caught you be fined a lot of money. Being fined money was
the consequence of smuggling. Ronald made the choice to do a crime, it only makes sense for him to accept the consequences too.
Would sentencing Ronald Smith even be beneficial in the first
place? No, the victim’s families won’t gain anything through his death, aside
from some sort of feeling of satisfying vengeance. However, is it better to
take revenge, or simply forgive someone? Have you heard the saying, “An eye for
an eye makes the whole world blind.”? We would agree that revenge is never the
answer. Haven’t we been taught this in school? By giving Ronald the death
sentence not only would Ronald die, but his family would be in anguish. Why
should we make more people miserable, for the sake of an eye for an eye? No, we
should not even out the death of Harvey, and Thomas, by putting Ronald to
death. However, because Ronald has killed
Thomas, and Harvey not only did he make an impact to their lives, but they also
impacted their loved one’s lives. It is evident that there is more than one
victim. Ronald’s actions resulted in two dead people, children without a
father, and many relatives who lost their kin. So, after this person has caused
so much anguish in many lives, could we really let this go?
Should
Ronald be spared from the death penalty in the U.S? Yes, he should be spared
from the death penalty. What he did was wrong, and there is no excuse for
murder, however we should not try to solve the problem by ending his life. He
has been separated from society, his friends, and family for thirty whole
painstaking years. He already gave a sincere apology, to the victim’s family. After all the turmoil he had to face in those thirty years, Ronald probably learned his lesson, and he should be given another chance.
My Sources
Thursday, 17 May 2012
Are Sports Drinks Good for Teens?
The reason that teenagers drink this as a substitute for water while playing sports or other hard working activities is so they will be energized. They drink it in large amounts because it gives them energy since sugar is a quick source of energy throughout the body. Here are some pros and cons;
Pros:
The good thing about sports drinks while kids play sports is that they like drinking it. Kids drink this because they are sweet which makes us enjoy drinking it. If you asked teenagers what they would prefer to drink between water and gatorade/powerade/vitamin water, most of us wouldn't choose water since we like to drink sweet things. These drinks also keep us hydrated more than water since we tend to drink them in large amounts. They build up electrolytes which help us with muscle recovery and soreness.These drinks are good for us if we drink them before and after workouts or sports for fluid and electrolyte replacement. This is some of the pros of sports drinks. On the labels it says it is also low in calories.
Cons:
There are quite a few bad things about sports drinks for sports drinks. First, there is lots of sugar in it, which makes you thirstier which means you drink more. It is also really bad in health with all the sugar. In vitamin water the label says that it is full of vitamins and barely any calories and sugar, but they actually use a substitute for sugar which makes it a lot unhealthier than regular sugar. For all those drinks I have named, they all included added preservatives which is very bad for our bodies. Another bad thing about drinking sports drinks instead of water is that you can have lots of breakouts easier. You can also gain weight by drinking this because it does have calories and it is bad for you, while water has no calories or sugar and it is purified. If you care about you're teeth, you might want to stop drinking a lot of sports drinks since this causes tooth decay because of its high sugar content and added artificial flavours and coloring. These are just some on the cons about teens drinking sports drinks.
Overall, you guys have found out that sports drinks are bad AND good for you. If you want to stay healthier and in shape, just drink lots of water before, during and after your physical activity.
My sources:
- http://kidshealth.org/parent/nutrition_center/healthy_eating/power_drinks.html
- http://chemistry.about.com/cs/foodchemistry/a/aa070803a.htm
- http://health.ninemsn.com.au/dietandnutrition/nutrition/693802/sports-drinks-the-real-facts
- http://www.livestrong.com/article/428630-pros-and-cons-of-sport-drinks/
Sports drinks- beneficial?
Sports drinks seem to be quite popular among teens who want to stay refreshed while being active, but are they really good for you? Today, I will explain various pros and cons about sports drinks. For those of you who do not know what a sports drink is, it is a thirst satisfying beverage that may boost energy and restore electrolytes lost due to sweating.
Sports drinks can be valuable because, as mentioned earlier, they restore lost electrolytes. We need electrolytes because our cells use them to send nerve impulses to other cells. However, you can easily restore these naturally by eating foods rich in potassium, such as a banana. This way, you can get the electrolytes but not the sugar and artificial colours.
Speaking of which, this leads me right to my next point. Sports drinks are very far from natural. Some ingredients you might find in your Gatorade are red 40 and blue 1. These are artificial additives, used to enhance the colour. Scientists have also discovered that these artificial colours may increase your risk of getting cancer. In addition, many also contain large amounts of sugar, which can result in diabetes, high blood pressure and weight gain. However, there is more than one option. Consumers can choose healthier options over these, such as Ultima Replenisher.
Athletes can really benefit from these drinks because they are sweating so much the occasional water and piece of fruit may not cut it. However, this can actually rot the athlete’s teeth. This is because there are high levels of acid in the drink and low levels of saliva, which usually washes away any food stuck to the teeth.
Finally, my opinion on this matter is that due to the high level of sugars and artificial additives, water and a piece of fruit is a better option than a sports drink.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sport+drink
http://www.yurielkaim.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Gatorade-Nutrition-Facts.jpg
http://www.livestrong.com/article/511795-how-to-restore-electrolytes-in-my-body-naturally/
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100718/Artificial-colours-in-food-linked-to-cancer-and-behavioral-disorders-in-children-Study.aspx
http://www.ultimareplenisher.com/
http://www.lifescript.com/diet-fitness/articles/s/sports_drinks_exploring_the_pros_and_cons.aspx#disqus_thread
Sports drinks can be valuable because, as mentioned earlier, they restore lost electrolytes. We need electrolytes because our cells use them to send nerve impulses to other cells. However, you can easily restore these naturally by eating foods rich in potassium, such as a banana. This way, you can get the electrolytes but not the sugar and artificial colours.
Speaking of which, this leads me right to my next point. Sports drinks are very far from natural. Some ingredients you might find in your Gatorade are red 40 and blue 1. These are artificial additives, used to enhance the colour. Scientists have also discovered that these artificial colours may increase your risk of getting cancer. In addition, many also contain large amounts of sugar, which can result in diabetes, high blood pressure and weight gain. However, there is more than one option. Consumers can choose healthier options over these, such as Ultima Replenisher.
Athletes can really benefit from these drinks because they are sweating so much the occasional water and piece of fruit may not cut it. However, this can actually rot the athlete’s teeth. This is because there are high levels of acid in the drink and low levels of saliva, which usually washes away any food stuck to the teeth.
Finally, my opinion on this matter is that due to the high level of sugars and artificial additives, water and a piece of fruit is a better option than a sports drink.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sport+drink
http://www.yurielkaim.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Gatorade-Nutrition-Facts.jpg
http://www.livestrong.com/article/511795-how-to-restore-electrolytes-in-my-body-naturally/
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100718/Artificial-colours-in-food-linked-to-cancer-and-behavioral-disorders-in-children-Study.aspx
http://www.ultimareplenisher.com/
http://www.lifescript.com/diet-fitness/articles/s/sports_drinks_exploring_the_pros_and_cons.aspx#disqus_thread
Are Sports Drinks Good For You
Powerade and Gatorade. These are examples of sports drinks. The question is is if they are actually good for you?
If you didn't know, sports drinks are said to make an athlete's performance better by replacing the fluids lost in sweat. A lot of people drink it when they are playing sports. The question is is whether it is actually good for you and if it even is improving your performance or not?
The answer is yes and no. This is why it is good for you.
The reason sports drinks are good for you is because if you are playing sports for a long period of time such as soccer or football, you are sweating and losing sodium and potassium. Also, you are burning off carbohydrates. These things are needed to make sure that your muscles work properly. In sports drinks, there are all these things. Since sports drinks are sweeter, you are more likely to drink more of it which means better hydration. Also, they help you re-hydrate faster than water or any other drink. Sports drinks are great for if you are running a marathon or bring active for over an hour because it helps you keep up a good performance.
The reason they aren't good for you is because of the amount of sugar in them. They may be low in calories but the sodium is high. Sports drinks aren't great to have if you are working out for under an hour. Since they do have a lot of sugar in them, if you are only working out for a little bit, it isn't worth the amount of sugar. The best way to hydrate yourself in this situation would be water.
Some people like to have sports drinks even if they aren't working out. This is ok but since you aren't working out, you aren't burning off the calories. As I said before, there is a lot of sugar. So, it is not healthy to have all the time if you aren't running it off or working out for more than a hour.
In conclusion, sports drinks are good for you and not good for you. They are good for you if you drink them when working out for more than an hour. They are not good for you if you are only running around the block. The best thing to have then would be water.
Sources
Wednesday, 16 May 2012
Are social networking sites more beneficial or harmful in our society?
Social networking is the use of the web to communicate with other people on that same site. An example that you all should know, if not use, is "Facebook" and "Twitter". You can communicate with posts, photos, etc.
The internet was a great way to connect people but social networking sites made it easier than ever to find old friends! Social networking sites helps keep families and friends in contact even they live very far away from each other.
Social networking sites can do many other things as well. People who are very shy, are more comfortable communicating via the sites. There are wide varieties of apps to play with on a social network called "Facebook", which can entertain people during a rainy day.
Even though that social networking can do many wonders, there is always something bad about anything one can think of. Even though that social net working can connect people together, it can make them spend less time face to face. It also makes you waste your time scrolling down the threads on your wall. Teens spend one heck of a long time on social networking sites doing stuff like playing the games online when they can be outside enjoying the fresh air. People can stalk you on the websites too. When you apply for jobs or schools, they use social networks to check you out. Other people can easily take an innocent photo that you posted of you and photo shop that picture that make you seem like an irresponsible person.
Are social networking good or bad? Its a choice that you have to make. In my point of view, social networking is bad. But maybe a little bit of it is not that bad! It is because , overall, you can still connect to friends whom you have not seen since you moved away!
Sources:
-http://www.howstuffworks.com/internet/social-networking/information/pros-cons-social-networking.htm
-Social Networking ProCon.org
-http://news.discovery.com/tech/is-online-social-networking-good-or-bad.html
Pictures
-http://socialnetworkingeducation.wikia.com/wiki/Social_Networking_in_Education_Wiki
Thursday, 10 May 2012
Year round schooling
What do you think of when you hear the word
summer? For most students the first thing that comes to mind is “no school”. What
would happen if the two month summer vacation became only one month? That means we would have to come back to school one month earlier? This may
happen if Canada decides to change the traditional school calendar to the
balanced calendar, otherwise known as “Year Round Schooling”. Before we simply
decide whether we should accept or reject this idea we should understand what are the differences between the traditional calendar and year round schooling. Then we would compare the benefits, disadvantages, and finally come up with a conclusion on whether we should accept or reject year round schooling.
The traditional calendar is the school schedule when school begins at early September, and ends at late June. The reason why there is a two month break took place a long time ago. Back then the children needed to help their parents harvest the crops and help out on the farm, therefore the schools decided that there will be no classes at that time. However, times have changed and now most kids don't spend their summer working on a farm. Since the main purpose of the traditional school calendar wouldn't apply now, people have tried to come up with a school schedule that fitted this time, and now the idea of year round schooling was born. Year round schooling is when the amount of summer vacation time is reduced, and instead there are more frequent, but shorter breaks spread out in the school year. Both traditional and year round schooling have the same number of classes in session.
Year round schooling can be beneficial. Since the breaks from school are shorter, you have a smaller chance of forgetting what you learn in school. This is because the if you neglect learning over a really long period of time, eventually you would forget some of the things you learn, however if that really long period of time was reduced than the student wouldn't forget as much. Now, if the students remember what they learn in school last year the teacher wouldn't need to go review everything that the students had just learn a few months ago. Having a vacation with the year round schooling is more flexible because not everyone wants to travel in the summer. Instead you can travel in the other seasons.
However, despite the benefits there are some disadvantages to having year round schooling. Regardless of the having the smaller chance of forgetting what you learn in school during the break, you would still forget some material you learn over the year. Since you forgot something you would need to review over again. Now with three, one month long breaks, you would have to review the material over again three times instead of only once. Another disadvantage is that your vacations would have to be shorter, which can be inconvient when visiting relatives.
Personally I don't the idea of year round schooling because I don't want to go to school in the summer when it is really hot. Not to mention that changing the calendar would probably be difficult for me since I am already used to having really long summer breaks.
Go to these links for more information:
http://www.newstudentunion.com/2011/12/29/pros-and-cons-of-year-round-schools/
http://712educators.about.com/cs/reformtime/a/yearrounded.htm
http://websites.msdpt.k12.in.us/superintendent/extended-calendar/
The traditional calendar is the school schedule when school begins at early September, and ends at late June. The reason why there is a two month break took place a long time ago. Back then the children needed to help their parents harvest the crops and help out on the farm, therefore the schools decided that there will be no classes at that time. However, times have changed and now most kids don't spend their summer working on a farm. Since the main purpose of the traditional school calendar wouldn't apply now, people have tried to come up with a school schedule that fitted this time, and now the idea of year round schooling was born. Year round schooling is when the amount of summer vacation time is reduced, and instead there are more frequent, but shorter breaks spread out in the school year. Both traditional and year round schooling have the same number of classes in session.
Year round schooling can be beneficial. Since the breaks from school are shorter, you have a smaller chance of forgetting what you learn in school. This is because the if you neglect learning over a really long period of time, eventually you would forget some of the things you learn, however if that really long period of time was reduced than the student wouldn't forget as much. Now, if the students remember what they learn in school last year the teacher wouldn't need to go review everything that the students had just learn a few months ago. Having a vacation with the year round schooling is more flexible because not everyone wants to travel in the summer. Instead you can travel in the other seasons.
However, despite the benefits there are some disadvantages to having year round schooling. Regardless of the having the smaller chance of forgetting what you learn in school during the break, you would still forget some material you learn over the year. Since you forgot something you would need to review over again. Now with three, one month long breaks, you would have to review the material over again three times instead of only once. Another disadvantage is that your vacations would have to be shorter, which can be inconvient when visiting relatives.
Personally I don't the idea of year round schooling because I don't want to go to school in the summer when it is really hot. Not to mention that changing the calendar would probably be difficult for me since I am already used to having really long summer breaks.
Go to these links for more information:
http://www.newstudentunion.com/2011/12/29/pros-and-cons-of-year-round-schools/
http://712educators.about.com/cs/reformtime/a/yearrounded.htm
http://websites.msdpt.k12.in.us/superintendent/extended-calendar/
Wednesday, 9 May 2012
Should schools / government agencies be regulating our lunches?
I am going to inform you about the topic, "Should schools agencies be regulating our lunches?" There are many Pros and Cons for this. A school called "The Little Village Academy" has banned bagged lunches. If they see any unhealthy food, they will confisicate it and cafeteria food is mandatory.
The reason why they decided to make this rule was because the principal at that school does not trust the parents to pack proper lunch for their children. The principal says that students should always eat healthy food.
Pros:
A good thing about this healthy food rule is that we know that the principal really cares alot about the students' health. At least the students would not be eating junk food for lunch everyday. I think this is also a good thing because this helps the parents or students not to worry about what to pack for lunch. They will only have a few choices to pack and it would be easy to choose. Also, the students will not need to panick or worry about their healthy body.
Cons:
A bad thing about this rule is that alot of parents may get mad at the principal. Who does the principal think to make food rules for the students who is not even her own children? That is a question I ask myself over and over again after I read the article. Principals are responsible for students' educations. Not their healthy life style. The principal said that she does not trust the parents for packing her students' lunches. I feel like she says that like the students' are her own children and that she gets to decide about their life-style. Parents have their own different ways of raising their child. The principlal should not judge their ways. Also, there are different cultured or religious families around the world. Students should follow their culture, or religious, food without having to be forced not to, or to, eat any food they should or shouldn't eat.
In Conclusion, I believe that schools should not regulate our lunches.m I thiknk students' have the right to live their own ways without anybody, who are not their parents, making their decisions for them.
Sources:
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2011/04/26/the-state-has-no-place-in-the-lunch-bags-of-a-nation/
The reason why they decided to make this rule was because the principal at that school does not trust the parents to pack proper lunch for their children. The principal says that students should always eat healthy food.
Pros:
A good thing about this healthy food rule is that we know that the principal really cares alot about the students' health. At least the students would not be eating junk food for lunch everyday. I think this is also a good thing because this helps the parents or students not to worry about what to pack for lunch. They will only have a few choices to pack and it would be easy to choose. Also, the students will not need to panick or worry about their healthy body.
Cons:
A bad thing about this rule is that alot of parents may get mad at the principal. Who does the principal think to make food rules for the students who is not even her own children? That is a question I ask myself over and over again after I read the article. Principals are responsible for students' educations. Not their healthy life style. The principal said that she does not trust the parents for packing her students' lunches. I feel like she says that like the students' are her own children and that she gets to decide about their life-style. Parents have their own different ways of raising their child. The principlal should not judge their ways. Also, there are different cultured or religious families around the world. Students should follow their culture, or religious, food without having to be forced not to, or to, eat any food they should or shouldn't eat.
In Conclusion, I believe that schools should not regulate our lunches.m I thiknk students' have the right to live their own ways without anybody, who are not their parents, making their decisions for them.
Sources:
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2011/04/26/the-state-has-no-place-in-the-lunch-bags-of-a-nation/
Should schools / government agencies be regulating our lunches?
Should schools / government agencies be regulating our lunches? I am here here to explain what this is and the pros and cons.
A regulated lunch is when a school ban a certain type of food. This means that when a child i seen eating that food, it will be confiscated. The school cafeteria is also banned for selling that particular food.
By doing this, people are hoping to get kids to eat healthier food.
A pro of this idea is that kid would obviously benefit from this. Many parents are very busy in the morning so they usually throw anything edible at hand into their children's lunches. Usually stuff like candy and chips. There was one little girl whose lunch was exactly that!
But a negative result might also happen. This setup is almost like a prison in a way. Students may want to rebel and go outside to eat instead. The government would not like that and probably wabt those restaurants to change.The students may also think that "Eating healthy foods will keep them healthy, why is exercise needed?" If these kids stop exercising, this will be one of the factors that will cause them to go obese.
In conclusion, I think that the school regulations should not be allowed. I think that it really is the families that should support kids to eat healthy by something as simple as a praise or a reward for the kid when they eat healthy foods. If kids enjoy eating healthy, this regulation is not really needed. But nobody is perfect, and it is completely normal to eat treat yourselves to eating hamburgers once in a while.
Sources:
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2011/04/26/the-state-has-no-place-in-the-lunch-bags-of-a-nation/
http://voices.yahoo.com/should-federal-government-regulate-5920212.html?cat=4
A regulated lunch is when a school ban a certain type of food. This means that when a child i seen eating that food, it will be confiscated. The school cafeteria is also banned for selling that particular food.
By doing this, people are hoping to get kids to eat healthier food.
A pro of this idea is that kid would obviously benefit from this. Many parents are very busy in the morning so they usually throw anything edible at hand into their children's lunches. Usually stuff like candy and chips. There was one little girl whose lunch was exactly that!
But a negative result might also happen. This setup is almost like a prison in a way. Students may want to rebel and go outside to eat instead. The government would not like that and probably wabt those restaurants to change.The students may also think that "Eating healthy foods will keep them healthy, why is exercise needed?" If these kids stop exercising, this will be one of the factors that will cause them to go obese.
In conclusion, I think that the school regulations should not be allowed. I think that it really is the families that should support kids to eat healthy by something as simple as a praise or a reward for the kid when they eat healthy foods. If kids enjoy eating healthy, this regulation is not really needed. But nobody is perfect, and it is completely normal to eat treat yourselves to eating hamburgers once in a while.
Sources:
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2011/04/26/the-state-has-no-place-in-the-lunch-bags-of-a-nation/
http://voices.yahoo.com/should-federal-government-regulate-5920212.html?cat=4
Bill 36 - Balanced Calander
I am going to talk about the balanced calendar because recently, the goverment wanted to change to year round schooling. This just means that we wouldn't have a 2 month summer break like we always do and we would have school all year round. I will tell you my opinion of this and some pros and cons.
If the school board changes schools to become year round, we won't have a 2 month summer vacation and our days will become extended. The reason that they give us a 2 month vacation was because years ago, it was farming season and kids needed the 2 months off to help around so we don't really need that 2 month vacation but most kids are used to it now and might not be happy if we have school all year. We will instead have 3 longer breaks balanced throughout the year. Here are some of the pros and cons;
Pro's:
Some good things about the schools being changed to become year round is that we get 3 long breaks. They wouldn't be 2 months of course, but it's almost the same as Winter and Spring break. The breaks would probably each be around 1 month long throughout the year. A good thing about this would be that we would remember more things we learned in school and not forget them like we usually do when we go on that 2 month vacation. Also, its a longer time to spend with your family during a special holiday such as Christmas or Easter because it would be 1 month. For some kids, it could possibly even help them get better grades in school because they wouldn't be looking forward to a vacation. This is basically all I could think of on pros for a balanced calendar.
Con's:
Bad things about the school board changing our schools to balanced calendars is that we wouldn't be looking forward to a vacation anymore in the summer but instead we would only get 1 month off and we would spend another month of summer in school. I would really not like spending my summer in school because it would be extremely hot. Also, some people wouldn't be able to go on a long vacation to another country such as I am this year because we would only have 1 month off. We wouldn't get to spend as much time with our friends either. A horrible thing that kids wouldn't look forward to either is the days being extended because nobody wants to stay in school longer. This would most likely be a problem for most parents too since some parents have to go to work right after they pick their kids up or they work longer so parents wouldn't be very happy about this either. Most kids also usually look forward to they're vacation but if this changed, i wouldn't really be looking forward to anything.
Overall, i do NOT want to have a balanced calender. I like having the 2 month vacation instead of 1 month breaks with extended days.
If the school board changes schools to become year round, we won't have a 2 month summer vacation and our days will become extended. The reason that they give us a 2 month vacation was because years ago, it was farming season and kids needed the 2 months off to help around so we don't really need that 2 month vacation but most kids are used to it now and might not be happy if we have school all year. We will instead have 3 longer breaks balanced throughout the year. Here are some of the pros and cons;
Pro's:
Some good things about the schools being changed to become year round is that we get 3 long breaks. They wouldn't be 2 months of course, but it's almost the same as Winter and Spring break. The breaks would probably each be around 1 month long throughout the year. A good thing about this would be that we would remember more things we learned in school and not forget them like we usually do when we go on that 2 month vacation. Also, its a longer time to spend with your family during a special holiday such as Christmas or Easter because it would be 1 month. For some kids, it could possibly even help them get better grades in school because they wouldn't be looking forward to a vacation. This is basically all I could think of on pros for a balanced calendar.
Con's:
Bad things about the school board changing our schools to balanced calendars is that we wouldn't be looking forward to a vacation anymore in the summer but instead we would only get 1 month off and we would spend another month of summer in school. I would really not like spending my summer in school because it would be extremely hot. Also, some people wouldn't be able to go on a long vacation to another country such as I am this year because we would only have 1 month off. We wouldn't get to spend as much time with our friends either. A horrible thing that kids wouldn't look forward to either is the days being extended because nobody wants to stay in school longer. This would most likely be a problem for most parents too since some parents have to go to work right after they pick their kids up or they work longer so parents wouldn't be very happy about this either. Most kids also usually look forward to they're vacation but if this changed, i wouldn't really be looking forward to anything.
Overall, i do NOT want to have a balanced calender. I like having the 2 month vacation instead of 1 month breaks with extended days.
Year Round Schooling
Year round schooling. There are a lot of arguments about whether it will happen for us or not.
Recently, the government suggested year round schooling or a balanced calendar for B.C. This could possibly mean less summer break BUT longer spring break and/or Christmas break. This is what they have proposed but this may not be the way that it folds out. Also they have said that if it does happen, then schools can somewhat decide when the holidays will be and when we will have to be in school.
The reason they want to change the school calendar is because they think that if kids aren't off for as long, such as summer break, that they will focus better and that they will remember more from their last school year, which would help them. Also, the way that the system was designed was for the farmers. They had the long summer break for helping harvest their food. Now children don't really need to help with that as much anymore since there isn't as many farms, well at least in Surrey. Also, since you don't just have two weeks for spring break but maybe four, you may go on a bigger vacation. Then you would have more time to relax. Plus, the vacation may be longer too and you would get to do more there as well.
My argument against this is that summer break is what everyone who goes to school looks forward to. Knowing that there is summer break after the school year is over is what gets us through the year. Also, what happens if this does happen and say Kelowna, goes on a different school schedule than Surrey? I have friends that live there and the only time I get to see them is in the summer. So now, I would never get to see them. I would have to take time off school, miss lessons which is bad for my learning to get to see them. Also, sports would be afffected. If we have longer periods off at a time, then people go on vacation which then teams can't practice. Such as baseball. They start right at the beginning of April. What if we get all of April off? Then they would have to start in May and then go further into the summer which is even hotter.
In conclusion, I think that year round schooling is a bad idea because I do look forward to my summer break and I don't really want to go to school in July because it's to hot for me to focus. Also, having only 2 weeks off at christmas is nice because there really isn't that much to do since it is usually snowing and it is cold.
So, is year round schooling a good or bad thing?
Recently, the government suggested year round schooling or a balanced calendar for B.C. This could possibly mean less summer break BUT longer spring break and/or Christmas break. This is what they have proposed but this may not be the way that it folds out. Also they have said that if it does happen, then schools can somewhat decide when the holidays will be and when we will have to be in school.
The reason they want to change the school calendar is because they think that if kids aren't off for as long, such as summer break, that they will focus better and that they will remember more from their last school year, which would help them. Also, the way that the system was designed was for the farmers. They had the long summer break for helping harvest their food. Now children don't really need to help with that as much anymore since there isn't as many farms, well at least in Surrey. Also, since you don't just have two weeks for spring break but maybe four, you may go on a bigger vacation. Then you would have more time to relax. Plus, the vacation may be longer too and you would get to do more there as well.
My argument against this is that summer break is what everyone who goes to school looks forward to. Knowing that there is summer break after the school year is over is what gets us through the year. Also, what happens if this does happen and say Kelowna, goes on a different school schedule than Surrey? I have friends that live there and the only time I get to see them is in the summer. So now, I would never get to see them. I would have to take time off school, miss lessons which is bad for my learning to get to see them. Also, sports would be afffected. If we have longer periods off at a time, then people go on vacation which then teams can't practice. Such as baseball. They start right at the beginning of April. What if we get all of April off? Then they would have to start in May and then go further into the summer which is even hotter.
In conclusion, I think that year round schooling is a bad idea because I do look forward to my summer break and I don't really want to go to school in July because it's to hot for me to focus. Also, having only 2 weeks off at christmas is nice because there really isn't that much to do since it is usually snowing and it is cold.
So, is year round schooling a good or bad thing?
Should schools regulate their student's lunches?
Should schools regulate their students’ lunches? This is a question that has stirred much controversy among parents, school workers, and the students themselves. For those who do not know what this means, I will explain this and various pros and cons.
If schools regulate students’ lunches, this means that select foods would be banned and confiscated if spotted. School cafeterias would also be banned from selling these foods. This way, healthier options would be encouraged and enforced. Some schools may even force all students to buy lunch at a school cafeteria.
On one hand, students would definitely benefit from these healthy changes. Many students have irresponsible parents that pack them whatever they want; let it be soda, candy, or chips as one of their four square meals. Instead of these junk foods, they would be served healthy portions from the five food groups, including a variety of whole grains, fruits and vegetables. This, in the long run, could prevent many students from childhood obesity, while teaching them how to make healthy choices at the same time.
On the other hand, these healthy choices may result in students thinking that there is no need for exercise if they eat healthy. If this happens we may end up with more obese adults later on. Our current generation will eventually find jobs and realize there is just not enough time for healthy eating, or forget those healthy habits taught at school. In addition, the new system will force students with less money to buy costly cafeteria meals every day.
However, that may not be a problem. Students with less money may only have to pay around $20 a month, which is less than a cent a day. Similar lunch programs already exist in schools who have children that live in poverty. Except this may end up as a problem. How? Well since the students are getting food for such a cheap price, the school has to contribute some money for the ingredients of the food. This means that they will have to lower the funding for more important subjects, such as math, language arts, and science.
My opinion on this matter is that the school should not have to take place of a parent for every single student. It is the parent's job to ensure their kids are living healthy lives, and the school's job is to teach. Therefore, I believe schools should not regulate students’ lunches.
My sources
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2011/04/26/the-state-has-no-place-in-the-lunch-bags-of-a-nation/
The state has no place in the lunch bags of the nation
2012-05-08
http://voices.yahoo.com/should-federal-government-regulate-5920212.html?cat=4
Should the Federal Government Regulate Your Child's Bagged Lunch?
2012-05-08
If schools regulate students’ lunches, this means that select foods would be banned and confiscated if spotted. School cafeterias would also be banned from selling these foods. This way, healthier options would be encouraged and enforced. Some schools may even force all students to buy lunch at a school cafeteria.
On one hand, students would definitely benefit from these healthy changes. Many students have irresponsible parents that pack them whatever they want; let it be soda, candy, or chips as one of their four square meals. Instead of these junk foods, they would be served healthy portions from the five food groups, including a variety of whole grains, fruits and vegetables. This, in the long run, could prevent many students from childhood obesity, while teaching them how to make healthy choices at the same time.
On the other hand, these healthy choices may result in students thinking that there is no need for exercise if they eat healthy. If this happens we may end up with more obese adults later on. Our current generation will eventually find jobs and realize there is just not enough time for healthy eating, or forget those healthy habits taught at school. In addition, the new system will force students with less money to buy costly cafeteria meals every day.
However, that may not be a problem. Students with less money may only have to pay around $20 a month, which is less than a cent a day. Similar lunch programs already exist in schools who have children that live in poverty. Except this may end up as a problem. How? Well since the students are getting food for such a cheap price, the school has to contribute some money for the ingredients of the food. This means that they will have to lower the funding for more important subjects, such as math, language arts, and science.
My opinion on this matter is that the school should not have to take place of a parent for every single student. It is the parent's job to ensure their kids are living healthy lives, and the school's job is to teach. Therefore, I believe schools should not regulate students’ lunches.
My sources
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2011/04/26/the-state-has-no-place-in-the-lunch-bags-of-a-nation/
The state has no place in the lunch bags of the nation
2012-05-08
http://voices.yahoo.com/should-federal-government-regulate-5920212.html?cat=4
Should the Federal Government Regulate Your Child's Bagged Lunch?
2012-05-08