According to recent studies, the number of schools that have severely limited or eliminated recess and free-play opportunities is on the rise across the nation. School officials cite the increasing levels of state and federal pressure to perform on standardized tests as the primary reason for this shift away from the playground. The threat of lawsuits and safety concerns are also listed as factors in this change of policy. The purpose of this mixed methods study was to examine the perceptions of directors of schools, supervisors, principals, assistant principals, teachers, and students regarding recess and free play in three East Tennessee school systems. Representative schools were chosen from each system and examined. In addition, results from standardized test scores as provided by the state of Tennessee were examined for the selected schools. The findings of this study revealed that directors, supervisors, principals, teachers, and students were in favor of recess and stated that offering recess and free-play opportunities provided some benefit to students. Even so, two schools in the study had chosen to limit recess and free-play opportunities to varying degrees whereas the third school maintained a policy of recess breaks. In examining the test data, the two schools that had limited recess were found to have lower test scores than the school that had maintained the integrity of recess. Other factors could attribute to the lower scores. The findings did reveal that limiting recess appeared to offer no significant gain in scores just as providing recess did not appear to cause any decrease in test scores. Stakeholders interviewed expressed the perception that the benefits of having recess outweighed any potential threat of time lost in the classroom. Recommendations for further research include repeating this study in other school settings on a larger scale to see if the same results are realized.

No description available.

The purpose of this study was to identify and describe attitudes to police and law enforcement funding in Sweden, and more specifically to find out if attitudes changed from the 1990s and onwards. The time interval was chosen since it was a period of societal change since Sweden was moving towards a more individualized society. The study analyses empirical data from the International Social Survey Programme, comparing surveys conducted in 1996, 2006, and 2016, to identify any differences in attitudes. The findings reveal differences in attitudes across the three time periods. Survey respondents in 2006 wanted lower funding for police and law enforcement compared to those in 1996 and 2016, whereas respondents in 2016 reported more positive attitudes toward police fundings. These trends were mostly consistent across social groups, although some groups reported larger changes in attitudes between time periods.

This essay discusses the question of whether describing people in essentialist terms violates the people being object to the description. The discussion is based on Kimberley Brownlee’s argumentation which states that there exists a right against social deprivation. To speak of people in crime-related, stigmatising and negatively charged terms – such as the term “criminal” – risks reducing the individual’s identity to solely the criminal aspect, and deprive them the opportunity of creating and sustaining other identities. A person’s role as a social contributor to family members and other close relatives is made more difficult, and the creation of social bonds outside the criminal sphere diminishes. This essay also brings up the critique put forward by Laura Valentini, who states that the lack in social needs is unsatisfiable in reality, and therefore it cannot be said to be a fundamental right, as Brownlee argues. The essay develops the thesis that, even though it is impossible to guarantee everyone meaningful social relationships, it is the duty of public institutions to facilitate and support the creation of these relationships. Furthermore, the use of essentialist terms – by both journalists, as well as politicians and other people in power – inhibit individuals the opportunity to create meaningful relational bonds, which could be paramount for their development and well-being. / essentiella termer. Diskussionen baseras på Kimberley Brownlees argumentation som menar att det finns en rättighet mot socialt berövande. Att tala om människor i brottsrelaterade, stigmatiserande och negativt laddade termer – såsom termen ”kriminell” – riskerar att reducera individens identitet till endast den kriminella aspekten, och fråntar dem möjligheten att skapa och bibehålla andra identiteter. Personens roll som socialt bidragande för familjemedlemmar och andra närstående försvåras, och skapandet av sociala band utanför ett kriminellt umgänge riskerar att minskas. Uppsatsen tar också upp kritik framfört av Laura Valentini, som menar att bristandet av sociala behov inte går att tillfredsställa i praktiken och att det därför inte kan påstås vara en fundamental rättighet, såsom Brownlee hävdar. Uppsatsen driver tesen att, även om det inte går att garantera en människa betydelsefulla sociala relationer, så är det de samhälleliga institutionernas uppgift att underlätta och stödja skapandet av dessa relationer. Och användandet av essentiella termer – av såväl journalister som politiker och andra makthavare – hämmar människors möjlighet till meningsfulla relationella band, vilka är viktiga för personens utveckling och välmående.

This research produces original empirical estimates of Hispanics in Florida’s Dept. of Corrections (FDOC) and uses those estimates to measure the impact felony disenfranchisement is having on Hispanics in Florida. Research institutions find that data on Hispanics in the criminal justice system, particularly in Florida, is either lacking or inaccurate. This research addresses this problem by applying an optimal surname list method using Census Bureau data and Bayes Theorem to produce an empirical estimate of Hispanics in FDOC’s data. Using the Hispanic rate derived from the empirical FDOC analysis, the rate of Hispanics in the disenfranchised population is estimated. The results reveal that FDOC systematically undercounts Hispanics (and overcounts Whites) by nearly 8 percent—i.e., there are over 2.5 times more Hispanics in FDOC data than actually reported by FDOC. However, even when applying the upward adjusted rate of Hispanics to the disenfranchised population, Hispanics are still underrepresented and less likely to be disenfranchised than their White and Black counterparts in Florida. This research provides an accurate up-to-date state of the data with respect to Hispanics in FDOC; it applies a surname method which other researchers can use to address lacking or inaccurate data on Hispanics in the criminal justice system; and it calls into question research that relies on FDOC’s inaccurate race data. Taken together, these findings might facilitate answers to many pressing questions on felony disenfranchisement in Florida and its impact on the political process.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.