Well, to give you some inspiration for what to write I can give you reasons I would think you’d want to continue going 2-3 days.
The reasons why 2-3 days is better is because it is more efficient. It alleviates the stress of a 5 day school week, with loads of homework. With 2-3 days you can take more time to narrow your focus, learn and absorb the information taught and you’re able to get your homework done without as much stress, because you have more time to do so. Hope this helps!
Here's how I see it. For a long time throughout many generations, women and kids didn't have rights. It was always the man of the house who brought home the bacon and controlled the house. Slowly but surely women started to get rights (like voting, being able to do more jobs and generally more things, and even though there is still a wage gap they got payed more over time), but kids didn't start having a voice until, let's say, until 3 generations ago. With advances in technology, kids started to have more of a voice and more of a role in general. A long time ago kids were factory workers as well, which is kinda out of place to put here but I just remembered so the more you know I guess. Anyways, kids started getting more educated, getting more legal rights, and with technology, much more of a voice. Kids are on social media now, child actors (like Millie Bobby Brown) are fighting for women's rights and are helping to fund charities. Kids can create youtube channels, they can create Instagram accounts, they can do anything with technological advancements today. Kids can do basically anything adults can. My mom, who is a baby boomer, talked about the fact that when she was a kid, kids were to be seen, not to be heard. Kids weren't really acknowledged by adults and were often disregarded as idiots until they became legal adults, but now a 13 year-old could have an intellectual conversation about politics with a 50 year old. So, to answer your question, yes, the role of a child has been one of the greatest shifts over time. The way it effects families can be for the better or for worse. I think it's mostly for the better. Kids can speak out now, they can learn more and do more. They have the ability to become an adults as a child, if that makes any sense. Kids are evolving now and will be for forever. I think that because kids have a voice now more than ever, it's a good thing. Kids should be smart and should be heard, and the fact that some kids are able to invent things or challenge adults to trying new things or having intellectual conversations is amazing!!! I hope this helped, sorry that this question is 2 weeks old, brainy just suggested it to me. Good luck with school!
Answer:
The ability to be extra.
Explanation:
When people act extra for no reason.
The purpose of the letter is to send and idea, thought, or share story with another individual
Answer:
Poets are word athletes, and the poems they make are word performances. Good poems are not static but dynamic—they dramatize the motions of life. For instance, we admire a “good move” in a game or in a poem. Larry Bird suddenly fakes out a defender, leaps in the air and lifts the ball off his fingertips toward the basket — swish. And a poem, near its end, suddenly “turns” and concludes with a powerful flourish. We appreciate both poet and athlete because we have witnessed a moment of grace.
Because poetry is so gestural arid physical, it is difficult to analyze. We can like or dislike a poem long before we “understand” it; this is because our response is only partly a matter of conscious thought. The great poet/scholar A.E. Housman illustrated this truth when he wrote:
Watch children listening to nursery rimes. They don’t listen passively; they listen physically as the lines are chanted. They respond not merely with their minds but with their bodies, and that is exactly the response these body poems are intended to elicit.
A poem is nothing if not physical. Stanley Burnshaw in his book The Seamless Web writes:
But words are also biology. Except for a handful of poets and scholars, nobody has taken time to consider the feeling of verbal sounds in the physical organism. Even today—despite all the public reciting of verse, the recordings, the classroom markings of prosody—the muscular sensation of words is virtually ignored by all but poets who know how much the body is engaged by a poem. (206)
“Poetry in motion” is a cliche often used to describe an athlete performing. The phrase aptly illustrates the fact that sports or any kind of graceful movement can be appropriate subject matter for poetry. In other words, sports have a built-in fluidity and encantatory quality that we naturally associate with poetry, and vice versa. (When I use the word “sports” in “sports poems,” I include, along with the usual definition of “games with rules,” the looser senses such as “an active pastime or recreation” and “to play and frolic.” If a poem works on the basis of some physical action—if that is what it is “about”—then it qualifies as a sports or body poem.)
The mature athlete in motion, like a good poem in motion, is (another cliche) a thing of beauty. We appreciate the lively precision of a dive by Greg Louganis or a vault by Mary Lou Retton. The performance becomes memorable in the same way that a poem’s lines stay with us long after we have heard them read or have read them ourselves. Seeing a perfect dive or vault over and over on instant replay is equivalent to repeating aloud the lines of a great poem.
