5/6/2023 0 Comments Common sense media beholder 2![]() but that's not just because it was original D&D IP it's because it's one of the few monsters WotC considered particularly iconic and wanted to reserve for their own use. Now, the beholder was one of the few monsters in the third-edition Monster Manual that wasn't released as open content. in fact, the first-edition Monster Manual was probably the monster book with the lowest proportion of original monsters.) D&D has a lot of original monsters the beholder is far from alone in this regard. ![]() (I'd say the first-edition Fiend Folio has more original monsters than mythological ones. (Well, mostly the name comes from a story by Lord Dunsany, but he didn't describe it it was D&D that made gnolls into the hyena men we know today.) And, like I said, that's just in the first Monster Manual later books added a lot more. Heck, even the gnoll, though it's been copied by plenty of other games, was a D&D original. Just in the original 1E Monster Manual, there's the ankheg, the blink dog, the carrion crawler, the eye of the deep (though that's a beholder relative), the gelatinous cube, the intellect devourer, the ixitxachitl, the morkoth, the otyugh, the quasit, the remorhaz, the roper, the sahuagin, the shambling mound, the umber hulk, the xorn. D&D has a lot more original creatures than you're giving it credit for. And any school located in a chaotic neighborhood must put a lot of effort into custodial care, regardless of whether it is public or private.That's not true at all. Such schools, responsible for educating many students who enter kindergarten without knowledge of even the alphabet, need to focus on very basic skills. The book dwells on a second point that also can hardly be gainsaid: private and public elementary schools serving disadvantaged children resemble one another in many respects. Likewise, charter schools, even if they are privately run, are not likely to be very good if they continue to receive less funding than traditional public schools if they are started with sweat equity by people who hold mystical beliefs about organizational performance and if they are run in an atmosphere of official hostility from the public school establishment. Good private schools will not emerge, even in the theoretical long run, if there is no serious investment in them if the rules for funding them and allowing students to choose them change constantly and if bad ones are not eliminated by competition. Although Benveniste, Carnoy, and Rothstein provided little information on how the schools were chosen or how data were collected and analyzed, it is clear that they looked at school organization, the learning climate, teaching methods, and relationships with parents.ĭespite these limitations, the authors' point that privatization does not guarantee success, even if generally acknowledged, is worth underscoring. ![]() ![]() Their small sample of schools was further stretched so as to compare private versus public sponsorship, elementary versus middle schools (the sample included no high schools), and higher-versus lower-income student populations. The authors reached this conclusion after interviewing principals, teachers, and parents in 16 California public and private schools, spending extra time in 8 of the schools. Being a school of choice, and therefore subject to competition and market forces, is not enough. RoutledgeFalmer, 2002, $19.95 224 pages.Īll Else Equal's central claim is that privately run schools are not always good, a truth with which even the most fervent advocates of school choice would agree. All Else Equal: Are Public and Private Schools Different?īy Luis Benveniste, Martin Carnoy, and Richard Rothstein ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |