JCCS Academic Language Assessment Week 31 - Vandalism

-------Should parents be held accountable for their child's damage? ---Academic Vocabulary Words: ----ACHIEVE ----COMPUTE ----SPECIFIC Parents should no be held accountable for their child's damage or vandalism. According to states that there are SPECIFIC laws that state that parents are responsible for their kids actions and if their kids make or cause trouble or damage, the parents are responsible. If you COMPUTE the final solution, kids should have the consequences so they get taught a lesson instead of the parents. The parents already gave to go through so much with work and their kids at school so, I think its best if the kids finally get the consequences. If kids are taught not to vandalize anymore then they can ACHIEVE something better in life.

JCCS Academic Language Assessment Week 29 - School Conferences

----Should parents face jail time for missing their child's school conferences? ---Academic Vocabulary Words: ----RESOURCE ----SEEK ----TRANSFER Parents should not face jail time for missing their child's school conferences. According to this website shows that in some place such as Detroit, already are thinking about using jail time as a consequence for parents. This also shows that parents work hard to keep their kids in school but if they miss a day of school conferences. They are many RESOURCES that parents can SEEK to help, such as they can have babysitters attend their child's conferences. Also this website states that "Others say that just because a parent misses a meeting, doesn't necessarily mean he or she is negligent." Which means that not all parents who do not attend are not always in neglect of their parents. Another reason why parents should not face jail time for missing their child's school conference because parents might be working and busy. When parents are required to go to school conferences it is hard to TRANSFER from one place to another. In conclusion parents can sometimes be very busy and and hard to move and schedule from here to there that is why parents should not face jail time for missing their child's school conferences.

JCCS Academic Language Assessment Week 28 - Truant Students

------------Should Global Positioning System (GPS) devices be required for habitually truant students? ---Academic Vocabulary Words: ----ADMINISTER ----CONDUCT ----ELEMENT Gps system devices should be required for habitually truant students because parents should be more responsible as to where their kids is. Another reason is to CONDUCT This website states that if parents had gps systems on their childs cellphones , they would feel safe knowing that ADMINISTERING and being a parent knowing that their children are safe. Another ELEMENT of this, is that if truant students had gps systems they would not be late to school and show up everyday knowing that their parents are keeping track of them. Global positioning system devices should be required for habitually truant students because that way the students have a little scare in them knowing they can be found or located.

o school officials the right to use drug-sniffing dogs?

-ASSUME ----PROCESS ----RESPOND School officials do not have the right to use drug-sniffing dogs. According to this website it states that if school officials were on the lookout for drugs then some kids might slip things into other peoples belongings and they might get caught with something that doesn't belong to them. This means that people should be able to have their own private space and school officials should not use dogs to find things that are illegal. In RESPOND kids should not brings anything to schools anyway. ASSUMING is another that happens when finding drugs or anything illegal. This website explains pros and cons of drug sniffing dogs and how assuming can be bid too, because if someone finds anything in someone's property they are obviously going to get the blame. Dogs have , course a PROCESS that tells them to bark whenever they smell any drugs or drug substances. Therefore kids should not bring anything drug like or illegal like to school. In conclusion School officials should not have the right to bring drug sniffing dogs to school because kids should have their privacy just as much as the teachers.

JCCS Academic Language Assessment Week 26 - Cars

----Would you want a car that drives itself? ---Academic Vocabulary Words: ----METHOD ----OCCUR ----PROCEED I would not want a car that drove itself. Dangerous comes to my mind when thinking of a self-driving car. According to this website - Click here, It states that is people Proceeded to make more and more self-driving cars," then laws would have to change dramatically". There are certain METHODS needed in order for me to trust a self-driving car. I would have to drive one not on road but as a practice. This website also states that "automatic self-driving cars would contain a monotonic creepy voice" which is something I wold not want. I think having a car that drives itself is scary and dangerous. If this does occur I would most likely use a nowadays car.

What would happen if you found gold in your backyard?

If I found gold in my backyard, I would at first hide it and not do a thing with it. I would find out facts as to how much gold is worth what and what I would do with it. I would write down what I would do with it. If the gold was worth more than a million I would bring my family back from Honduras and Mexico into the U.S. Then I would buy us all a big house. My parents a separate room because they are no longer together. I would make the money count and not waste it on useless unnecessary things. I hope the gold was worth a lot. I would be lucky if I found gold in my backyard.

JCCS Academic Language Assessment Week 25 - Concealed Carry

--------Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? ---Academic Vocabulary Words: ----ESTABLISH ----INDICATE ----JUSTIFY Adults are not always big buff and strong. So they can't always protect themselves without concealed handguns. Adults should have the right carry a concealed handgun because if America, or American states, tried to change or JUSTIFY anything by people's rights being taken away for their guns then people would not be able to protect their property or privacy when or during an invasion. According to the Pros & Cons "Criminals are less likely attack someone that they believe might be armed" This shows that if the laws change and no one is allowed with concealed weapons, then not only would it increase more criminals but criminals would do anything fearlessly. This also shows that criminals would not bother to try and make a move with someone they knew had a concealed weapon. Also the same linked website states ESTABLISHES that "Even if an adult never needs to draw a concealed handgun for self-defense, a person may feel safer being armed". This INDICATES that even though people do no feel safe pointing guns at people they still feel safe carrying a concealed weapon around because they know they will be less harmed if they carry a weapon with them. This also shows that people would feel scared of they could not carry a concealed weapon with them even they don't like using it.