Sentences with phrase «teaching up means»

Teaching up means monitoring student growth so that when students fall behind, misunderstand, or move beyond expectations, teachers are primed to take appropriate instructional action.

Not exact matches

Helping employees at the base to keep moving upward means teaching them how to pull one another up.

Start - Up Chile was meant to teach Santiago a lesson as well: how to think entrepreneurially.

Founder Jenn Choi recently wrote in the Atlantic about her struggle to teach her own children the sense of gratitude she picked up naturally growing up in a household of modest means.

So does that mean that I can whoop it up in this life on earth but repent in my spirit life because I was «taught» by the spirits of the righteous and then all will be okee dokey???? Sweet!

so glad YOU know what god means... why don't you enlighten the rest of us becuase the bible is full of contradictions... I am going to come here everyday now to see if you can fill me in... but unless you can clear it up for me post haste, I am going to continue to view belief in god as silly and childish which it is and that is how I teach it... I don't say «all of you listen: god doesn't exist.»

I taught middle school art and I was written up in my permanent record because a nasty little boy took a postage size stamp picture containing a nude by a famous artist (2 dots represented the breasts so it was not graphic by any means) and added nasty things to it.

That concept is not easy to teach or warm one's hands over without considerable effort, but it is not impossible to convey even to young children the sense that the real meaning of Christmas lies precisely in the combination of magical ceremonies and the grown - up message that in the very midst of our human selfishness, the waylaying love of God has broken through to us unconditionally.

He came in with the model of Shepherding which meant that pastors and altar ministers where to ensure members of the congregation where catered for, protected, led, taught, etc, to ensure they abided and also grew up to become sherpherds themselves.

Orthodoxy is being able not only to repeat the same teachings but also to show their relevance to the new context.2 Other individuals, on the other hand, interpret religious beliefs as merely expressions of the human community's search for some kind of meaning, an accumulated source of information built up over the years as the community reflected on its life and activities.

Jeremy Myers, i think you are wrong and David is right, so many out there are preaching you can live any way you want and be right that Grace covers any sin, they really believe that, that is not what the bible says, God was very concerned about sin so much he sent Jesus his son to die on a cross for us, if we accept Jesus as our savor then we are to obey his commandments, not break them, we are to live a righteous and holy life as possible, the bible plainly list a whole list of things if we live in will not to to heaven unless we repent, if we die while in these sins, we will not go to heaven, what is the difference, between someone who said a prayer and someone who did not, and they are living the same way, none, i think, if we are truly saved it should be hard to do these things let alone live and do them everyday, i would be afraid to tell people that it does not matte grace covers their sins, i really think it is the slip ups that we are convicted of by the Holy Spirit and we ask for forgivness, how can anyones heart be right with God and they have sex all the time out of marriage, lie, break every commandment of God, i don't think this is meaning grace covers those sins, until they repent and ask for forgiveness, a lot of people will end up in hell because preachers teach Grace the wrong way,, and those preachers will answer to God for leading these people the wrong way, not saying you are one of them, but be careful, everything we teach or preach must line up with the word of God, God hates sin,

Would they say you teach them more about what it means to live with purpose and love well, or would they say you get easily caught up in petty and unimportant matters?

Their move to a Catholic church was taken as meaning only one thing: that despite the lip - service being paid by the diocese to the teaching that «non-celibate gay people should not be given Communion», the diocese of Westminster was in fact giving its tacit approval and support to a situation in which that was precisely what was happening, in a setting in which the Pope and the teaching of the Church were regarded with hostility and held up to contempt.

Being subjected to the teachings of the church in a western society means that believers end up being subjected to an oppossing view.

Therefore, Pope Francis teaches that the «Sacraments are a privileged way in which nature is taken up by God to become a means of mediating supernatural life» (235).

I simply mean that following the teachings of all the religious leaders do not end up being the same thing do not lead to the same implications for life on the planet in the years to come.

If someone teaches that only those who have both faith and good works will end up in heaven, this means that they see good works as a condition for entering into heaven and final glorification.

Up to now, spouses who really sought to live their conjugal relationship as God wished, to sanctify themselves in and through their marriage, received little orientation from the teaching of the Church, aside from the idea that a certain abstinence is a recommendable means not just of family planning but of positive growth in married sanctity.

I guess my meaning was that where they may BEGIN in sound Biblical teaching, we humans tend to take our personal view point, wrap it up in a blanket statement, and then find people who think the same and huddle up.

Berkouwer rightly sees that the challenge of the nouvelle théologie was taken up by John XXIII in his opening address to the Second Vatican Council in a much - discussed statement: «The deposit or the truths of faith, contained in our sacred teaching, are one thing, while the mode in which they are enunciated, keeping the same meaning and the same judgment, is another.»

I mean, according to Scripture, it is the parent's responsibility to raise up their children and teach them about God, but our modern way of doing church relinquishes these things to 45 minutes on Sunday morning and Wednesday night, in a building with a (generally) controlled environment, and to a person we don't really know.

Best Image (nominated by Paul DeBaufer): Sarah Moon with «Crippling Lies and Tennis Shoes of Truth» «I grew up in a church and Christian school that taught me some unhealthy things about what it meant to be a woman.

If Islam teaches the destruction of everyone who is not a Muslim, then you have basically an army of 1.2 Billion people hell bent on destroying everyone who is not a mulsim, which would mean that instead of 9 or 10 people blowing up a building, you would have I do nt know 1 million.

In 1832 Pope Gregory XVI (followed by Pope Pius IX) declared that it was insane to teach that «the liberty of conscience and of worship is the peculiar right of every man... and that citizens have the right to all kinds of liberty... by which they may be enabled to manifest openly and publicly their ideas, by word of mouth, through the press or by any other means».4 In 1864 Pope Pius IX proceeded to draw up a list of the principal errors of the age which were to be condemned.

It meant the world to me to have the people that I loved, look up to, and even leaders who taught me, be there and support me and my passion.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure some of those stories aren't entirely made up; I mean it would make sense to fabricate at least a few of them to get the proper takeaway in the end and teach us teenagers a lesson, right?

You mean the astros taught him a pitch in a few months and the pitcher whisperer Ray can't teach him a change up, a better curveball, or to somehow get the nasty slider to be there most nights?

This is an incredibly difficult question to answer for a variety of reasons, most importantly because over the years our once vaunted «beautiful» style of play has become a shadow of it's former self, only to be replaced by a less than stellar «plug and play» mentality where players play out of position and adjustments / substitutions are rarely forthcoming before the 75th minute... if you look at our current players, very few would make sense in the traditional Wengerian system... at present, we don't have the personnel to move the ball quickly from deep - lying position, efficient one touch midfielders that can make the necessary through balls or the disciplined and pacey forwards to stretch defences into wide positions, without the aid of the backs coming up into the final 3rd, so that we can attack the defensive lanes in the same clinical fashion we did years ago... on this current squad, we have only 1 central defender on staf, Mustafi, who seems to have any prowess in the offensive zone or who can even pass two zones through so that we can advance play quickly out of our own end (I have seen some inklings that suggest Holding might have some offensive qualities but too early to tell)... unfortunately Mustafi has a tendency to get himself in trouble when he gets overly aggressive on the ball... from our backs out wide, we've seen pace from the likes of Bellerin and Gibbs and the spirited albeit offensively stunted play of Monreal, but none of these players possess the skill - set required in the offensive zone for the new Wenger scheme which requires deft touches, timely runs to the baseline and consistent crossing, especially when Giroud was playing and his ratio of scored goals per clear chances was relatively low (better last year though)... obviously I like Bellerin's future prospects, as you can't teach pace, but I do worry that he regressed last season, which was obvious to Wenger because there was no way he would have used Ox as the right side wing - back so often knowing that Barcelona could come calling in the off - season, if he thought otherwise... as for our midfielders, not a single one, minus the more confident Xhaka I watched played for the Swiss national team a couple years ago, who truly makes sense under the traditional Wenger model... Ramsey holds onto the ball too long, gives the ball away cheaply far too often and abandons his defensive responsibilities on a regular basis (doesn't score enough recently to justify): that being said, I've always thought he does possess a little something special, unfortunately he thinks so too... Xhaka is a little too slow to ever boss the midfield and he tends to telegraph his one true strength, his long ball play: although I must admit he did get a bit better during some points in the latter part of last season... it always made me wonder why whenever he played with Coq Wenger always seemed to play Francis in a more advanced role on the pitch... as for Coq, he is way too reckless at the wrong times and has exhibited little offensive prowess yet finds himself in and around the box far too often... let's face it Wenger was ready to throw him in the trash heap when injuries forced him to use Francis and then he had the nerve to act like this was all part of a bigger Wenger constructed plan... he like Ramsey, Xhaka and Elneny don't offer the skills necessary to satisfy the quick transitory nature of our old offensive scheme or the stout defensive mindset needed to protect the defensive zone so that our offensive players can remain aggressive in the final third... on the front end, we have Ozil, a player of immense skill but stunted by his physical demeanor that tends to offend, the fact that he's been played out of position far too many times since arriving and that the players in front of him, minus Sanchez, make little to no sense considering what he has to offer (especially Giroud); just think about the quick counter-attack offence in Real or the space and protection he receives in the German National team's midfield, where teams couldn't afford to focus too heavily on one individual... this player was a passing «specialist» long before he arrived in North London, so only an arrogant or ignorant individual would try to reinvent the wheel and / or not surround such a talent with the necessary components... in regards to Ox, Walcott and Welbeck, although they all possess serious talents I see them in large part as headless chickens who are on the injury table too much, lack the necessary first - touch and / or lack the finishing flair to warrant their inclusion in a regular starting eleven; I would say that, of the 3, Ox showed the most upside once we went to a back 3, but even he became a bit too consumed by his pending contract talks before the season ended and that concerned me a bit... if I had to choose one of those 3 players to stay on it would be Ox due to his potential as a plausible alternative to Bellerin in that wing - back position should we continue to use that formation... in Sanchez, we get one of the most committed skill players we've seen on this squad for some years but that could all change soon, if it hasn't already of course... strangely enough, even he doesn't make sense given the constructs of the original Wenger offensive model because he holds onto the ball too long and he will give the ball up a little too often in the offensive zone... a fact that is largely forgotten due to his infectious energy and the fact that the numbers he has achieved seem to justify the means... finally, and in many ways most crucially, Giroud, there is nothing about this team or the offensive system that Wenger has traditionally employed that would even suggest such a player would make sense as a starter... too slow, too inefficient and way too easily dispossessed... once again, I think he has some special skills and, at times, has showed some world - class qualities but he's lack of mobility is an albatross around the necks of our offence... so when you ask who would be our best starting 11, I don't have a clue because of the 5 or 6 players that truly deserve a place in this side, 1 just arrived, 3 aren't under contract beyond 2018 and the other was just sold to Juve... man, this is theraputic because following this team is like an addiction to heroin without the benefits

Great Reception???, tell you the truth Im not one of those gunners who started supporting the gunners during the invicibles or early Wenger double winning years, quite honestly i wasnt ineterested in football and I liked a certain Crespo and Shevchenko meaning I liked the blue half of London, surprisingly when Mourinho joined I stopped watching football all together, till one glorious Champions League Night, It was my first ever Match there was a certain 20 year old highly rated youngster who scored a wonder goal that day he played with such skill and passion ever since then I started supporting arsenal that was during the barren years.I actually liked Barcelona because of their similarity with the arsenal, so when Fabregas joined Barca I started to watch them a bit more I still loved Arsenal and I was extremely passionate, the other players i adored left in painful manners, while some left which was still painful: i.e Eboue.I always taught cesc would come back and when it was official he was leaving Barca i said Finally almost hosting a party.Well reports started coming out that he is going to join chelsea and i laughed so hard and said he would be the last player on earth to do that, when it became official words cant express how i felt, He was the reason I started watching football he lit up the emirates with exquisite touches through balls to walcott, its a shame I would have preferred he joined bayern, or remained in barca its terrible reading the comments he made recently about the emirates, This was a captain, someone who led, anyways, like ive learnt and Arsenal have learnt, We do nt live in the past Like Liverpool (no pun) WE ARE THE PRESENT AND THE FUTURE (Crowley)(Puma) WE ARE ARSENAL.....

He knew that if he failed this time, if he didn't play well enough on the Penn Circuit to get back up to the Grand Prix, it meant that he would turn out like his father: teaching country - club ladies in dainty dresses, lying to them that their backhands looked improved....

None of that precludes painting their nails red (for either of them), but it certainly does mean that I won't be teaching them how to pick up a gun and use it.

What it means to be a dad: «I was lucky enough to have two solid male role models growing up, my step - dad and my granddad, so carrying the lessons they taught me as I start a family of my very own is an incredible feeling.

It doesn't mean you can't teach them to tidy up or wash hands for dinner, but let them go for it!

When a woman is told by lets say their dad or uncle» if you let them cry it out they will be better as they grow up» This is just my opinion, Women have the «nurturing instinct» meaning when they are told they should put their baby down and them CIO and they do so their instinct is telling them to go pick the baby up but another influence tells them other wise, now MEN to me have the instinct to teach their youngins to «cry me river its not so bad youll live» id prefer not letting my child CIO, I just wanted to see how long out of curiosity that she would CIO (my dad suggested i try) and she went on for an hour before i said forget this i cant concentrate i have to pick her up cuz it ai nt doin nothing... so i havnt done it since.

Even though I try to teach them responsibility and how to clean up after themselves, our house is by no means spic - and - span.

This is a story that I take to heart because growing up I was taught that birth was a scary thing that was meant to be endured with drugs and a doctor taking control of the situation.

«In the contemporary elite, free, unsupervised interactions with peers have been reduced, so maybe these parents feel they have to teach their kids social skills they won't otherwise pick up through more casual means,» he wrote.

Despite all the seeming demand for experts in the sciences, cuts in research spending and belt - tightening at universities mean that only one in five Ph.D. s in science, engineering and health end up with faculty teaching or research positions within five years of completing their degrees, according to the National Science Foundation.

I'm Annette a personal trainer, which means I teach women how to keep active after they've «grown up» but really I help people take care of their bodies and play by their own rules.

Ok, well summer may officially start on June 20th, but the second Memorial Day Weekend passes, I am in a summer state - of - mind... which means N E W accessories to brighten up your wardrobe + really make a statement all summer long Although I am all about shopping on a budget, one item I was taught to never ever skimp out on is a quality handbag!

, the fact that I can get up every day, get dressed, go to work to teach, do this work on the blog and still have time for my family and friends and other endeavors, means I'm doing okay.

Summary Capsule: The 80's taught us well: if you can't get a girl, make one up by any means necessary!

This leads to a series of ups and downs in Ben's life that teach him what it really means to shape your own destiny.

In places like Wyoming, my experience has taught me that dark material in the land means organics, and so I pulled over and stepped a few paces up the incline to see what was up.

We still teach boys that being a man means rising to the occasion; while encouraging both boys and girls to step up, take responsibility for protecting those weaker than themselves, helping those who can not defend themselves, and speaking up for those whose voices might not otherwise be heard — all of which should, naturally, be applauded — we somehow also encourage our male children to repress their own vulnerabilities, their own fears and weaknesses, and their own soft underbellies.

The whole lesson is designed in a «pick up and teach it» way, that means everything you could possibly need is all there for you.

By alleviating the burden of self - supporting IT, Stone Assist frees up staff time to focus on teaching, and the cost savings on IT support throughout the trial period could mean funds redirected towards other school projects.

That doesn't mean it causes high achievement — even high school statistics students are taught «correlation is not causation» — only that the two variables go up and down together.

For a more up - to - date discussion about how technological advances can impact the classroom, please read Keith Lambert's article on the rise of Artificial Intelligence in education and what it could mean for the future of the teaching profession.

For example, schools are asked to teach children what it means to be an American, to inculcate moral values, and to make up for poor parenting.