For or Against Governing Early Childhood Education through play by Jo Personal Statement

For or Against Governing Early Childhood Education through play by Jo AilWood - Personal Statement Example games, they acquire knowledge on how to control their emotions, and how to transform the large, mystifying world events into a little, controllable status. Play also enables children to improve on their social skills as they assign themselves certain responsibilities and resources. Despite the significance of play in early childhood learning processes, I believe there are some pitfalls to play that need to known to the learning fraternity. I think the significance of the circumstances under which a play is executed has not been anybody’s concern, even as more people continue to advocate for the governmentality of early childhood education through play. Current learning-based plays are only looked upon from the positive perspectives rather than from all sides to ascertain its real significance. Ailwood avers that play in early childhood education has been mired in more rhetoric than tangible results. In most cases, play has fallen short of equipping children with the required skills expected out of such activities (291). Childhood play has been found to be boring, and usually isolating for some children. Additionally, play has been largely entertaining, rather than enhancing the skills of the participants. Play also reduces the role of a teacher to merely keeping an eye on those engaging in bad games and maintaining the hygiene of children who take part in such activity. In light of the valorisation of play, brought about by divisions along social lines, play does not contribute to the unity and social diversity required in learning

Compare the influence of the revolutionary leadership on the french Essay

Compare the influence of the revolutionary leadership on the french and Russian revolutions - Essay Example This discourse seeks to compare the influence of revolutionary leadership on French and Russian Revolutions. An analysis of the French Revolution clearly shows that the revolution occurred mainly as a result of poor leadership though the economy also played a part in its establishment. In this respect, historians reveal that in the 1780s just before the beginning of the French Revolution, the leaders of the country made a terrible mistake by allocating a large portion of the budget to finance the lavish estate of King Louis XVI at Versailles (Lucas 1973, p. 86). Surprisingly they did this despite the fact that many French citizens were suffering as the majority were not able to put food on the table. At the same time, the leaders allowed the country to operate without a central bank and paper currency and utilized antiquated tax system that only taxed the poor who had no money with which to buy even food. The continued poor leadership demonstrated by the top leaders of the country angered the French poor comprising mainly of the peasants who started to protest against poor leadership. The angered peasants reportedly invaded the Bastille in search of guns to use against the oppressive leaders. The invasion of Bastille resulted in a revolt against the king all over France. The revolt continued throughout 1789, resulting in the overthrow of King Louis (Lefebvre 2005, p. 34). It was after his toppling that the French established a democratic government. The Declaration of the Rights of Man doctrine was established after that, serving as the ground for the revolutionary French leaders. The French Revolution also resulted in the establishment of a government consisting of three arms, namely the executive, judiciary, and legislature. Under the new system of government, the executive was still headed by the King though the King only served as a figurehead with no real power. Similarly, the chaotic Russian