serving size one capsule是什么意思_百度知道
serving size one capsule是什么意思
serving size one capsule供应一号胶囊双语对照例句:1.One size does not fit all. “一刀切”并不是好的方法。 2.First, there is no one size fits all model for agriculture. 首先，没有一个放之四海而皆准的农业模式。 3.Good. One size definitely does not fit all for students or the future. 这就挺不错，教学生怎么可以用一种方法？对于未来也是如此。
其他类似问题
为您推荐：
serving size one capsule答案：服务胶囊
capsule的相关知识
等待您来回答
下载知道APP
随时随地咨询
出门在外也不愁通用的；一体适用的
a one-size-fits-all monetary policy
一刀切的货币政策
The point is, dream jobs are note a one - size - fits - all kind of deal.
关键的一点是要清楚理想的任务并否则“一刀切”的买卖.
With many treatment options available, there is on one - size - fits - all solution.
因为有许多处理技术可供选择, 那就不需要会方位的解决方法了.
It emits one-quarter of all global greenhouse gas emissions.
It will be shown on BBC One this autumn.
There is one problem with this approach, though.
明白一体适用(One-size-fits-all)不是最完美的解决方案后，采用现场可编程解决方案成为趋势。使用基于快闪技术的单晶片现场可编程 …
- 基于103个网页
单一尺寸（ONE SIZE FITS ALL）：26.7~43.0cm，10.5~17&部位常见症状跳跃膝 Jumper's knee
测量方式在膝关节完全伸直下测量 …
- 基于28个网页
传统的超媒体系统中采用一成不变(one-size-fits-all)的方法提供静态超媒体文档,要求超媒体文档的作者为不同用户撰写不同文档,以适应
- 基于18个网页
one size fits all
均码 如果您的意思是，找出一套「均码」（one size fits all）的设定，可以适用于各种场景，那麽这套设定必然是高度妥协的结果。目前有 …
- 基于311个网页
一刀切 英国公务员发工资看“薪水地图”... ... wage war on: 向……开战 one size fits all: 一刀切，万全之策 mandarin: 这里指同事，同僚.
- 基于162个网页
{/literal}热门比价：
J World New York Lux Backpack, Sky Blue, One Size
收录商城：
历史最低价：￥0.00
开始收录该产品
历史价格走势 -
J World New York Lux Backpack, Sky Blue, One Size
商品参数 -
J World New York Lux Backpack, Sky Blue, One Size
商品介绍 -
J World New York Lux Backpack, Sky Blue, One Size
最高返2.1%
400-810-5666
同类商品推荐
亚马逊 ￥22 & 148条评论亚马逊 ￥86 & 776条评论亚马逊 ￥445 & 31条评论亚马逊 ￥39 & 54条评论亚马逊 ￥35 & 82条评论亚马逊 ￥1510 & 93条评论
淘宝天猫报价
J World New York Lux Backpack, Sky Blue, One Size相似商品
返利咨询：
技术咨询：
商务广告：
商务合作：One Size Fits Most&|&Michael J. Petrilli
More in Politics
You Might Also Like
More in Business
You Might Also Like
More in College
You Might Also Like
More in Teen
You Might Also Like
More in Impact
You Might Also Like
More in Parents
You Might Also Like
More in Healthy Living
You Might Also Like
More in Tech
You Might Also Like
More in Media
You Might Also Like
Entertainment
Life & Style
Tech & Science
Our Mobile Apps:
Previous Story
Next Story
Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Hot on the Blog
One Size Fits Most
If you step back from day-to-day
that characterizes the current education policy "debate" and glimpse the larger picture, two worldviews on education reform emerge. One, articulated by the likes of Linda Darling-Hammond, Marc Tucker, David Cohen and others, obsesses about curricular "coherence" and the lack thereof in our nation's schools. The other, envisioned by Rick Hess, Tom Vander Ark, Paul Hill and many more, seeks to unleash America's trademark dynamism inside our K-12 education system. Though these ideas appear to pull in opposite directions, they might best work in concert.Let's start with the Coherence Camp. Its argument, most recently made in David Cohen's "," is that America's teachers are being set up to fail by a system that is fragmented, divided and confused about its mission. Teachers are given little clear guidance about what's expected of them: Even when goals are clear, they lack the tools to succeed, pre-service training is completely disconnected from classroom expectations, and never-ending "reform" pulls up the roots of promising efforts before they are given time to flower.
The Coherence Camp looks longingly at Europe and Asia, where many (national) systems offer teachers the opportunity to work as professionals in environments of trust, clarity and common purpose (Japan-envy yesterday, Finland-envy today?). The members of this camp praise national standards, a national (or at least statewide) curriculum that gathers the best thinking about how to reach the standards and shares it with the teaching corps, authentic assessments that provide diagnostic information, and professional development (pre-service and in-service) that is seamlessly woven into all the rest. These countries can (and do) pour over their latest PISA results, identify areas for improvement and get their educators to row in unison toward stronger performance. And their scores go up and up and up.As bright as that vision may be, however, it carries with it many dark clouds. First is the temptation to lead by decree, in a very top-down, highly-bureaucratized manner that squelches the initiative of frontline educators. The best systems in the world, , find a way to combine common standards with lots of local autonomy, but striking that balance is no easy feat. A more fundamental concern is that it assumes getting all of a nation's teachers -- and parents -- to buy into one notion of what it means to be well-educated. Asking people with diverse views to coalesce around one educational model is a little bit like asking all citizens to choose a single religion. One's views on schools are closely related to larger values: what it means to live the "good life," the degree to which children should be raised to pursue their own individual aspirations versus contribute to a larger community, whether learning "right from wrong" takes precedence over learning to "value diversity," and on and on. To restate the cliché, "one size fits all" is a recipe for frustration, if not social and political warfare, at least in a heterogeneous country like ours. Dynamism Devotees, on the other hand, look at America's private sector (and especially Silicon Valley) with envy. They envision an education marketplace full of can-do problem-solvers, myriad options for parents, and lots of customization for kids. They don't even want a "system" per se but a raucous "sector" that welcomes new entrepreneurs and washes away legacy operators if they don't keep up with the times. To them, the American higher education sector looks like a much stronger alternative to our K-12 system, what with its rise of new competitors (many of them online), flexible, student-centered funding, and responsiveness to consumer demand. So you hear Dynamism Devotees chanting the "every school a charter school" mantra, and preaching the exciting potential of customized digital learning, the rise of upstart providers of teacher training and the imperative of "backpack" funding for schools. But for all the excitement, this vision has major holes, too. For one, with our system already fragmented into 14,000 districts, won't the "every school a charter school" idea just lead to even less coordination and fewer benefits of scale? Yes, charter "networks" might rise up to connect schools with one another and provide essential services, but will they spread to every nook and cranny of our country? If NCLB's free tutoring initiative was any lesson, we can expect the vast majority of communities to remain unserved. Would we get a "dynamic marketplace" in the exurbs, small towns and rural locales, or just even less support for those schools than they get now?Furthermore, why should we have any confidence that the result of all of this "creative destruction" will be a citizenry with essential democratic skills, knowledge and habits? The marketplace model in higher education has, along with its benefits, also led lots of people to get narrow, skill-focused degrees rather than seek a broad, liberal education. Can we afford a K-12 system that does the same? With taxpayers footing the bill, don't they have a right to ask kids to learn certain essential somethings?So what to do? The Coherence Camp can plausibly argue that its path is the surer route to higher student achievement and more consistent classroom practice, but it risks alienating thousands of teachers who feel hamstrung by a curriculum they don't like, and millions of parents who want something different for their kids. It also feeds a stultifying monopoly and tends to empower those interest groups that know how to bend the monopoly to their will. Dynamism Devotees are better suited to meet parental demands and to empower autonomy-seeking educators, but they can't promise that their "unbundling" of the system won't lead to lots of poorly served schools (and kids).Thankfully, the two vis the resulting approach might be labeled One Size Fits Most. For the majority of American schools, we follow the Coherence Camp's cues. We build national standards (à la Common Core), we develop a handful of national curricula, we connect pre-service and in-service training to the standards, and we tie accountability for schools, teachers and students to them, too. We continue to minimize the role of the 14,000 school boards (if not eliminate them outright) by empowering states to take an ever-larger role in all aspects of educational improvement. And through these mechanisms, we make the "default" option in American public education -- the "typical" public school -- much better than it is today.At the same time, we make it easy for educators and parents to opt out of this One Best System. We grow the charter and digital sectors aggressively and remove the barriers that are keeping them from achieving their full, dynamic potential. And we even consider going back to the original charter concept -- allowing schools to negotiate their own unique performance expectations with their authorizers, rather than being held accountable to the One Best System's standards. More specifically, we allow charters and digital providers (or at least some subset) to opt out of the Common Core framework entirely, and to proffer their own evidence of educational achievement.This is a classic call for "both, and" rather than "either, or." Done right, it could accelerate the benefits of both the Coherence and Dynamism approaches, while mitigating their weaknesses. And it could allow an escape valve for some of the overheated debates in which we're stuck. Don't like the Common Core? Opt out. Don't think our schools should be driven by market forces? Opt in. How about we give this option a try?
Follow Michael J. Petrilli on Twitter:
FOLLOW HUFFPOST
Email Address
The Morning Email
Get top stories and blog posts emailed to me each day. Newsletters may offer personalized content or advertisements.
Google Plus
Notify message
* Required
* What kind of error is this?
Choose an option
Factual or typographical
Comment moderation problem
Rights and permissions
* What is the correction?
Describe the error here (1,000 character limit)
* Type the words below so we know you are not a cyborg
Sign me up for The Morning Email
Thanks for your report!的海词问答和网友补充：
相关词典网站：}