What is the purpose of the student's performance system?

To evaluate and track the academic progress of college students

To select extracurricular activities for college students

To manage financial aid for college students

To determine the class schedule for college students

What are the key components of a student's performance system?

Assessment, grading, and reporting

Extracurricular activities, clubs, and organizations

Student counseling, career guidance, and internships

Financial aid, scholarships, and grants

What is the role of feedback in a student's performance system?

To provide constructive critique and guidance for improvement

To allocate financial resources for students

To organize extracurricular activities for students

To assign class schedules for students

What is the significance of data analysis in a student's performance system?

To identify patterns and trends in student performance

To organize social events for college students

To allocate housing for college students

To determine college admission criteria

What are some common features of a well-designed student's performance system?

Clear learning objectives, reliable assessment methods, and timely feedback

Advanced technology infrastructure, virtual classrooms, and online resources

Flexible course scheduling, academic advising, and tutoring services

Extensive extracurricular opportunities, sports facilities, and clubs

What is the purpose of performance assessments in a student's performance system?

To evaluate students' knowledge, skills, and abilities in real-world contexts

To manage financial aid applications for college students

To assign class representatives for college students

To determine student enrollment in extracurricular activities

What is the role of a student's performance system in college?

To monitor and support academic progress and success

To manage student financial accounts

To assign dormitory accommodations for college students

To organize social events for college students

What is the purpose of individual student profiles in a student's performance system?

To track and analyze the unique progress and needs of each student

To determine student seating arrangements in classrooms

To allocate funds for college research projects

To organize field trips and educational tours

What are some important factors to consider in the design and implementation of a student's performance system?

Clear criteria, fairness, and confidentiality

Advanced technology infrastructure, virtual classrooms, and online resources

Flexible course scheduling, academic advising, and tutoring services

Extensive extracurricular opportunities, sports facilities, and clubs

1. Design and implementation of student’s performance system?

The LMS has been an essential tool in curriculum design and development and in organizing factors that motivate student learning, especially in online distance learning. However, an LMS can be used in blended, hybrid, and in-class delivery modes. It is a software application designed to help in the administration of courses for both students and instructors. Such systems have been designed for use in learning and teaching activities (Chung et al., 2012). They also provide a variety of interaction methods between instructors and learners to facilitate the learning process better, You must remember well-designed LMS could also help improve student skills, such as effective online learning and self-direction (Norouzi, 2014). Students could use the system to enhance performance (perceived usefulness), and they could use such systems with little effort (perceived ease of use) (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). A majority of higher education institutions have incorporated LMS systems; they have been used in university systems by schools, faculty members, and instructors (Klobas & McGill,. 2010), Because so much of higher education has been focused on course delivery Chapter3 INSTRUCTIONAL DELIVERY SYSTEMS AND EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY i 71 in a physical classroom, the implementation of an LYS has a;ded institutons in transitioning to new online universe of curriculum de!ivery (Georgou!i, & Guerre. 2NS). Repositories, central databases, and online meeting 'oations are all characteristcs of a management system. As a concept, a 'earning management system is a broad idea and an example of technology's inabifity to be specific in terms of a definition. Several requirements a generat overview of what constitutes a leaming management system, such as those listed above Finally, end-user access is also a part of a learning management system with various levels being set up by security. For example, students have read-onty access, faculty members have read and write access, and technical staff has complete access for support and administrative duties (Graf & Chien, 2009). At its core, a learning management system contains internal or Web-based support and management for numerous aspects of learning and teaching (Hiary & Abu-Shawar, 2009). This allows access from numerous locales, usually on a 24-hour basis. When looking at a university or college, this concept begins to grow greatly depending on the organization's size and scope; department, and degree program. Leaming management systems also go by other names such as course management systems, and their use goes beyond higher education institutions to include businesses and individual instructors. Meis)ar-Tal, Kurtz, and Pieterse (2012) mentioned three primary purposes of an CMS. They include the following: 1. to provide students with digital learning materials; 2. to employ interactive learning activities with students in the forums; and 3. to manage the course and the learners. Faculty members who use an LMS to make available lecture notes and other classroom resources for their face-to-face class create a web-enhanced classroom experience. Regardless of its usage, requirements for classification as a learning management system include several key concepts like the availability of assets over networks, providing hosting, administration. and support. With the requirements set, utilization becomes the focal point. A fully utilized learning management system looks at use at the student level, faculty level, and administration level. proper utilization of learning management systems should mirror traditional higher education goals, enhancing students' experiences. For learninä management systems, this creates a central hub for a class activity. For some classes, all activities work in the learning management system, while others only use its resources for select activities.

7.018 Safe Injection Practices (Refer to 7.07 Safe Injection Policy) Environment of Care: Active participation with all identified projects to assess compliance with infection control standards. . Surveillance, Control, and Reporting includes: Baseline information about the frequency and type of nosocomial infections. Identification of patients and/or staff with communicable or potentially communicable infections. Patients identified with a communicable disease will be isolated from other patients in the facility or, if this is not possible, they will be transferred to a local hospital for care or rescheduled. Identification of clusters of microorganisms or significant deviations from endemic level. Reporting to committees and outside agencies, when required. Investigation of infections as needed. Immediate implementation of corrective and preventive measures that result in improvements. The Infection Control nurse or designated staff member will perform facility audits and report results to the QI committee and Board of Managers. EVALUATION Evaluation and improvement of the infection prevention and control activities are important steps in the Center’s efforts to control and prevent infection. Infection prevention and control practices should become a routine part of the care, treatment, or services the center provides to patients. Patients expect and deserve hygienic and safe care even if their contact with the Center does not extend beyond a single visit. Continuous review of the goals, activities, and outcomes of the Center’s initiative are therefore followed by improvement activities that are realistic in expectation and, above all, effective. Evaluation of the plan shall include but not be limited to: Evaluation of the infection prevention and control activities annually and whenever risks significantly change. The evaluation includes a review of the following: The infection prevention and control prioritized risks The infection prevention and control goals. Implementation of infection prevention and control Outcomes of infection prevention and control activities. Findings from the evaluation are communicated at least annually to the Quality Management Committee References: http://oneandonlycampaign.org/content/what-are-they-why-follow-them. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2004). Guidance for the Selection and Use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in Healthcare Settings. Retrieved January 29, 2015 from www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/bbp/sharps.html. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2003). Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Health-Care Facilities 52(RR10);1-42. Retrieved January 29, 2015 from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5210a1.htm. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2002). Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings: Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. MMWR. 51(RR-16). Retrieved January 29, 2015 from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5116a1.htm. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2008). Sharps Safety Workbook. Retrieved April 24 2014 from http://www.cdc.gov/sharpssafety/pdf/workbookcomplete.pdf. Guideline for Infection Control in Healthcare Personnnel available at: Guideline for Infection Control in Healthcare Personnel available at: http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/pdf/InfectControl98.pdf Immunization of HealthCare Personnel, guidance available at: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/spec-grps/hcw.htm Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) Bloodborne Pathogens and Needlestick Prevention Standards available at: http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/bloodbornepathogens/index.html Sax H, et al. (2007). My five moments for hand hygiene: A user-centered design approach to understand, train, monitor and report hand hygiene. For the World Health Organization. J Hosp Infect 67(1):9–21. World Health Organization (WHO). (2005). World Alliance for Patient Safety. WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care. Retrieved January 29 , 2015 from http://www.who.int/patientsafety/events/05/HH_en.pdf.

MYTH The British helped the Jews displace the native Arab population of Palestine. FACT Herbert Samuel, a British Jew who served as the first High Commissioner of Palestine, placed restrictions on Jewish immigration “in the ‘interests of the present population’ and the ‘absorptive capacity’ of the country.”1 The influx of Jewish settlers was said to force the Arab fellahin (native peasants) from their land. This was when less than a million people lived in an area that now supports more than nine million. The British limited the absorptive capacity of Palestine when, in 1921, Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill severed nearly four-fifths of Palestine—some thirty-five thousand square miles—to create a new Arab entity, Transjordan. As a consolation prize for the Hejaz and Arabia (which are both now Saudi Arabia) going to the Saud family, Churchill rewarded Sharif Hussein’s son Abdullah for his contribution to the war against Turkey by installing him as Transjordan’s emir. The British went further and placed restrictions on Jewish land purchases in what remained of Palestine. By 1949, the British had allotted 87,500 acres of the 187,500 acres of cultivable land to Arabs and only 4,250 acres to Jews. This contradicted Article 6 of the Mandate which stated that “the Administration of Palestine…shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency…close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes.”2 Ultimately, the British admitted that the argument about the country’s absorptive capacity was specious. The Peel Commission said, “The heavy immigration in the years 1933–36 would seem to show that the Jews have been able to enlarge the absorptive capacity of the country for Jews.”3 MYTH The British allowed Jews to flood Palestine while Arab immigration was tightly controlled. FACT The British response to Jewish immigration set a precedent of appeasing the Arabs, which was followed for the duration of the Mandate. The British restricted Jewish immigration while allowing Arabs to enter the country freely. Apparently, London did not feel that a flood of Arab immigrants would affect the country’s “absorptive capacity.” During World War I, the Jewish population in Palestine declined because of the war, famine, disease, and expulsion by the Turks. In 1915, approximately 83,000 Jews lived in Palestine among 590,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs. According to the 1922 census, the Jewish population was 83,000, while the Arabs numbered 643,000.4 Thus, the Arab population grew exponentially while that of the Jews stagnated. In the mid-1920s, Jewish immigration to Palestine increased primarily because of anti-Jewish economic legislation in Poland and Washington’s imposition of restrictive quotas.5 The record number of immigrants in 1935 (see table) was a response to the growing persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany. The British administration considered this number too large, however, so the Jewish Agency was informed that less than one-third of the quota it asked for would be approved in 1936.6 The British gave in further to Arab demands by announcing in the 1939 White Paper that an independent Arab state would be created within ten years and that Jewish immigration was to be limited to 75,000 for the next five years, after which it was to cease altogether. It also forbade land sales to Jews in 95% of the territory of Palestine. The Arabs, nevertheless, rejected the proposal. Jewish Immigration to Palestine7 1919 1,806 1931 4,075 1920 8,223 1932 12,533 1921 8,294 1933 37,337 1922 8,685 1934 45,267 1923 8,175 1935 66,472 1924 13,892 1936 29,595 1925 34,386 1937 10,629 1926 13,855 1938 14,675 1927 3,034 1939 31,195 1928 2,178 1940 10,643 1929 5,249 1941 4,592 1930 4,944 By contrast, throughout the Mandatory period, Arab immigration was unrestricted. In 1930, the Hope Simpson Commission, sent from London to investigate the 1929 Arab riots, said the British practice of ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan, and Syria had the effect of displacing the prospective Jewish immigrants.8 The British governor of the Sinai from 1922 to 1936 observed, “This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery.”9 The Peel Commission reported in 1937 that the “shortfall of land is…due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.”10 MYTH The British changed their policy to allow Holocaust survivors to settle in Palestine. FACT The gates of Palestine remained closed for the duration of the war, stranding hundreds of thousands of Jews in Europe, many of whom became victims of Hitler’s “Final Solution.” After the war, the British refused to allow the survivors of the Nazi nightmare to find sanctuary in Palestine. On June 6, 1946, President Truman urged the British government to relieve the suffering of the Jews confined to displaced persons camps in Europe by immediately accepting 100,000 Jewish immigrants. Britain’s foreign minister Ernest Bevin replied sarcastically that the United States wanted displaced Jews to immigrate to Palestine “because they did not want too many of them in New York.”11 Some Jews reached Palestine, many smuggled in on dilapidated ships organized by the Haganah. Between August 1945 and the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, sixty-five “illegal” immigrant ships, carrying 69,878 people, arrived from European shores. In August 1946, however, the British began to intern those they caught in camps on Cyprus. Approximately 50,000 people were detained in the camps, and 28,000 remained imprisoned when Israel declared independence.12 MYTH As the Jewish population grew, the plight of the Palestinian Arabs worsened. FACT In July 1921, Hasan Shukri, the mayor of Haifa and president of the Muslim National Associations, sent a telegram to the British government in reaction to a delegation of Palestinians that went to London to try to stop the implementation of the Balfour Declaration. Shukri wrote: We are certain that without Jewish immigration and financial assistance there will be no future development of our country as may be judged from the fact that the towns inhabited in part by Jews such as Jerusalem, Jaffa, Haifa, and Tiberias are making steady progress while Nablus, Acre, and Nazareth where no Jews reside are steadily declining.13 The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II, while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000.14 The permanent Arab population increased by 120% between 1922 and 1947.15 This rapid growth of the Arab population was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states—constituting 37% of the total immigration to pre-state Israel—by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible.16 The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945, and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.17 The Arab population increased the most in cities where large Jewish populations had created new economic opportunities. From 1922–1947, the non-Jewish population increased by 290% in Haifa, 131% in Jerusalem, and 158% in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42% in Nablus, 78% in Jenin, and 37% in Bethlehem.18 MYTH Jews stole Arab land. FACT Despite the growth in their population, the Arabs continued to assert they were being displaced. From the beginning of World War I, however, part of Palestine’s land was owned by absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus, and Beirut. About 80% of the Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads, and Bedouins.19 Jews went out of their way to avoid purchasing land in areas where Arabs might be displaced. They sought land that was largely uncultivated, swampy, cheap, and—most important—without tenants. In 1920, Labor Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as “the most important asset of the native population.” He insisted that “under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them.” Instead, he advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors. “Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement,” Ben-Gurion added, “should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price.”20 Jews only began to purchase cultivated land after buying all the uncultivated territory. Many Arabs were willing to sell because of the migration to coastal towns and because they needed money to invest in the citrus industry.21 When John Hope Simpson arrived in Palestine in May 1930, he observed, “They [the Jews] paid high prices for the land and, in addition, they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay.”22 In 1931, Lewis French conducted a survey of landlessness for the British government and offered new plots to any Arabs who had been “dispossessed.” British officials received more than 3,000 applications, of which 80% were ruled invalid by the government’s legal adviser because the applicants were not landless Arabs. This left only about 600 landless Arabs, 100 of whom accepted the government land offer.23 In April 1936, a new outbreak of Arab attacks on Jews was instigated by local Palestinian leaders who were later joined by Arab volunteers led by a Syrian guerrilla named Fawzi al-Qawuqji, the commander of the Arab Liberation Army. By November, when the British finally sent a new commission headed by Lord Peel to investigate, 89 Jews had been killed and more than 300 wounded.24 The Peel Commission’s report found that Arab complaints about Jewish land acquisition were baseless. It pointed out that “much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased…There was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land.”25 Moreover, the Commission found the shortage was “due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.” The report concluded that the presence of Jews in Palestine, along with the work of the British administration, had resulted in higher wages, an improved standard of living, and ample employment opportunities.26 It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping (emphasis in the original). —Transjordan’s king Abdullah27 Even at the height of the Arab revolt in 1938 (which began in April 1936 with the murder of two Jews by Arabs and the subsequent murder of two Arab workers by members of the Jewish underground28), the British high commissioner to Palestine believed the Arab landowners were complaining about sales to Jews to drive up prices for lands they wished to sell. Many Arab landowners had been so terrorized by Arab rebels they decided to leave Palestine and sell their property to the Jews.29 The Jews paid exorbitant prices to wealthy landowners for small tracts of arid land. “In 1944, Jews paid between $1,000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semiarid land; in the same year, rich black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre.”30 By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to about 463,000 acres. Approximately 45,000 were acquired from the mandatory government, 30,000 were bought from various churches, and 387,500 were purchased from Arabs. Analyses of land purchases from 1880 to 1948 show that 73% of Jewish plots were purchased from large landowners, not poor fellahin.31 Many leaders of the Arab nationalist movement, including members of the Muslim Supreme Council, and the mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem, and s sold land to the Jews. As’ad el-Shuqeiri, a Muslim religious scholar and father of Palestine Liberation Organization chairman Ahmed Shuqeiri, took Jewish money for his land. Even King Abdullah leased land to the Jews.32 MYTH The British helped the Palestinians to live peacefully with the Jews. FACT In 1921, Haj Amin el-Husseini first began to organize fedayeen (“one who sacrifices himself”) to terrorize Jews. El-Husseini hoped to duplicate the success of Kemal Atatürk in Turkey by driving the Jews out of Palestine just as Kemal had driven the invading Greeks from his country.33 Arab radicals gained influence because the British administration was unwilling to take effective action against them until they began a revolt against British rule. Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, former head of British military intelligence in Cairo, and later chief political officer for Palestine and Syria, wrote in his diary that British officials “incline towards the exclusion of Zionism in Palestine.” The British encouraged the Palestinians to attack the Jews. According to Meinertzhagen, Col. Bertie Harry Waters-Taylor (financial adviser to the military administration in Palestine 1919–23) met with el-Husseini in 1920, a few days before Easter, and told him that “he had a great opportunity at Easter to show the world…that Zionism was unpopular not only with the Palestine administration but in Whitehall.” He added that “if disturbances of sufficient violence occurred in Jerusalem at Easter, both General [Louis] Bols [chief administrator in Palestine, 1919–20] and General [Edmund] Allenby [commander of the Egyptian force, 1917–19, then high commissioner of Egypt] would advocate the abandonment of the Jewish Home. Waters-Taylor explained that freedom could only be attained through violence.”34 El-Husseini took the colonel’s advice and instigated a riot. The British withdrew their troops and the Jewish police from Jerusalem, allowing the Arab mob to attack Jews and loot their shops. Because of el-Husseini’s overt role in instigating the pogrom, the British decided to arrest him. He escaped, however, and was sentenced to ten years in absentia. A year later, some British Arabists convinced High Commissioner Herbert Samuel to pardon el-Husseini and to appoint him Mufti (a cleric in charge of Jerusalem’s Islamic holy places). By contrast, Vladimir Jabotinsky and several followers, who had formed a Jewish defense organization during the unrest, were sentenced to 15 years. They were released a few months later.35 Samuel met with el-Husseini on April 11, 1921, and was assured “that the influences of his family and himself would be devoted to tranquility.” Three weeks later, riots in Jaffa and elsewhere left forty-three Jews dead.36 El-Husseini consolidated his power and took control of all Muslim religious funds in Palestine. He used his authority to gain control over the mosques, the schools, and the courts. No Arab could reach an influential position without being loyal to the Mufti. His power was so absolute that “no Muslim in Palestine could be born or die without being beholden to Haj Amin.”37 The Mufti’s henchmen also ensured he would have no opposition by systematically killing Palestinians who discussed cooperation with the Jews from rival clans. As the spokesman for Palestinian Arabs, el-Husseini did not ask that Britain grant them independence. On the contrary, in a letter to Churchill in 1921, he demanded that Palestine be reunited with Syria and Transjordan.38 The Arabs found rioting an effective political tool because of the lax British response toward violence against Jews. In handling each riot, the British prevented Jews from protecting themselves but made little effort to prevent the Arabs from attacking them. After each outbreak, a British commission of inquiry would try to establish the cause of the violence. The conclusion was always the same: The Arabs feared being displaced by the Jews. To stop the rioting, the commissions would recommend that restrictions be placed on Jewish immigration. Thus, the Arabs learned they could always stop the influx of Jews by staging riots. This cycle began after a series of riots in May 1921. After failing to protect the Jewish community from Arab mobs, the British appointed the Haycraft Commission to investigate the cause of the violence. Although the panel concluded the Arabs had been the aggressors, it rationalized the cause of the attack: “The fundamental cause of the riots was a feeling among the Arabs of discontent with, and hostility to, the Jews, due to political and economic causes, and connected with Jewish immigration, and with their conception of Zionist policy.”39 One consequence of the violence was the institution of a temporary ban on Jewish immigration. The Arab fear of being “displaced” or “dominated” was an excuse for their attacks on Jewish settlers. Note, too, that these riots were not inspired by nationalistic fervor—nationalists would have rebelled against their British overlords—they were motivated by economics, the radical Islamic views of the Mufti, and misunderstanding. In 1929, Arab provocateurs convinced the masses that the Jews had designs on the Temple Mount (a tactic still used today to incite violence). A Jewish religious observance at the Western Wall, which forms a part of the Temple Mount, served as a pretext for rioting by Arabs against Jews, which spilled out of Jerusalem into other villages and towns, including Safed and Hebron. Again, the British administration made no effort to prevent the violence, and, after it began, the British did nothing to protect the Jewish population. After six days of mayhem, the British finally brought troops in to quell the disturbance. By this time, most of Hebron’s Jews had fled or been killed. In all, 133 Jews were killed and 399 wounded in the pogroms.40 After the riots, the British ordered an investigation, resulting in the Passfield White Paper. It said the “immigration, land purchase and settlement policies of the Zionist Organization were already or were likely to become, prejudicial to Arab interests. It understood the mandatory government’s obligation to the non-Jewish community to mean that Palestine’s resources must be primarily reserved for the growing Arab economy.”41 This meant it was necessary to restrict Jewish immigration and land purchases. MYTH The Mufti was not a Nazi collaborator. FACT In 1941, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, fled to Germany and met with Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Joachim Von Ribbentrop, and other Nazi leaders. He wanted to persuade them to extend the Nazis’ anti-Jewish program to the Arab world. The Mufti sent Hitler fifteen drafts of declarations he wanted Germany and Italy to make concerning the Middle East. One called on the two countries to declare the illegality of the Jewish home in Palestine. He also asked the Axis powers to “accord to Palestine and to other Arab countries the right to solve the problem of the Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the interest of the Arabs, and by the same method that the question is now being settled in the Axis countries.”42 In November 1941, the Mufti met with Hitler, who told him the Jews were his foremost enemy. The Nazi dictator rebuffed the Mufti’s requests for a declaration in support of the Arabs, however, telling him the time was not right. The Mufti offered Hitler his “thanks for the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches.” He added, “The Arabs were Germany’s natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely…the Jews.” Hitler told the Mufti he opposed the creation of a Jewish state and that Germany’s objective was destroying the Jewish element in the Arab sphere.43 In 1945, Yugoslavia sought to indict the Mufti as a war criminal for his role in recruiting twenty thousand Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated in the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary. He escaped French detention in 1946, however, and continued his fight against the Jews from Cairo and later Beirut where he died in 1974. MYTH The bombing of the King David Hotel was part of a deliberate terror campaign against civilians. FACT British troops seized the Jewish Agency compound on June 29, 1946, and confiscated large quantities of documents. At about the same time, more than 2,500 Jews from all over Palestine were arrested. A week later, news of a massacre of 40 Jews in a pogrom in Poland reminded the Jews of Palestine how Britain’s restrictive immigration policy had condemned thousands to death. In response to the British provocations, and a desire to demonstrate that the Jews’ spirit could not be broken, the United Resistance Movement planned to bomb the King David Hotel, which housed the British military command and the Criminal Investigation Division in addition to hotel guests. The Haganah pulled out of the plot and left it up to the Irgun. Irgun leader Menachem Begin stressed his desire to avoid civilian casualties and the plan was to warn the British so they would evacuate the building before it was blown up. Three telephone calls were placed on July 22, 1946, one to the hotel, another to the French Consulate, and a third to the Palestine Post warning that explosives in the King David Hotel would soon be detonated. The call to the hotel was received and ignored. Begin quotes one British official who supposedly refused to evacuate the building, saying, “We don’t take orders from the Jews.”44 As a result, when the bombs exploded, the casualty toll was high: 91 killed and 45 injured. Among the casualties were 15 Jews. Few people in the main part of the hotel were injured.45 For decades, the British denied they had been warned. In 1979, however, a member of the British Parliament provided the testimony of a British officer who heard other officers in the King David Hotel bar joking about a Zionist threat to the headquarters. The officer who overheard the conversation immediately left the hotel and survived.46 In contrast to Arab attacks against Jews, which Arab leaders hailed as heroic actions, the Jewish National Council denounced the bombing of the King David.47 1 Aharon Cohen, Israel and the Arab World, (NY: Funk and Wagnalls, 1970), p. 172

AA-SC.8. N.1.2 (H) – Design and conduct a study using repeated trials and replication.

TPE 3: Understanding and Organizing Subject Matter for Student Learning Elements: Mild to Moderate Support Candidates will: U3.1 Demonstrate knowledge of subject matter, including the adopted California State Standards and curriculum frameworks. U3.2 Use knowledge about students and learning goals to organize the curriculum to facilitate student understanding of subject matter and make accommodations and/or modifications as needed to promote student access to the curriculum. U3.3 Plan, design, implement, and monitor instruction consistent with current subjectspecific pedagogy in the content area(s) of instruction, and design and implement disciplinary and cross-disciplinary learning sequences, including integrating the visual and performing arts as applicable to the discipline.1 U3.4 Individually and through consultation and collaboration with other educators and members of the larger school community, plan for effective subject matter instruction and use multiple means of representing, expressing, and engaging students to demonstrate their knowledge. U3.5 Adapt subject matter curriculum, organization, and planning to support the acquisition and use of academic language within learning activities to promote the subject matter knowledge of all students, including the full range of English learners, Standard English learners, students with disabilities, and students with other learning needs in the least restrictive environment. U3.6 Use and adapt resources, standards-aligned instructional materials, and a range of technology, including assistive technology, to facilitate students' equitable access to the curriculum. U3.7 Model and develop digital literacy by using technology to engage students and support their learning, and promote digital citizenship, including respecting copyright law, understanding fair use guidelines and the use of Creative Commons license, and maintaining Internet security. U.3.8 Demonstrate knowledge of effective teaching strategies aligned with the internationally recognized educational technology standards. MM3.1 Effectively adapt, modify, accommodate, and/or differentiate the instruction of students with identified disabilities in order to facilitate access to the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). MM3.2 Demonstrate knowledge of disabilities and their effects on learning, skills development, social-emotional development, mental health, and behavior, and how to access and use related services and additional supports to organize and support effective instruction. MM3.3 Demonstrate knowledge of atypical development associated with various disabilities and risk conditions (e.g. orthopedic impairment, autism spectrum disorders, cerebral palsy), as well as resilience and protective factors (e.g. attachment, temperament), and their implications for learning.

Early society and accomplishments Origins Knowledge of the early prehistory of Southeast Asia has undergone exceptionally rapid change as a result of archaeological discoveries made since the 1960s, although the interpretation of these findings has remained the subject of extensive debate. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the region has been inhabited from the earliest times. Hominid fossil remains date from approximately 1,500,000 years ago and those of Homo sapiens from approximately 40,000 years ago. Furthermore, until about 7000 bce the seas were some 150 feet (50 metres) lower than they are now, and the area west of Makassar Strait consisted of a web of watered plains that sometimes is called Sundaland. These land connections perhaps account for the coherence of early human development observed in the Hoabinhian culture, which lasted from about 13,000 to 5000 or 4000 bce. The stone tools used by hunting and gathering societies across Southeast Asia during this period show a remarkable degree of similarity in design and development. When the sea level rose to approximately its present level about 6000 bce, conditions were created for a more variegated environment and, therefore, for more extensive differentiation in human development. While migration from outside the region may have taken place, it did not do so in a massive or clearly punctuated fashion; local evolutionary processes and the circulation of peoples were far more powerful forces in shaping the region’s cultural landscape. Technological developments and population expansion Perhaps because of a particular combination of geophysical and climatic factors, early Southeast Asia did not develop uniformly in the direction of increasingly complex societies. Not only have significant hunting and gathering populations continued to exist into the 21st century, but the familiar cultural sequences triggered by such events as the discovery of agriculture or metallurgy do not seem to apply. This is not to say that the technological capabilities of early Southeast Asian peoples were negligible, for sophisticated metalworking (bronze) and agriculture (rice) were being practiced by the end of the 3rd millennium bce in northeastern Thailand and northern Vietnam, and sailing vessels of advanced design and sophisticated navigational skills were spread over a wider area by the same time or earlier. Significantly, these technologies do not appear to have been borrowed from elsewhere but were indigenous and distinctive in character. Austronesian languages Austronesian languagesMajor divisions of the Austronesian languages. These technological changes may partially account for two crucial developments in Southeast Asia’s later prehistory. The first is the extraordinary seaborne expansion of speakers of Proto-Austronesian languages and their descendants, speakers of Austronesian (or Malayo-Polynesian) languages, which occurred over a period of 5,000 years or more and came to encompass a vast area and to stretch nearly half the circumference of Earth at the Equator. This outward movement of people and culture was evolutionary rather than revolutionary, the result of societal preference for small groups and a tendency of groups to hive off once a certain population size had been reached. It began as early as 4000 bce, when Taiwan was populated from the Asian mainland, and subsequently it continued southward through the northern Philippines (3rd millennium bce), central Indonesia (2nd millennium bce), and western and eastern Indonesia (2nd and 1st millennia bce). From approximately 1000 bce on the expansion continued both eastward into the Pacific, where that immense region was populated in a process continuing to about 1000 ce as voyagers reached the Hawaiian Islands and New Zealand, and westward, where Malay peoples reached and settled the island of Madagascar sometime between 500 and 700 ce, bringing with them (among other things) bananas, which are native to Southeast Asia. Thus, for a considerable period of time, the Southeast Asian region contributed to world cultural history, rather than merely accepting outside influences, as frequently has been suggested. The second development, which began possibly as early as 1000 bce, centred on the production of fine bronze and the fashioning of bronze-and-iron objects, particularly as they have been found at the site in northern Vietnam known as Dong Son. The earliest objects consisted of socketed plowshares and axes, shaft-hole sickles, spearheads, and such small items as fishhooks and personal ornaments. By about 500 bce the Dong Son culture had begun producing the bronze drums for which it is known. The drums are large objects (some weigh more than 150 pounds [70 kg]), and they were produced by the difficult lost-wax casting process and decorated with fine geometric shapes and depictions of animals and humans. This metal industry was not derived from similar industries in China or India. Rather, the Dong Son period offers one of the most powerful—though not necessarily the only or earliest—examples of Southeast Asian societies transforming themselves into more densely populated, hierarchical, and centralized communities. Since typical drums, either originals or local renditions, have been found throughout Southeast Asia and since they are associated with a rich trade in exotics and other goods, the Dong Son culture also suggests that the region as a whole consisted not of isolated, primitive niches of human settlement but of a variety of societies and cultures tied together by broad and long-extant trading patterns. Although none of these societies possessed writing, some displayed considerable sophistication and technological skill, and, although none appears to have constituted a territorial centralized state, new and more complex polities were forming.

Related quizzes

Related quizzes