In 2011 sluiten de sociale partners en de Brusselse regering de New Deal, die ertoe strekt het Brusselse tewerkstellingsbeleid coherenter te maken door middel van partnerschappen tussen de betrokken particuliere en openbare actoren. De evaluatie van dat overheidsbeleid is een primeur in het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest. Het artikel analyseert de conclusies van de evaluatie die werden verkregen via casestudy's en focusgroepen. Het maakt een operationele balans op van de opgezette coördinatiemechanismen volgens het standpunt van de actoren die betrokken zijn bij de New Deal: wijzen die nieuwe samenwerkingsvormen op het opkomen van een nieuwe vorm van public governance in het Brussels Gewest? Het artikel toont aan dat de veranderingen die de New Deal wil doorvoeren in de governance tussen de Brusselse actoren, gekenmerkt worden door het streven naar transversaliteit van het overheidsbeleid, maar uiteindelijk beperkt worden door de institutionele versnippering die het Pact wil doorbreken. De coördinatiemethode, die te informeel is en te veel afhangt van de actoren, zou versterkt moeten worden om de duurzaamheid van de aanpak te waarborgen en te vermijden dat de coördinatie beperkt blijft tot het louter samenbrengen van actoren.
1On 29 April 2011, when the Minister-President, Ministers of the Environment, Economy and Employment of the Brussels-Capital Region and social partners from the Conseil économique et social bruxellois (CESRBC) signed the "Pacte de Croissance Urbaine Durable"1 (sustainable urban growth agreement), also referred to as the "Brussels New Deal", their aim was to reinforce the coherence of public intervention through partnerships between various types of private or public stakeholder with little or no experience working together.
2The reinforcement of the coordination between these various partners is not an end in itself: it must allow a clarification of the interpretation of the employment policy in the territory of the Brussels Region, for job seekers as well as for companies wishing to recruit workers. In this territory, the competences in the area of employment and training are distributed between various administrative entities: each stakeholder intervenes in a specific manner, according to its field of competence. This division is considered by these signatories to be an obstacle to the employment of the Brussels residents.
3From the start, the signatories of the agreement had decided that the New Deal would be evaluated by BISA (Brussels Institute for Statistics and Analysis) before the end of the 2009‑2014 legislature. This type of transversal evaluation centred on the competences of several administrative entities was a first in the Brussels-Capital Region. It also led to the internalisation of the evaluative practice within the administration, by extending the competences of BISA to the evaluation of public policies.
4The objective of this evaluation was to take stock of the functioning of coordination mechanisms implemented in the transversal interventions of the Brussels New Deal, according to the point of view of stakeholders involved in its implementation. The results, accompanied by specific recommendations to improve the implementation of this new Brussels partnership policy, are detailed in BISA Cahier No. 4. The fact that this exercise was carried out only two years after the signature of the New Deal, meant that the effects of the partnerships were not able to be evaluated, in terms of the insertion of the Brussels residents in the labour market.
5This article highlights the characteristics of the coordination processes used in the transversal section of the New Deal and analyses their innovation potential in the area of employment and professional training policy. It includes four parts. After a presentation of the Brussels New Deal and its governance arrangements, the second part of this article deals with the research strategy and theoretical framework chosen to propose a detailed answer to the evaluative questions. The third part describes the main results of this evaluation. The fourth part answers the question as to the effectiveness of these coordination processes, which is based on the fact that the establishment of partnerships allows a modification of the method of cooperation between the stakeholders concerned, as well as their contribution to more coherent public intervention in the area of support for the employment of the Brussels residents. In conclusion, the contributions and limitations of the coordination mechanisms within the New Deal which result from this transversal evaluation are discussed.
6As with all evaluations of public policy, the first task for evaluators was to analyse the policy being evaluated. This section examines the intervention logic of the transversal section of the New Deal, and identifies the anticipated effects.
7The agreement is aimed at favouring access to employment for the Brussels residents and at ensuring sustainable urban growth. It thus defines interventions to be implemented within the framework of partnerships between stakeholders in Brussels, aimed at more interconnected, coherent and complementary employment and training policies in the territory of Brussels.
8The New Deal is defined by its signatories as a coordination instrument aimed at improving public tools. It thus constitutes a framework in which the partnerships between stakeholders of different types may be formed: regional and/or community administrations, social dialogue and concertation bodies, ministers offices, social and professional integration stakeholders, etc. "The challenge is to give greater legitimacy to work conducted within a partnership […], by showing that joint intervention leads to better success" [Thys, 2009]. This involves developing a shared vision of public intervention and coordinating interventions in order to favour access to employment for the Brussels residents. The New Deal is therefore aimed at organising network-based governance and at considering employment policy well beyond the regional scope.
9The actions to be implemented in the New Deal are divided into two sections (box 1). The first transversal section is centred on three common transversal commitments. The second section is based on actions to be carried out in five specific areas of activity.
10While the partnership approach is far from being new, the commitments of the New Deal are aimed at establishing long-term development. In this perspective, the signatories have not set any deadlines. The New Deal was elaborated in the spirit of open coordination, without defining any concrete actions to be implemented, and instead sets guidelines and specifies the correct procedure and working method for the stakeholders involved, in order to define these actions and carry them out. The initiative is therefore based on a joint effort between stakeholders associated within a partnership with no hierarchical organisation, and whose dynamics are based on a logic of cooperation.
11While the New Deal follows other instruments implemented in the Brussels Region, namely the Pacte Social pour l'Emploi (2002) and the Contrat pour l'Economie et l'Emploi (2005), it differs from them as regards its method of governance. Its aim is to reinforce social dialogue2 in a perspective of the tripartite management (unions, employers and Brussels government) of employment in the broad sense: the social partners are involved in the same way as the government in the elaboration of the agreement and, for the first time, in its implementation.
12The transversal mobilisation of all of the organisations involved in employment in Brussels and for the Brussels residents, which was the intention since the launch of the New Deal, did not take place. Since the start of the implementation, many socio-economic institutional stakeholders have not participated in the dynamics of the partnerships formed as part of the transversal section of the New Deal, whether it involves SDRB, Port of Brussels, SRIB, STIB, SAF, ABE, ABEA,3 etc. The signatories very quickly refocused the New Deal on a limited number of central public stakeholders in the area of employment policy and training, such as Actiris, Bruxelles Formation, VDAB-RDB and the professional reference centres.
13All strategic decisions of the New Deal are made jointly by the government, employers and unions and are ratified by the Comité bruxellois de Concertation Économique et Sociale (CBCES), made up of social partners and the Brussels government (figure 1).
Abbreviations: Actiris: Office régional bruxellois de l'emploi; BNCTO: Comité Néerlandophone Bruxellois pour l'Emploi et la Formation; BON: Brussels Onthaalbureau voor inburgering; CBCES: Comité bruxellois de concertation économique et sociale; CBENM: Confédération Bruxelloise des Entreprises Non-Marchandes; CCFEE: Commission Consultative Formation-Emploi-Enseignement; CESRBC: Conseil économique et social de la Région Bruxelles-Capitale; CGSLB: Centrale générale des syndicats libéraux de Belgique; CIRÉ: Coordination et initiatives pour réfugiés et étrangers; CSC: Confédération des syndicats chrétiens; FGTB: Fédération Générale du Travail de Belgique; SPRB: Service public régional de Bruxelles (nouvelle dénomination du Ministère de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale); UCM/CCM: Union des Classes Moyennes; UEB/BECI: Chambre de Commerce & Union des Entreprises de Bruxelles; UNIZO: Unie van Zelfstandige Ondernemers; VDAB-Brussel/ VDAB-RDB: Vlaams Dienst voor Arbeidsbemiddeling en Beroepsopleiding, Regionale Dienst Brussel.
14In its operational section, the New Deal involves various organisations (figure 1) in addition to its creators. Each intervention is organised under the responsibility of a "pilot" in charge of operational management, with the support of a dedicated working group, providing an opportunity to create synergies between the partners. Another original aspect of the New Deal is the involvement of traditional strategic stakeholders, ministers offices and social partners in the implementation and management of interventions. Finally, the agreement provides for a coordination unit, which acts as a link between the operational and strategic levels. It is made up of a person in the Brussels administration (Service public régional de Bruxelles) and a person in the CESRBC secretariat.
5 For further contextual information, see BISA, Cipriano et al., 2012.
15The overall objective of the agreement is the result of observations made in 2010 (which are still valid today) regarding the fact that just over half of workers in Brussels do not live in the Region, and make the commute from elsewhere in Belgium. In 2010, there were approximately 680 000 jobs in the territory of the capital,4 i.e. 15% of the national total.5 However, only 50.7% of these jobs were held by Brussels residents.
16At the same time, the Brussels Region has a very high unemployment rate. In 2010, this rate reached 19.9% in the Brussels Region, while it was 6.9% in the Flemish Region and 15.7% in the Walloon Region. Furthermore, the Region includes categories of people who are more vulnerable on the labour market. It is in particular characterised by a significant proportion of low-skilled unemployed people [Senhadji, 2014].
17Furthermore, like other big European cities, the Brussels Region is a major economic hub. It produced close to 19% of the GDP in 2010. However, this wealth does not benefit the residents of the city: in 2010, the total available income of residents of the Region represented 9.5% of the total national income [BISA, Michiels, 2014].
18These observations have been publicised widely in the studies carried out by the academic community, associations and citizens in the framework of the Citizens' Forum of Brussels, which was held at the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009 [Vandermotten et al., 2009]. "The signature […] of the agreement […] is in keeping with the logic of the Citizens' Forum" [Nassaux, 2011]. The drafting and the adoption of the New Deal took place in this context, where debates on the identity of Brussels and a reflection on the major challenges specific to the Brussels Region emerge.
19At institutional level, when the New Deal was signed in 2011, the Belgian federal state was competent in the area of social security and partly in the area of employment policy [Franssen et al., 2014]. In the territory of the Brussels-Capital Region, the professional training policies fall within the competence of the French Community Commission and the Flemish Community. Qualifying education falls within the competence of the community. The placement of workers, programmes for the reemployment of job seekers and standards concerning foreign workers are within the remit of the regional authorities [Nassaux, 2012]. Most of the time, the responsibilities of these institutions overlap, without a hierarchical organisation of the centres for coordination and intervention [Simoulin, 2003].
20In Brussels, this situation creates a fragmented institutional landscape whereby each entity manages its interventions in an autonomous manner and develops its own intervention logic [Hertting et al., 2012] (figure 2). "The coordination difficulties experienced by stakeholders in the area of employment, training and education are all the more significant since these stakeholders are part of a fragmented and compartmentalised institutional landscape. [This institutional framework] limits the possibilities for transversality" [Franssen et al., 2014] and the organisation of partnerships between stakeholders. Although "the stakeholders in Brussels agree with the observation that the institutional complexity and multiple levels of authority in a relatively small territory require a coordination of interventions […], this logic often remains random and fragile" [Thys, 2009].
The classification by VDAB and Syntra in the Flemish Community is carried out with respect to the list of public institutional units according to SEC 95, elaborated and updated yearly by the Banque Nationale de Belgique, in collaboration with the group of experts for the general document base.
21At political level, the signature of the New Deal took place in parallel with the start of negotiations regarding the sixth state reform. At the time, the signatories did not want to interfere with the division of competences and lived with the institutional complexity of the Brussels-Capital Region. Governance through the development of partnerships emerged by default rather than by choice [Genard, 2009].
22The scope of the evaluation covers the actions of the transversal section of the New Deal.
23In order to take stock of the functioning of the coordination processes provided for in the New Deal, the evaluation allowed an identification of the strengths and weaknesses of this coordination method and an assessment of their added value: were these coordination processes effective? Did they contribute to achieving greater coherence between the activities of the stakeholders involved in employment and training support policies? How do they differ from former practices and make up for coordination shortcomings, which were also highlighted by Franssen et al. ?
24The evaluation compares eight case studies (table 1), i.e. eight actions representative of the partnerships established within the New Deal, among the forty or so actions identified. The selection of cases was based on information gathered from various written sources regarding the New Deal6 and from exploratory talks with key stakeholders. Three criteria were used to select them: illustrate the various degrees of intensity in the interactions between stakeholders; reproduce the diversity of the types of organisation involved in the New Deal (ministers offices, social partners, administrations, associations, etc.); and cover the different levels of achievement reached by the actions of the agreement.
25The case studies allowed an in-depth analysis of the activities connected to the project, the organisations involved and the context in which they take place. This is why this method in particular is recommended.7 The analysis of each case was structured based on a model elaborated by Lasker et al.  and Kreuter et al. . These authors developed a theoretical framework for the study of the operational dimensions of partnerships, considering coordination as a true mechanism of social innovation rather than a management tool or an instrument of public intervention.
26The mechanism aims to favour the creation of synergies, prime mover of the creativity which emerges from the exchange of knowledge, competences and resources of stakeholders, and which allows the foundations to be laid for an integrated approach to public intervention. The establishment of conditions for cooperation requires resources and time to build relations, procedures and structures which differ from those used previously by collaborating individuals and organisations. Eleven dimensions presented in figure 3 have been analysed to reconstruct the different facets of a partnership. They have allowed the stakeholders, their cooperation method and the synergies created to be identified for each of the eight actions.
This framework of interpretation of partnerships highlights the influence (positive or negative) of each dimension on the synergies created by the cooperation implemented in the framework of the New Deal.
27Once the cases were selected, they underwent a two-step analysis.
28The contextual elements and the data allowing the analysis of interactions between the stakeholders were gathered based on documentary sources (follow-up reports, minutes of meetings, notes to the government, etc.) and twenty-five semi-structured interviews carried out in February and March 2014 with the stakeholders directly concerned with the eight actions analysed: the evaluators identified three key stakeholders per intervention selected, be they administrative or political, social partners or members of civil society. For each case, the analysis began with a description of the history, the stakeholders involved and the context in which the intervention took place, for the 2011‑2014 period [Albarello, 2011]. Next, the intervention was analysed with regard to the dimensions of the partnership, listed in the theoretical framework presented in figure 3. The interested reader may consult the annexe which illustrates the empirical approach carried out for the second intervention (case) of the eight actions (cases) studied (table 1). Once this analysis was carried out for the eight case studies, the group of evaluators carried out a transversal interpretation of the actions. Based on the theoretical framework, it allowed the trends, recurrences and exceptions to be identified for each dimension, and the scope of the variations and similarities observed to be highlighted.
29The conclusions of the first transversal analysis have fuelled the themes debated during two focus groups, held in March 2014 according to the method of the Open Process Workshop developed by SPIRAL [Claisse et al., 2013]. This research technique has the advantage of allowing stakeholders to discuss and react to the results of the first phase, in order to come up with recommendations as a group. Each focus group is made up of stakeholders concerned with the intervention in various capacities, with different and even conflicting approaches. First, the evaluators present the conclusions of their analysis of how the New Deal has contributed to the area of coordination. The participants are invited to identify their own roles and the problems they have encountered as part of their commitments in an intervention of the New Deal. Then, they are asked to propose changes which they feel would improve the results of their actions and partnerships: these proposals are debated in the group and are integrated in the final report by the evaluators. This workshop was unique in that it created the conditions for a group discussion on a common process of public intervention, and was followed by an open critical discussion.
30The approach adopted involves making a new worksheet for each intervention, based on the different dimensions used as a framework to produce a transversal analysis in order to make a generalisation, as suggested below.
31Several organisations have received additional resources in the framework of the New Deal, either to implement the intervention or to coordinate the partnership related to its implementation. The commitment of people specifically appointed to coordinate these actions seems to be one of the factors for success. The necessary resources to ensure the coordination between the actions of the New Deal or within the partnerships have often been underestimated. The inequality of resources between partners quickly becomes evident. Bruxelles Formation, a key stakeholder in the area of training in the territory of Brussels, has received substantial means to increase the training offer and not to coordinate partnerships. The neighbourhood contracts programme coordinated by BDU, which already operates according to the logic of partnership and has always had a comfortable budget, has not seen an increase in its budget in order to extend the cooperation to other stakeholders. Actiris benefited from a significant reinforcement of its resources for its broader missions in recent years, which has allowed it to earmark funds for coordination. These inequalities cause problems if the resources do not allow each partner to ensure the mission they have assumed.
32The stakeholders in the partnerships often have a very heterogeneous background: administration, associations, social partners and sometimes ministers offices. This heterogeneity does not seem to be a problem, as indicated by the smooth functioning of the professional reference centres, with private entrepreneurs. Certain associations have proven to be more difficult: social partners and the administration are not in the habit of working together and function according to different operational approaches. The collaborative projects may also cause frustrations, and even the rejection of a stakeholder if the results do not meet the proclaimed operational objectives.
33The involvement of stakeholders is not continuous, but variable at different moments in an intervention, and an administration which is not involved initially in an intervention may go on to take on its leadership. The commitment of social partners or the support of ministers offices is not continuous and, for some, depends on support from federations and, for others, on the political agenda. Each intervention must be analysed in a diachronic perspective.
34In terms of respect and trust, if a stakeholder is recognised as being legitimate, based on its competences (policies or techniques) or the networks it is part of, the management of actions must allow its integration in the established partnership. The cooperation mechanisms implemented thanks to the actions of the New Deal (working groups, exchange of good practices, etc.) give rise to new dynamics of exchanges between stakeholders and thus increase trust in the dynamics of self-reinforcement. Institutional bottlenecks have persisted: the high expectations of the stakeholders interviewed regarding the involvement of education in concrete training and employment policies contrasts with the relatively peripheral position granted to CCFEE and BNCTO, key stakeholders of the education policy present in the territory of Brussels.
35Difference of authority, conflict of interest. Whether organisations are similar or different, the partnership dynamics are better if they feel that it would be beneficial to work together at their level. The lack of a common vision of the intervention may be due to a conflict of interest between stakeholders: power relationships, such as those observed with CESRBC, reflect a position of power which allows programmatic texts to be negotiated, such as the agreement, but due to their consensual character, do little to foster more operational collaboration, possibly leading to synergies.
36Internal leadership within the partnership is inter-organisational and must allow an integration of the different visions of partners in the objectives of the intervention and a joint organisation of a schedule. This function is essential to ensure the proper implementation of the partnership. The leadership is not necessarily assumed by the same stakeholder throughout the intervention. When the intervention stabilises and reaches a status of administrative management, the leadership is often provided by the partner with the greatest share of operational commitments. Tensions have been observed at co-leadership level: either because the two leaders fight for the responsibility of the project, or because neither leader accepts it. The experience of the New Deal shows that strategic co-leadership, shared between three ministers offices, including that of the Minister-President, the environment and employment, as well as the social partners, is not straightforward and operates with difficulty, as project responsibilities are not clear. In the case of professional traineeships (table 1) – an intervention which did not go well according to the stakeholders interviewed – tensions between partners emerged, hindering the operational leadership entrusted to social partners.
37In order to favour innovation, the method of governance must keep the choice of procedures relatively open to allow stakeholders to bypass certain bottlenecks which could prove to be transitional. Formalisation could take place later, when all of the stakeholders are ready to sign a formal agreement [Perry-Smith, 2003]. The stakeholders interviewed express the desire for actions to follow a timetable beyond electoral deadlines.
38The effectiveness of actions – even presumed – contributes to reinforcing the satisfaction and involvement of partners, which requires a reinforcement of communication regarding realisations in order to objectivise them and measure their scope and sustainability.
39The dimension of calculating the "cost-benefit" of the collaboration should be linked to the level of commitment of the partners. It turns out that the more a partner is committed, the more the partner benefits from the collaboration and does not question the cost of cooperation. Certain government officials underline the slowness of the process: "As operators, we have sometimes been disconcerted by the deadlines required for the beginning phases, which seem relatively long with respect to the duration of the project." They explain this in part by the difficulty to implement integrated approaches, especially if they also require the involvement of community participants in charge of training. Despite the initial objectives of transversality, the first actions were still regional, as the community authorities initially were not associated with the agreement project. This delay at the outset reveals a certain institutional rigidity.
40Who must be the main beneficiary of collaborations implemented by the agreement? What are the stakeholders' ideas of the target public? In order to preserve the coherence of the policy, it is preferable for the stakeholders involved in an intervention to have the same idea of the target public. Without a shared concrete vision of the target group, there is little chance that the partners will be able to target their intervention on a precise group to carry out a coherent project, as pointed out by various stakeholders interviewed for the professional reference centre "city professions", where the partners have not succeeded in defining a common priority group.
42The informal personal networks are often presented as being particularly important for the proper functioning of the coordination processes of the New Deal. The contacts, discussions, and therefore informal coordination are highlighted regularly as a decisive mode of management for change, for removing certain bottlenecks and for establishing partnerships. Contacts count, as well as the informal circulation of information. The predominance of the informal aspects of partnerships makes the implementation of the agreement very dependent on the people involved. "Coordination is too informal, as everyone knows everyone in Brussels," states one of the stakeholders of the social dialogue. This observation converges in different ways with the observation that the alignment of actions and strategies seems to depend greatly on the involvement of (certain) stakeholders, albeit beyond their formal mandate, specified in the New Deal.
43This section proposes a reflective and prospective view of the results of the evaluation presented below: do these new modes of cooperation herald the emergence of new public governance in the Brussels Region?
44One of the key questions raised during the evaluation was the added value of coordination with respect to former methods of operation. The New Deal favoured the implementation of follow-up procedures as well as transversal methods of coordination which until then had not existed: project follow-up software, a reporting process within CBCES, the establishment of meetings between pilots of actions and a coordination unit (figure 1). The main administrations – on their own initiative or with the explicit support of the New Deal – have designated a reference person in charge of the coordination of the New Deal. The social partners also underline the fact that the New Deal has allowed the creation of new areas for cooperation with the members of administrations or ministers offices, by creating working groups in which the different stakeholders cooperate in a relatively informal way. According to a social dialogue stakeholder, there must be "positive communication […], not a distortion of figures, but people must be made aware of the benefits of collaboration and how collaboration can be successful". These new methods of coordination have also allowed certain stakeholders to reinforce themselves and constitute an added value with respect to former methods of operation. For example, the cooperation between Actiris and social partners has increased, and the New Deal is not insignificant in this change: social partners have been able to make their demands known to Actiris in a less formal framework than its management committee.
8 Focus group, March 2014.
45Many examples of the reinforcement of existing cooperation have been observed. The cross-policy agreements, often presented as major progress made by the New Deal, concern administrations fundamentally (in particular Bruxelles Formation and Actiris), as the "armed wing" of the policies. The progress identified in the field (sometimes described as "Actiris and Bruxelles Formation finally on speaking terms") is therefore without a doubt linked to political impetus, additional allocated means and changes of people at the head of administrations. The New Deal did not create cooperation but reinforced it. The improvement of cooperation between Actiris and Bruxelles Formation is explained by the implementation of new procedures and a weakening of institutional barriers, as well as by the increase in human and financial means: the "barriers are down",8 according to a social dialogue stakeholder. This also implies that former methods of operation which prevented good collaboration have been left behind, as pointed out in various interviews. The evaluation of the key to progress therefore undergoes a shift from the availability of decision makers to "play the game", i.e. from the impact of people as well as mechanisms.
46The irreversibility of actions taken and the appropriation of shared tools are signs of the sustainability of the dynamics used in the framework of the New Deal. For example, the decision to bring together the Brussels sections of the employment and training administrations should reinforce the new coordination, with a clear distance taken between VDAB Brussels and VDAB Vlaanderen in order to adapt to the specificities of Brussels. The commitments of the sixth state reform also improve the perspectives for the sustainability of the working hypotheses of this cooperation favouring a transversal approach to employment and training.
47The case analyses show that other transversal stakeholders emerge. In addition to the employment and training administrations, there are the policy-makers and the social partners. At political level, three governments which are active in the bi-community territory of Brussels intervene according to their respective competences with their specific political challenges. The social partners are also involved in the foreground of the New Deal, moving from a strategic level to an operational level of implementation. The involvement of the latter in the negotiations and drafting of the agreement is seen by the stakeholders as something very positive. However, their operational commitment is only moderately successful, among others due to their lack of experience in the area and – according to them – to their organisational structure which is poorly adapted to the implementation of public policy. They recognise their own limited capacity to truly engage the parties which they represent in operational matters. Contrary to the administrations directly subject to the authority of their political referents, the social partners have a margin for interpretation of the signed texts, and the implementation of commitments requires an appropriation of these commitments by their organisations or members.
49The New Deal does not clarify the complexity of the situation in Brussels. Few stakeholders are concerned about knowing who gives the keys to understanding the employment policy to job seekers and companies during their interventions. It is even difficult to show that the partners involved in an intervention have the same vision of the beneficiary group. More precisely, the Walloon and Flemish views are very different regarding the New Deal, and the stakeholders develop different perceptions of its effectiveness.
50In addition, the asymmetries in the division of community competences between Walloon and Flemish institutions have sometimes been neglected, causing certain tensions in partnerships. In the interviews with representatives from Flemish organisations, they expressed a true interest in the dynamics of the New Deal and a general wish to be integrated more in order to develop actions centred on the specificities of Brussels. As with certain social partners, an indirect stake may be identified: it allows a stronger assertion internally of an identity specific to the Brussels components.
51The results presented until now also allow the conditions for a "network-based governance", suitable for public innovation, to be set more broadly. This governance calls for operating no longer according to a managerial approach under hierarchical control, but according to a project logic [Sorensen et al., 2011] in keeping with the spirit of "new public governance". As explained by Genard , due to the multiplicity of demands and the plurality of positions, social problems require more inventive solutions nowadays.
52Today, collaboration principles rather than competition principles are underlined (table 2): in order to manage increasingly complex and plural social policies, an integration of the different stakeholders must be ensured and the multiple guidelines must be considered, i.e. the models of perceptions and involvement in public intervention, supported by different groups in a diverse society. In this logic, the stakeholders gather resources, develop new ideas and practices together and perspectives which could not have emerged without a collaboration, while contributing to reorientating the practices of all of the stakeholders concerned.
53It is important to present the partnerships supported by the New Deal with respect to this approach to innovation which – faced with complex and transversal problems – proposes the implementation of cooperation processes open to stakeholders. Such an initiative involves relatively fast dynamics (to obtain results from the beginning of the project), in an iterative logic (the solution is evaluated and questioned by the participants). While the general principles of this type of method of public governance are followed by the participants of the agreement, their operational translation remains to be formalised. The stakeholders are still struggling to associate institutionally peripheral stakeholders.
55How can the effectiveness of the coordination be reinforced? Is it possible to define a public policy under such auspices? A project management logic does not seem to have been planned at the outset of the agreement: "The piloting mechanism did not exist and had to be developed later." "Coordination was implemented on the job," states a minister's office adviser. Many proposals have already been made to reinforce the management of the New Deal, by clarifying the strategic orientations and by defining the management methods, ensuring an effective professional commitment on behalf of the different partners.
9 Each step of the intervention is taken into account in a specific manner.
11 In other words, associating the different stakeholders concerned with the objectives of the policy.
56At present, this involves developing a coordination model which allows the management of actions which is sequential,9 strategic10 and integrated.11 In this innovative process, options must remain open in order to leave the necessary space to pursue new processes of collaboration. There must be a certain flexibility from the start as well as enough autonomy, given that no one knows in the beginning what will work. For each intervention, realistic resources must be provided, requiring a clarification of all of the mandates and responsibilities. Next, if the dimension of education constitutes a priority within the agreement, an association of the stakeholders concerned must be ensured from the start, when the objective of the stakeholders is defined. It is also important, during the progress of the intervention, not to lose sight of the final beneficiaries in order to ensure coherence with the strategic objectives announced in the agreement. A system of professional project management is therefore essential.
57The transversal evaluation of the New-Deal is a first in the Brussels-Capital Region. Co-produced by a team of researchers and BISA, it is the sign of a change in the Brussels Region. With the New Deal, the Region established a unit as part of BISA, in charge of evaluation missions, in a logic of rigour and openness, both professional and transparent, integrating international criteria in the area of public policy evaluation. This implies continued development of a culture of evaluation in the years to come.
58The evaluation of the effectiveness and the efficiency of cross-collaborations developed in the New Deal, likely to go beyond the political and institutional fragmentation in Brussels in the area of employment and training, had the objective to take stock of the functioning of partnerships – and not to confirm that the partnerships were improving access to employment for the Brussels residents – given the lack of time between the moment the actions were implemented and their evaluation.
59Emblematic of the emerging form of "network-based governance", the New Deal is the first transversal mechanism evaluated. The development of partnerships as an instrument of convergence is not new, but the working method of the New Deal is original at Brussels level due to the type of stakeholders involved. For the first time, the Government and the social partners in Brussels were involved on an equal footing to implement a limited number of actions. These traditional strategic stakeholders, with no hierarchy between them, had to work together to operationalise these actions – a traditional role of administration.
60By defending the transversal approaches, favouring the cooperation between different stakeholders and getting round the institutional and territorial divisions, this Agreement has contributed to putting to the test the specialised "silo" structuring of public administration and policies. It invites all of the partners to develop coordinated responses to political problems, beyond their reference and logic of intervention.
61The results of the evaluation show limits to this flexible coordination approach. The transformations targeted by the New Deal in the governance between Brussels stakeholders, marked by the will for the transversality of public intervention and by the development of a shared interpretation of the employment problem, in the end remain limited by the institutional division which it claims to transcend. The search for a compromise has also been hindered by the stakeholders' concern to maintain control of their instruments.
62The coordination method would benefit from reinforcement in order not to be reduced to a juxtaposition of stakeholders. The function of leadership in a non-binding mechanism – an aim of the New Deal – is essential to create dynamics and be sure of the progressive construction of actions contributing to the general objective to favour employment in Brussels and the employment of the Brussels residents. In order to strengthen the partnerships, the level of involvement of stakeholders must also be defined according to their means of intervention.
63In the current institutional context, these results invite stakeholders to take the opportunities offered by other instruments, going further than this form of non-binding coordination. The transfer of competences to federated entities, ratified by the sixth state reform, thus opens new avenues to be explored. As the keys to employment are in the hands of these entities, they may take this occasion to commit to converging objectives and go beyond competition between stakeholders.
ABMA, T.A., STAKE, R.E, 2001. Stake's responsive evaluation: Core ideas and evolution. In: New Directions for Evaluation. 2001. Volume No. 92, pp. 7‑22.
ALBARELLO, L., 2011. Choisir l'étude de cas comme méthode de recherche. Bruxelles: De Boeck, Collection Méthodes en sciences humaines.
BLAISE, P., SÄGESSER, C., 1999. Le Conseil économique et social de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale. In: Courrier hebdomadaire du CRISP. 1999. Vol. 1999/1, No. 1626‑1627, pp. 1‑83.
CLAISSE, F., JORIS, G., 2013. Le projet SCoPE, la construction de l'action publique en univers incertain : l'Open Process Workshop comme technique participative. In: BRUNET, S., CLAISSE, F., FALLON, C. (dir.), La participation à l'épreuve. Bruxelles : Peter Lang, Méthodes participatives appliquées/Applied participatory Methods, Vol. 3, pp. 73‑84.
GENARD, J.-L., 2009. Réflexions sur la gouvernance de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale. In: DEJEMEPPE, P., MOUCHART, C., PIERSOTTE, C., RAYNAUD, F., VAN DE PUTTE, D., Bruxelles [dans] 20 ans. Bruxelles : Agence de Développement Territorial (ADT), Cahier de l'ADT, No. 7, pp.163‑183.
IBSA, SPIRAL. CIPRIANO, S., FALLON, C., FASTRÉ, P., HALIN, J., 2015. Évaluation des actions transversales du New Deal bruxellois. In: Les Cahiers de l'IBSA, Institut Bruxellois de Statistique et d'Analyse (IBSA). Mars 2015, No. 4.
IBSA, Cellule New Deal. CIPRIANO, S., GANGJI, A., GRIPPA, I. 2012. Dossier : New Deal bruxellois. In: Baromètre conjoncturel de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, Institut bruxellois de Statistique et d'Analyse. Avril 2012. No. 23, pp. 30‑44.
IBSA. MICHIELS, P.F., 2014. Marché du travail et revenus des ménages à Bruxelles : quelle évolution à moyen terme ? In: Focus de l'IBSA, Institut Bruxellois de Statistique et d'Analyse (IBSA). Février 2014. No. 2.
HERTTING, N., VEDUNG, E., 2012. Purposes and criteria in network governance evaluation: How far does standard evaluation vocabulary takes us? In: Evaluation. Janvier 2012. Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 27‑46.
KREUTER, M. W., LEZIN, N. A., YOUNG, L. A., 2000. Evaluating Community-Based Collaborative Mechanisms: Implications for Practitioners. In: Health Promotion Practice. Janvier 2000. Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 49‑63.
LASKER, R. D., WEISS, E. S., MILLER, R., 2001. Partnership synergy : a practical framework for studying and strengthening the collaborative advantage. In: Milbank quarterly. Juin 2001. Vol. 79, No. 2, pp. 179‑205.
NASSAUX, J. P., 2012. Les aspects bruxellois de la réforme de l'État du 11 octobre 2011. In: Courrier hebdomadaire du CRISP. 2012. No. 2129‑2130, pp. 5‑61.
NASSAUX, J.P., 2011. Le nouveau mouvement bruxellois. In: Courrier hebdomadaire du CRISP. 2011. No. 2103‑2104, pp. 5‑88.
PERRY-SMITH, J. E., SHALLEY, C. E., 2003. The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. In: The Academy of Management Review. Janvier 2003. Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 89‑106.
SIMOULIN, V., 2003. La gouvernance et l'action publique : le succès d'une forme simmélienne. In: Droit et société. 2003. Vol. 2003/2, No. 54, pp. 307‑326.
SORENSEN, E., TORGING, J., 2011. Enhancing Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector. In: Administration & Society. Novembre 2011. Vol. 43, No. 8, pp. 842‑868.
SORENSEN, E., TORGING, J., 2013. Enhancing Social Innovation by Rethinking Collaboration. Leadership and Public Governance. In: Conference Social Frontier. London. 15 novembre 2013.
THYS, S., 2009. Réalités et défis de l'emploi et du chômage en Région de Bruxelles-Capitale. In: DEJEMEPPE, P., MOUCHART, C., PIERSOTTE, C., RAYNAUD, F., VAN DE PUTTE, D., Bruxelles [dans] 20 ans. Bruxelles : Agence de Développement Territorial (ADT), Cahier de l'ADT, No. 7, pp. 297‑321.
WEISS, E. S., ANDERSON, R. M., LASKER, R. D., 2002. Making the most of collaboration : exploring the relationship between partnership synergy and partnership functioning. In: Health Education & Behavior. Décembre 2002. Volume 29, No. 6, pp. 683‑698.
The data gathered from documents and individual interviews were analysed with respect to the dimensions listed in the theoretical framework of the study of a partnership, presented in figure 3. This empirical approach is illustrated below for one case.
Objective of the intervention: The intervention is aimed at improving the circulation of information on the job offers collected in RCs and the identification of the skills of job seekers. It is also aimed at reinforcing the coordination between RCs.
Stakeholders involved: The New Deal has entrusted the implementation of the intervention to Actiris and the minister's office of the Brussels employment minister. The implementation of the intervention also requires the involvement of RCs. These non-profit associations are the fruit of partnerships between stakeholders in the area of employment, professional training and professional federations whose members are confronted with a need for skilled workers. The RCs are co-financed in equal proportions by private and public resources. Their boards of directors are presided over by social partners in the sector concerned and are made up in particular by representatives from Actiris, Bruxelles-Formation, VDAB-RDB, and the minister's office of the Brussels employment minister.
develop technical and educational expertise to adapt training to the changing economy.
The new matching procedure implemented in the framework of the New Deal reinforces the partnership between Actiris and the RCs by organising in a coordinated manner the selection of job seekers, the identification of their skills and training needs, in connection with the job offers. The RCs provide Actiris with some of the evaluators and explain the required qualifications. Actiris sent some of its staff to the RCs in order to reinforce collaboration with them and assist them in these approaches to the screening of skills. Furthermore, the structure of its internal organisation corresponds to that of the sectors of activity covered by the RCs.
1. Resources: The New Deal favoured a reinforcement of the matching process of the RCs through the commitment of a full-time equivalent (FTE) in each RC. A FTE for a coordinator of the RCs works at Actiris and on the board of directors of each RC.
The RCs are very different, as the sectors covered by them are specific. Certain sectors (e.g. construction) encourage employers more to invest in research and training.
The RCs are encouraged to exchange good practices thanks to the support of the coordinator.
3. Involvement: The partners of the RCs seem to be relatively committed, but the level of involvement seems to vary according to the support from the professional sector concerned and the financial and human means which the RCs are able to take on.
4. Respect and trust: The relations between partners seem to be good and the feeling of trust was reinforced following the New Deal. The RCs began to exchange good practices: "[The person in charge of the economic sector] met the other RCs […], which also happened in the framework of specific contacts. For example, this morning there was a staff meeting. There is a [public] company which will hire drivers with C licences, but they won't do it with the recruitment consultant from the [RC City Professions] public institutions centre […]; they will do it through the Transport & Logistics RC because they have the tools." The smooth collaboration between the partners, upstream from training (information, orientation) as well as downstream (proposal of quality job offers, research and integration in the labour market) influence the effectiveness of the measure in a positive way. A personalised relationship is established between the companies and the RC staff.
5. Difference of authority, conflict of interest: The partners are very different, but the interviews did not indicate the existence of any problems in the area of coordination.
6. Internal leadership: This aspect was reinforced by the New Deal, thanks to the commitment of the RC coordinator who manages the implementation of the matching process, with the staff from Actiris planned for each RC. This coordinator has a certain level of autonomy and handles the piloting.
8. Governance: The management of RCs is supervised by the RC coordinator. In order to do this, she sits on the boards of directors of RCs. She develops activities on a daily basis with the RCs. The transversality of the coordination is reinforced by the fact that only one person is in charge of relationships with the RCs.
9. "Cost/Benefit" of the collaboration: It appears that the collaboration on the matching process is necessary and profitable between the stakeholders. The RCs approach Actiris which sends job seekers to them, allowing better knowledge of the offer of skilled workers in these key sectors. For its part, Actiris receives support from the RCs for training job seekers, carrying out technical and professional skills tests and skills validation tests, and integrating them in the labour market.
10. Idea of beneficiaries: The people who are active in the RCs and in the Actiris departments concerned are close to the field and are in contact with their public. There are two beneficiaries identified for this intervention: employers and job seekers.
2 For further information on the specificity of the regional situation in Brussels in the area of social dialogue and the special status of the Conseil économique et social de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, see Blaise et al., 1999.
3 Agence Bruxelloise pour l'Entreprise (ABE), Société d'Acquisition Foncière (SAF), Agence Bruxelloise pour l'Énergie (ABEA). The other acronyms are presented in figures 1 and 2.
Sabrine Cipriano has a degree in economics and an inter-university certificate in the evaluation of public policies. After working at IWEPS where she participated in the evaluation of the Marshall Plan, in 2011 she joined the Brussels Institute for Statistics and Analysis (BISA). She is responsible for the public policy evaluation unit, and in 2013 and 2014 carried out an evaluation of the Brussels New Deal, presented in BISA Cahier No. 4 (available at www.ibsa.irisnet.be).
Catherine Fallon is a civil engineer and has a doctorate in political and social science. She is currently a lecturer in the political science department at Université de Liège, in the area of public policy evaluation and risk governance. She directs the SPIRAL research centre, specialised in qualitative methodological research and the study of interactions between science and society. She supervised the evaluation of the New Deal, carried out in 2014 for BISA.
Perrine Fastré has a master's degree in economics from Université Libre de Bruxelles and an inter-university certificate in the evaluation of public policies. In 2012, she joined public policy evaluation unit of the Brussels Institute for Statistics and Analysis (BISA). In this framework, she participated in the evaluation of the Brussels New Deal and contributed to writing BISA Cahier No. 4.
Jordan Halin has a degree in political science and public administration from Université de Liège (ULg). He is currently in charge of research at the SPIRAL research centre in the political science department at ULg, where he carries out evaluations of public policies. He took part in the evaluation of the New Deal, carried out in 2014 for BISA.


Friendly family run city centre guest house situated close to bus/rail links and ferry terminal serving Orkney and Shetland islands. Vegetarian breakfasts available.En-suite and standard rooms.
Cove bay hotel is a traditional hotel situated on a peninsula overlooking the North sea,it has 14 bedrooms and is situated in the south side of Aberdeen.
The University of Aberdeen is one of the largest accommodation providers in the north-east. With a range of self-catered flats and standard rooms there is something to suit all requirements.


Ballooning is a unique experience, one which most people know little about. Here we answer some of the most frequently asked questions and we strongly recommend that you read through before purchasing a voucher either for yourself or as a gift.
If you already have a voucher with us, simply check the dates and Book Online or call our passenger line on 01275 375404. If you are a new customer, please call us on 01275 375300 or Buy a voucher online.
The main flying season is from April to October but this may vary slightly depending on the geographic area, weather and ground conditions. Flights are available mornings and evenings during the week and at weekends. During the winter months a balloon flight voucher makes an excellent 'open dated' present, which can be used in the spring. Vouchers are valid for 12 months from the date of purchase which means you always have an entire flying season to take the flight, regardless of the time of year the voucher is purchased and we can delay the start of the voucher if you are buying it well in advance of the occasion. We recommend booking a flight date as soon as possible after receiving your voucher as you may need to reschedule a few times if your flight is cancelled due to weather.
Ballooning is very weather dependent. You will be asked to telephone the Passenger Line prior to the flight to check the weather and to see if your flight is going ahead or not. If It is unsuitable, you simply rebook for another convenient day. You can do this by either checking the availability on our website or calling the Passenger line/Booking Office on 01275 375404. A decision regarding morning flights will be made at 10.30pm the night before and a decision regarding afternoon flights will be made approximately 2 hours before the meeting time. When you book your flight you will be advised what time to call the Passenger Line on the day of your flight.
You may postpone or change your flight provided that you do so by calling the passenger line and speaking to the booking office during office hours. An answerphone message or email is not acceptable. We ask that you give us as much notice as possible and you must give at least ONE WEEK'S NOTICE before the meeting time for the flight.


text:
Home Television Meet the Cast and Characters of Lifetime Movie In Love With My...
Meet the Cast and Characters of Lifetime Movie In Love With My Partner's Wife (2022)
A Still From Preview (Image Courtesy: Lifetime)
In Love With My Partner's Wife is an American thriller movie. Gina Vitori ("Deadly Girls Night Out", "Killer Stepmom"), Andrew Spach ("An Organized Killer"), and Jonathan Stoddard ("Lies My Sister Told Me", "Killer Ambition") are main cast of the movie. The movie directed by Lindsay Hartley and written by Paula Rahn.
In Love With My Partner's Wife movie is scheduled to premiere on August 13, 2022 at 8/7c on Lifetime.
In Love With My Partner's Wife Movie Cast
Gina Vitori as Eve Miller
Gina Vitori is an actress. She plays Eve Miller in the movie 'In Love with My Partner's Wife'. Gina Vitori is best known for her role as Melody in the movie 'Killer Stepmom', Willa in the movie 'Deadly Girls Night Out', and Lara Collins in the movie 'Labor of Lies'.
Gina Vitori has also appeared in the several movies including 'Airliner Sky Battle (2020)', 'Harper (2021)', 'Crazy, Rich and Deadly (2020)', and 'Doctor Death (2019)'.
Andrew Spach as Paul Ford
Andrew Spach is an actor. He plays Paul Ford in the movie 'In Love with My Partner's Wife'. Andrew Spach is best known for his role as Alex in the TV Movie 'An Organized Killer'.
Jonathan Stoddard as Frank Miller
Jonathan Stoddard is an actor. He plays Frank Miller in the movie 'In Love with My Partner's Wife'. Jonathan Stoddard is best known for his role as Rick in the TV Movie 'Nightmare PTA Moms', Chad in the TV Movie 'Lies My Sister Told Me', and Jesse in the TV Movie 'Killer Ambition'.
Jonathan Stoddard has appeared in the several movies including 'Furry Little Christmas', 'The Beauty of Love', 'Labor of Lies', 'Deceived by My Mother-In-Law', and 'The Wrong Prince Charming'. He has also appeared in the several TV Series including 'The Young and the Restless', 'Black Monday', and 'The Wanderer'.
Isabella Oliveira as Andrea Billings
Isabella Oliveira is an actress. She plays Andrea Billings in the movie 'In Love with My Partner's Wife'. Isabella Oliveira has also appeared in the several TV Series including 'Selena: The Series', 'Club', and 'Victorious'.
Nicole Pulliam as Captain Anderson
Nicole Pulliam is an actress. She plays Captain Anderson in the movie 'In Love with My Partner's Wife'. Nicole Pulliam is best known for her role as Nikki Clark in the TV Series 'Fashion House'. She has also appeared in the several TV Series including 'S.W.A.T.', 'All American', 'Bones', 'The Game', 'Brooklyn Nine-Nine', 'Revenge', 'Crazy Love', and 'Crossing Jordan'.
Corbin Timbrook as Callaghan
Corbin Timbrook is an actor. He plays Callaghan in the movie 'In Love with My Partner's Wife'. Corbin Timbrook has appeared in the several movies including 'The Unhealer (2020)', 'Deviant Love (2019)', 'BorderCross (2017)', 'Escape Room (2017)', 'Badsville (2017)', 'The Two Pamelas (2016)', 'Vanished (2016)', 'Broken (2014)', and 'A Little Christmas Business (2013)'.
Robert Miller as Brian
Robert Miller is an actor. He plays Brian in the movie 'In Love with My Partner's Wife'.
Previous articleMeet the Cast and Characters of Hallmark Movie Romance in Style (2022)
Next articleMeet the Cast and Characters of Hallmark Movie The Journey Ahead (2022)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Land of the Bears
Lawyers, Guns and Honey
Planet Earth II Cities
"Diseases" Sort by
One man's journey to discover the bitter truth about sugar. Damon Gameau embarks on a unique experiment to document the effects of a high sugar diet on a healthy body, consuming only foods that are commonly perceived as 'healthy'. Through this entertaining and informative journey, Damon highlights some of the issues that plague the sugar industry, and where sugar lurks on supermarket shelves. This will change the way you think about healthy food.
2009 Technology
Filmmaker Robert Kenner lifts the veil on our nation's food industry, exposing the highly mechanized underbelly that's been hidden from the American consumer with the consent of our government's regulatory agencies, USDA and FDA. Our nation's food supply is now controlled by a handful of corporations that often put profit ahead of consumer health, the livelihood of the American farmer, the safety of workers and our own environment. We have bigger-breasted chickens, the perfect pork chop, insecticide-resistant soybean seeds, even tomatoes that won't go bad, but we also have new strains of e coli--the harmful bacteria that cause illness for an estimated 73,000 Americans annually. We are riddled with widespread obesity, particularly among children, and an epidemic level of diabetes among adults Featuring interviews with such experts as Eric Schlosser (Fast Food Nation), Michael Pollan (The Omnivore's Dilemma) along with forward thinking social entrepreneurs like Stonyfield Farms' Gary Hirschberg and Polyface Farms' Joe Salatin, the film reveals surprising--and often shocking truths--about what we eat, how it's produced, who we have become as a nation and where we are going from here.
Super Size Me
What would happen if you ate nothing but fast food for an entire month? Filmmaker Morgan Spurlock does just that and embarks on the most perilous journey of his life. The rules? For 30 days he can't eat or drink anything that isn't on McDonald's menu; he must wolf three squares a day; he must consume everything on the menu at least once and supersize his meal if asked.
Spurlock also treks across the country interviewing a host of experts on fast food and an equal number of regular folk while chowing down at the Golden Arches. Spurlock's gruelling drive-through diet spirals him into a physical and emotional metamorphosis. Find out in 'Super Size Me' a look at the legal, financial and physical costs of America's hunger for fast food.
A documentary-horror film exploring the phenomenon of 'Sleep Paralysis' through the eyes of eight very different people. These people often find themselves trapped between the sleeping and waking worlds, totally unable to move but aware of their surroundings while being subject to frequently disturbing sights and sounds. A strange element to these visions is that despite the fact that they know nothing of one another, many see similar ghostly 'shadow men.' This is one of many reasons many people insist this is more than just a sleep disorder". This documentary digs deep into not only the particulars of these eight people's uncanny experiences, but it also explores their search to understand what they've gone through and how it's changed their lives. Directed by Rodney Ascher, he chose to focus on sleep paralysis as it had happened to him in the past. The film's crew initially began approaching participants via message groups, videos and a half dozen books that had been written.
The film examines the profound claim that most, if not all, of the degenerative diseases that afflict us can be controlled, or even reversed, by rejecting our present menu of animal-based and processed foods.
Despite the most advanced medical technology in the world, we are sicker than ever by nearly every measure. Cases of diabetes are exploding, especially amongst our younger population. About half of us are taking at least one prescription drug and major medical operations have become routine. Heart disease, cancer and stroke are the country's three leading causes of death, even though billions are spent each year to 'battle' these very conditions. Millions suffer from a host of other degenerative diseases. Could it be there's a single solution to all of these problems?
The Story of Science


The FAST Connector Tool Kit provides all of the necessary installation tools required for fiber preparation of 250um or 900um fibers, or 900um, 2mm or 3mm cordage for pre-polished FAST connectors. No epoxy, polishing film, or other consumables are required, and there is no need for electrical power, allowing installers to get in and out of installation sites quickly. The FF-4003 FAST Connector Tool Kit effectively contains all the industry standard termination tools and still permits an adequate storage area for extra FAST connectors for on-site convenience.


Check here for the work you missed in class! Updated Daily/Weekly.
Tuesday, April 23: NoRedInk – Unit 10 work time. Close Read chapter 15. Discuss 15/16. Read 17/18. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Read chapters 17-18 + study guides.
Monday, April 22: NoRedInk – Unit 10 Diagnostic. Quiz over chapters 13-14. Read 15-16. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Read chapters 15-16 + study guides.
Friday, April 19: Grammar booklets – page 7. Quizzer chapter 12. Discuss chapter 12. Read chapters 13-14. QUIZ MONDAY. See slides. Hand in iPhone assignment.
– HOMEWORK: Read chapters 13-14. Quiz Monday.
Thursday, April 18: Quizzer – chapters 9-10. Discuss iPhone. Read chapter 11 and discuss. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Read chapter 12 – due tomorrow. Work on iPhone chart – due tomorrow.
Wednesday, April 17: Discuss chapters 7-10. iPhone Characterization Chart (swing by to pick one up!). See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Work on iPhone chart – due Friday.
Tuesday, April 16: Grammar Books – page 7. Read chapters 7-10; work on study guides together. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Be through chapter 10 by tomorrow.
Monday, April 15: Grammar Books – page 6. See slides for instructions/notes. Discuss chapters 4-6.
– HOMEWORK: Catch up on reading if not through chapter 6. MUST be through chapter 10 by Wednesday.
Friday, April 12: Write down definition of Motif. Discuss Chapter 3. Read chapters 4-5. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Finish chapters 4-6 plus study guides.
Thursday, April 11: NoRedInk – Unit 9 Quiz. Discuss chapters 1 & 2. Read chapter 3 and work on study guide. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Finish chapter 3 plus study guide.
Wednesday, April 10: District Writing Assessment. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Finish reading chapters 1 and 2 with study guide. NoRedInk – Unit 9 Practice, due 4/11 (Quiz).
Tuesday, April 9: Roots Quiz (see Mrs. Schulte for makeup). Quick overview of notes. Begin reading chapters 1 and 2. See slides.
Monday, April 8: NoRedInk Work Time (Quiz Thursday). Quick Write then read essay on page 5 and poem on page 8. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Notes on plot, etc (complete pages 10 & 11) – due tomorrow (see homepage for link). Review Roots – due tomorrow (Quiz). NoRedInk – Unit 9 Practice, due 4/11 (Quiz).
Friday, April 5: New Unit! Take notes on Unreliable Narrator (see slides). Complete "Unreliable Narrator Writing Assignment" on page 3 of the packet.
– HOMEWORK: NoRedInk – Unit 9 Practice, due 4/11 (Quiz). Review Roots – due 4/9 (Quiz). Unreliable Narrator assignments – due Monday, 4/8.
Thursday, April 4: NoRedInk – Unit 9 Work Time. Finish working on final drafts of book review and hand in. Then electronically publish them to the catalog. Quick book return to library. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: NoRedInk – Unit 9 Practice, due 4/11 (Quiz). Review Roots – due 4/9 (Quiz).
Wednesday, April 3: Roots Wednesday (get roots from Latin Roots webpage). Peer revisions – stations, lightning feedback. Self-Editing. Final drafts of book reviews due tomorrow! See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Finish editing final drafts – due tomorrow!
Tuesday, April 2: NoRedInk – Unit 9 Practice work time. Peer Revision of Book Reviews. Follow instructions on slides.
– HOMEWORK: Finish revising 2nd draft. Bring printed off copy of 2nd draft to class tomorrow.
Monday, April 1: NoRedInk – Unit 9 Diagnostic. Get graphic organizer checked. Start drafting book review. Bring two hard copies tomorrow. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Finish typing up 1st draft of book review. Bring two copies tomorrow.
Friday, March 22: Character Chart – hand in. Write a summary on a notecard (4-5 sentences). Read independently. Complete the Partner Chat on page 3.
– HOMEWORK: READ – Finish books! Complete ONE Graphic Organizer (pgs 9-12) – due Monday, 4/1. BONUS: NoRedInk Exercises.
Thursday, March 21: Grammar booklets – page 5, lower half. See slides for pictures. Independent reading time. Journal entry.
– HOMEWORK: Read 20 minutes. Bring books tomorrow. Character chart due tomorrow.
Wednesday, March 20: Roots- get missed ones off of Roots page. Analyze book reviews. See slides for instructions. Independent reading time. No journal!
– HOMEWORK: Read 20 minutes. Bring books tomorrow. Essay corrections – due Thursday. Character chart due Friday.
Tuesday, March 19: Grammar booklets – page 5, top half, find two sentences in published writing and copy them down. Independent reading time then one journal response and the character chart on page 6 or 7 (choose one) – due Friday. See slides.
Monday, March 18: Grammar booklets – page 4, write four sentences – see slides for rules and pictures. Go over Taming of the Shrew essay. Complete essay corrections on vape essays – due Thursday.
– HOMEWORK: Read 20 minutes. Bring books tomorrow. Essay corrections – due Thursday.
Friday, March 15: QuizletLive review of all Roots (see slides). Reading – complete page 2 for the response.
– HOMEWORK: Read 20 minutes and page 2 response (if not done in class). Bring books Monday.
Thursday, March 14: NoRedInk – Unit 8 Quiz. Reading time then journal response – see slides.
– HOMEWORK: Read 20 minutes and journal. Bring books tomorrow.
Wednesday, March 13: Roots Wednesday – Week 13 – Check Roots page. Work on final drafts. Read 20 minutes then journal. See slides for question options.
– HOMEWORK: NoRedInk quiz tomorrow. Read 20 minutes and journal. Bring books tomorrow.
Tuesday, March 12: NoRedInk – Unit 8 work time. Work on final drafts – self-edits and works cited page (see slides).
– HOMEWORK: FINAL DRAFTS DUE TOMORROW!! NoRedInk Quiz – Thursday.
Monday, March 11: New Unit – get packet from Mrs. Schulte. Go to library to check out a book for new unit. BRING IT EVERY DAY! See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Guided Drafts (NoRedInk) – due today. Works Cited Page – due Tuesday. NoRedInk – Practice – Unit 8, due 3/14.
Friday, March 8: Survey. Work on Guided Drafts in NoRedInk. Work on Works Cited Page. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Guided Drafts (NoRedInk) – due Monday. Works Cited Page – due Tuesday. NoRedInk – Practice – Unit 8, due 3/14. READ – bring Library books Monday!
Thursday, March 7: NoRedInk Work Time. Then work on NoRedInk – Thesis revision lesson. Then revise your own thesis on vape essay. THEN revise your evidence and analysis. THEN insert a counterclaim. THEN type your draft into NoRedInk – Guided Draft assignment. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Work on essays! Add evidence, revise thesis, finish outlines, etc. NoRedInk – Practice – Unit 8, due 3/14. READ!
Wednesday, March 6: SCHOOL CANCELLED – WATER MAIN BREAK.
Tuesday, March 5: SCHOOL CANCELLED – WATER MAIN BREAK.
Monday, March 4: Finish documentary – take notes. See slides.
Friday, March 1: Work time to start. Discuss vaping essays – get more specific, analyze. Begin documentary on Netflix: E-Cigarettes: Magic or Menace. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Work on essays! Add evidence, revise thesis, finish outlines, etc. NoRedInk – Diagnostic/Practice – Unit 8, due 3/14. READ!
Thursday, February 28: Final test on Taming of the Shrew. Work on NoRedInk.
– HOMEWORK: NoRedInk – Diagnostic/Practice – Unit 8, due 3/14. READ!
Wednesday, February 27: Roots Quiz (come in to make up). View Film. Close Read of Act 5. Review for the test tomorrow! See slides.
– HOMEWORK: FINAL TEST THURSDAY! See Quizlet to review!
Tuesday, February 26: NoRedInk Unit 7 Quiz (make sure you complete it). Hand in character charts. Finish reading Act 5 and work on questions. Possibly finish the film (if time allows). See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Review Roots – quiz tomorrow. Act 5 questions due tomorrow. FINAL TEST THURSDAY! See Quizlet to review!
Monday, February 25: MUGS (#17). Brief check of Act 4 questions. Read Act 5 and answer questions. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Character Charts – due tomorrow. NoRedInk – Unit 7 Practice, quiz tomorrow. Review Roots – quiz Wednesday. FINAL TEST THURSDAY!
Friday, February 22: Characterization Chart Assignment (get one from Mrs. Schulte) – due Tuesday. View Act 4 on film. Act 4 questions due Monday! See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Act 4 questions – due Monday. NoRedInk – Unit 7 Practice, quiz Tuesday. Review Roots – quiz Wednesday.
Thursday, February 21: Discuss Scene 1. Read remainder of Act 4. Questions due Monday. See slides.
Wednesday, February 20: Review for Latin Roots (check out quizlet under Latin Roots page, Unit 16). Read Act 4, Scene 1 – answer questions. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Act 4.1 questions – due tomorrow. NoRedInk – Unit 7 Practice, due 2/28. Review Roots – quiz 2/27.
Tuesday, February 19: NoRedInk – Unit 7 Practice. Read/Watch Act 3. Answer questions – due tomorrow.
– HOMEWORK: Act 3 questions – due tomorrow. NoRedInk – Unit 7 Practice.
Friday, February 15: Who's Who? Character Chart (see slides). View Acts 2-3.
– HOMEWORK: Read your books. NoRedInk – Unit 7 Diagnostic.
Thursday, February 14: Grammar booklets – bottom half of page 3 (see slides). Finish reading Act 2. Begin watching Act 2. Get character vocabulary handout!
– HOMEWORK: Read your books. Complete Act 2 questions – due tomorrow.
Wednesday, February 13: Roots (check slides for notes). Insult battle. Read Act 2 and work on questions and vocabulary.
– HOMEWORK: Read your books. Complete Act 2 vocabulary.
Tuesday, February 12: Grammar Booklets – page 3. Watch Act 1. Short response on page 13. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Read your books. Finish short response on page 13. Due tomorrow.
Monday, February 11: Grammar Booklets – Simple Sentences. Read Act 1.2 – vocabulary and questions. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Read your books. Finish questions and vocabulary (1.2).
Friday, February 8: Page 11 – Revise character list to group by social status and family relationships. Read Act 1, Scene 1 (see slides for NoFearShakespeare link). Answer questions.
– HOMEWORK: Read your books. Finish questions and vocabulary (1.1).
Thursday, February 7: NoRedInk – Unit 6 Quiz. Sight Words work (handout plus pages 9 and 10). See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Read your books.
Wednesday, February 6: Roots (check homepage). Read "Induction" from Taming of the Shrew (see version on NoFear Shakespeare: https://www.sparknotes.com/nofear/shakespeare/shrew/ . Answer questions in packet. Read through Insults on page 7. We will have a "battle" next week. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: NoRedInk – Unit 6, Review – due Thursday. Read your books.
Tuesday, February 5: Terms Tuesday (Characterization). Vocabulary work (stage directions – see slides). Page 5 assignment – due tomorrow.
– HOMEWORK: Page 5 in packet – due tomorrow. NoRedInk – Unit 6, Review – due Thursday. Read your books.
Monday, February 4: MUGS #16. Finish Image analysis. Go over plot notes. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: NoRedInk – Unit 6, part B practice – due Tuesday. Read your books.
Friday, February 1: Writing Reflection (see slides). Start Shakespeare – analyze images to predict concepts within the play.
Thursday, January 31: Review, highlight, and revise timed write. Complete "reverse" outline. HAND BACK IN! See slides. Then work on NoRedInk.
Wednesday, January 30: Timed Write! See slides.
Tuesday, January 29: NoRedInk – Unit 6 Work Time. Library Day – scavenger hunt (see slides).
– HOMEWORK: Vaping – Prep for essay //// NoRedInk – Unit 6, part B practice – due Tuesday.
Monday, January 28: MUGS #15. Research Work Day – podcast, infographics, articles (4). See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Vaping – Finish tasks 1-4. Then pick article 1, 4, or 5 to read and annotate like we did in class. //// NoRedInk – Unit 6, part A practice – due tomorrow.
Friday, January 25: Get Silver Ticket from Mrs. Schulte. Read and Annotate Article 3 as a class. Fill out FQI sheet. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Vaping – Finish tasks 1-4. Then pick article 1, 4, or 5 to read and annotate like we did in class. //// NoRedInk – Unit 6, part A practice – due Tuesday.
Thursday, January 24: NoRedInk Work Time (Unit 6, Part A Practice) – due Tuesday AM. Read and Annotate Article 2 together as a class (Identify the main idea plus supporting details). See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Vaping – Finish tasks 1-4. Then pick article 1, 4, or 5 to read and annotate like we did in class. Due tomorrow. //// NoRedInk – Unit 6, part A practice – due Tuesday.
Wednesday, January 23: Roots Wednesday (see Roots page for missed words). Hand in book review corrections. Complete ACT Aspire. Work on vaping research (complete tasks 1-4) on first page. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Finish Diagnostic – due Thursday. Read vaping articles – due Friday.
Tuesday, January 22: NoRedInk – Diagnostic, Unit 6. Book Review corrections (see slides for instructions). Vaping essay packet.
– HOMEWORK: Book review corrections – due tomorrow. Finish Diagnostic – due Thursday. Read vaping articles – due Friday.
TUESDAY – THURSDAY: Semester Finals. See slides.
Monday, January 14: Hand in Book Review. Quizlet Live! Modifier review (see slides).
– HOMEWORK: NoRedInk – Final review diagnostic. STUDY FOR FINAL TEST!
Friday, January 11: SSR Check In. Work Time (book review, review for final test). See slides.
– HOMEWORK: FINAL Book Review DUE Monday(1/14)! NoRedInk – Final review diagnostic. STUDY FOR FINAL TEST!
Thursday, January 10: Roots Test. Then work time. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: 1ST DRAFT Book Review DUE Friday (1/11)! NoRedInk – Final review diagnostic.
Wednesday, January 9: Modes Assessment Timed Write. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Roots final – tomorrow. 1ST DRAFT Book Review DUE Friday (1/11)! NoRedInk – Final review diagnostic.
Tuesday, January 8: Terms. Read and annotate materials for Modes Assessment. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Roots final – Thursday. 1ST DRAFT Book Review DUE Friday (1/11)! NoRedInk – Final review diagnostic.
Monday, January 7: Quick library (to renew or return). Social Media Unit Assessment (linked on my website). Work on book reviews (check of organizers and 1st drafts – share first draft with Mrs. Schulte (electronically or hard copy). See slides.
– HOMEWORK: 1ST DRAFT DUE Friday (1/11)! NoRedInk – Final review diagnostic.
Friday, January 4: NoRedInk – Unit 5 Quiz. Review timed write – highlight, outline, transitional phrases (see slides).
– HOMEWORK: Read your books!! GRAPHIC ORGANIZER AND 1ST DRAFT DUE MONDAY! NoRedInk – Final review diagnostic.
Thursday, January 3: Quick reminder – book reviews due 1/7. Timed Write – Social Media prompt on page 39. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Read your books!! NoRedInk – Unit 5. (Quiz is tomorrow).
Wednesday, January 2: Roots review (final test next Friday). Work on page 38 in packet then brainstorm for prompt on page 39 (timed write tomorrow). See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Read your books!! NoRedInk – Unit 5. (Quiz is Friday).
HAVE AN AWESOME CHRISTMAS BREAK!
Friday, December 21: Book Review Check in. Discuss Article. TEDTalk of choice – see my homepage for link. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Read your books!! NoRedInk – Unit 5. Experiments. Movie bonus!
Thursday, December 20: NoRedInk Unit 5 Work Time. Read an article of choice (look on my home page for links). See slides.
Wednesday, December 19: Kahoot Review – Roots. Finish "The Veldt" then discuss. Review experiments (pgs 26-27). See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Read your books!! NoRedInk – Unit 5.
Tuesday, December 18: Terms (Allusion). See slides. Read "The Veldt" on Commonlit.org.
Monday, December 17: MUGS #14. Hand in "Teens…" questions (page 23). Listen to radio clip then complete Scavenger Hunt (pgs 24-25). See slides.
Friday, December 14: Book Review assignment. Read "Teens…" (pages 16-22) then answer questions on page 23. Due Monday. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Read your books!! NoRedInk – Unit 5. Finish article and questions.
Thursday, December 13: NoRedInk work time – Unit 5 Diagnostic. Read "Watch Out" on Commonlit.org. See my homepage for login. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Read your books!! NoRedInk – Unit 5. Finish article!!!!
Wednesday, December 12: Roots review. Hand in TEDTalk questions (pg 11). Notes + Poem and Response + Social Media Scenario (see slides).
– HOMEWORK: Read your books!!
Tuesday, December 11: NoRedInk – Unit 4 Quiz. Discuss "FOMO" then view TEDTalk and answer questions (see slides).
– HOMEWORK: Finish TEDTalk and questions (page 11).
Monday, December 10: MUGS #13. New Unit! Quick write then read article and answer questions (see slides).
– HOMEWORK: NoRedInk – Unit 4 Practice – QUIZ TUESDAY. Finish article and questions.
Friday, December 7: MyVoice Survey (please complete via my website). Library time. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: NoRedInk – Unit 4 Practice – QUIZ TUESDAY.
Thursday, December 6: NoRedInk Work Time. End-of-novel survey. Work time – essay corrections, podcast, NoRedInk. See slides – period 2 or period 4.
– HOMEWORK: Essay Corrections. NoRedInk – Unit 4 Practice – QUIZ TUESDAY.
Wednesday, December 5: Roots Quiz. Work Time – Essay corrections, podcast questions, NoRedInk work time. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Essay Corrections. NoRedInk – Unit 4 Practice.
Tuesday, December 4: NoRedInk Work Time. Listen to survival podcast (link on my homepage). Get questions from Mrs. Schulte. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Review Roots. NoRedInk – Unit 4 Practice.
Monday, December 3: MUGS (revise sentences). Work on final drafts of essay – due tomorrow! See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Review Roots. NoRedInk – Unit 4 Practice. ESSAY FINAL DRAFTS DUE TUESDAY!
Friday, November 30: SSR (Book Bingo Sheets). Peer Revisions of Essays. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Typed drafts (2 copies) – due Monday (if not done today). NoRedInk – Unit 4 Practice. ESSAY FINAL DRAFTS DUE TUESDAY!
Thursday, November 29: NoRedInk Work Time – Unit 4. Get outline checked then start typing. 1st drafts due tomorrow!! See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Typed drafts (2 copies) – due tomorrow. NoRedInk – Unit 4 Practice.
Wednesday, November 28: Roots (#9). Notes on compare/contrast. See slides then complete the reverse outline (page 35).
– HOMEWORK: Reverse Outline – due tomorrow. NoRedInk – Unit 4 Diagnostic and Practice.
Tuesday, November 27: NoRedInk Work Time -Unit 4. Fishbowl Discussion – Lord of the Flies (see slides).
– HOMEWORK: NoRedInk – Unit 4 Diagnostic and Practice.
Monday, November 26: MUGS (#11). Discuss Lord of the Flies (see slides).
– HOMEWORK: NoRedInk Unit 3 – Extra Practice. Unit 4 Diagnostic.
Tuesday, November 20: Quick Roots (#8). Timed Write – see slides.
– HOMEWORK: NoRedInk Unit 3 – Extra Practice.
Monday, November 19: MUGS #10. Work on page 32 and character charts. Complete quiz over chapter 12. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Character charts. NoRedInk Unit 3 – Extra Practice.
Friday, November 16: Renew/Return @ Library. Chapter 11 Work Time. Discussion over chapter 11 – page 30-31. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Read chapter 12 – due Monday. NoRedInk Unit 3 – Extra Practice.
Thursday, November 15: NoRedInk Unit 3 Quiz. Chapter 10 Work Time. Discussion over chapters 9 and 10. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Read chapter 11 – due tomorrow.
Wednesday, November 14: Roots (see Roots page for this week's). Work on pages 26 and 27 for chapter 9 (due Thursday). Read chapter 10. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Read chapter 10 – due tomorrow. NoRedInk – Unit 3 – Quiz tomorrow!
– HOMEWORK: Read chapter 9 – due tomorrow. NoRedInk – Unit 3, Part 2 Practice (due Tuesday night).
Monday, November 12: MUGS #9. Read Chapter 8. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Read chapter 8 – due Tuesday. NoRedInk – Unit 3, Part 2 Practice (due Tuesday night).
Friday, November 9: Quizzer over chapter 7. Discussion of 1-7 then writing assignment (see slides for instructions).
– HOMEWORK: Quote Analysis paragraph – due Monday. Read chapter 8 – due Tuesday. NoRedInk – Unit 3, Part 2 Practice (due Tuesday night).
Thursday, November 8: NoRedInk Work Time. Quizzer over chapter 6. Work on chapter 7 – due tomorrow. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Read chapter 7 – due tomorrow. NoRedInk – Unit 3, Part 2 Practice (due Tuesday night).
Wednesday, November 7: Roots quiz. Work on chapter 6 – due tomorrow. See slides.
– HOMEWORK: Read chapter 6 – due Thursday. NoRedInk – Unit 3, Part 1 Practice (due tonight).
Tuesday, November 6. NoRedInk Work Time. Read from chapter 5 then discuss (need a handout from Mrs. Schulte – Chapter5_Discussion). Daily slides here.
– HOMEWORK: Read chapter 6 – due Thursday. NoRedInk – Unit 3, Part 1 Practice (due Wednesday).
Monday, November 5: MUGS. Quizzer chapter 4. Discuss chapter 4 (see slides for questions). Read chapter 5.
– HOMEWORK: Read chapter 5 – due tomorrow. NoRedInk – Unit 3, Part 1 Practice (due Wednesday).
Friday, November 2: Work on reading chapters 2 and 3. Submit two tweets (on paper) – one from each chapter. Discuss pages 12 and 14 in study guides.
– HOMEWORK: Read chapter 4 – due Monday. NoRedInk – Unit 3, Part 1 Practice (due Wednesday).
Thursday, November 1: NoRedInk Quiz. Discuss Chapter 1 (page 9).
– HOMEWORK: Read chapters 2 and 3 – due tomorrow.
Wednesday, October 31: Roots #6. Finish reading chapter 1 of Lord of the Flies.
– HOMEWORK: Unit 2 practice (NoRedInk). Unit 3 Diagnostic. Read chapter 1 and work on study guide or annotations.
Tuesday, October 30: Term (symbolism). Start reading Chapter 1 of Lord of the Flies. Here is a link to the audiobook.
Monday, October 29: MUGS#7. Get new unit packet (Lord of the Flies). Complete page 1 then play game (see slides).
– HOMEWORK: Unit 2 practice (NoRedInk). Unit 3 Diagnostic. Read!
Thursday, October 25: NoRedInk – Unit 2 Quiz. Go to my homepage and click on a link for a current event. Complete handout (found in classroom) then write the summary paragraph.
– HOMEWORK: Unit 2 practice (NoRedInk). Finish paragraph.
Wednesday, October 24: Latin Roots (#4 and #5). Embedding quotes lecture.
– HOMEWORK: Unit 2 practice (NoRedInk) – Quiz tomorrow.
Tuesday, October 23: SRI (Reading Inventory). Work on NoRedInk and/or Essay Corrections. (Slides with instructions).
Monday, October 22: NoRedInk – Unit 2 Practice. Essay Corrections (see slides for instructions).
Wednesday, October 17: Check of 1st drafts. Work through peer revisions. Final drafts due by 3:30 Today. Click here for today's notes and the revision stations.
– HOMEWORK: Unit 2 practice (NoRedInk).
Tuesday, October 16: Check of outlines. Work on drafting 1st drafts – due tomorrow.
– HOMEWORK: Complete 1st drafts – due tomorrow! Unit 2 practice (NoRedInk).
Monday, October 15: MUGS #6. Go over outline for essay. Work on outline – due tomorrow.
– HOMEWORK: Complete outline. Read your books! Unit 2 practice (NoRedInk).
Friday, October 12: Library return/renew. Brainstorming/Prewriting for Comparison Essay on the topic of Heroism. (See Calendar for notes link or here).
– HOMEWORK: Read your books! Unit 2 practice (NoRedInk). For Monday, you need to have 2 subjects, 3 points of comparison, and evidence/examples pulled for the essay.
Thursday, October 11: NoRedInk – Unit 2 Practice. Finish reading "Banality of Heroism" and answer the questions. Write down 4 hero types. (See slide show linked @ calendar page).
– HOMEWORK: Read your books! Unit 2 practice (NoRedInk).
Wednesday, October 10: Roots Quiz! (You will need to make this up.) *Hand in podcast questions. Read "Banality of Heroism." We will work on questions tomorrow.
Tuesday, October 9: Term (Tone/Mood). Listen to podcast and answer questions. Video is linked on my website for lecture.
– HOMEWORK: Read your books! Unit 2 practice (NoRedInk). Finish podcast.
Monday, October 8: MUGS #5. Finish discussion on Henry V speech, finish pages 22 and 23.
Friday, October 5: NoRedInk Unit 1 Quiz (MUST make up!). Work in groups to analyze "St. Crispin's Day Speech" from Henry V. Discuss aspects of heroism.
– HOMEWORK: Read your books!
Thursday, October 4: Work on NoRedInk – Unit 1 Practice. Listen to Podcast ("How to be a Hero") linked on my website homepage and finish note sheet on page 16 OR 17.
– HOMEWORK: Podcast notes. NoRedInk – Unit 1 practice (due Thurs, 10/4 – Quiz Fri, 10/5). Read "St. Crispin's Day Speech (pages 18-20) for Friday.
Wednesday, October 3: Roots #3 (Quiz next Wednesday). Go to Commonlit.org and create an account then read "Invictus" and answer the questions (see my homepage for link and setup). BRING HEADPHONES TOMORROW.
– HOMEWORK: NoRedInk – Unit 1 practice (due Thurs, 10/4 – Quiz Fri, 10/5). Read "St. Crispin's Day Speech (pages 18-20) for Friday.
Tuesday, October 2: Terms – Imagery. Read "Charge of the Light Brigade" and annotate using the TPS-FASTT method.
Monday, October 1: MUGS#4. Discuss answers to "37 people". Hand in police report.
Friday, September 28: NoRedInk – Complete Unit 1 Diagnostic. Read article on pages 9-11 then complete police report on pages 7-8. DUE MONDAY.
– HOMEWORK: Finish reading article and completing police report. Work on NoRedInk for 20-30 minutes.
Thursday, September 27: Writing – Revised sentences. View TEDTalk linked on homepage then complete the handout on page 6. Turn in "Power of Words" handout.
– HOMEWORK: Finish page 6 handout over TEDTalk.
Wednesday, September 26: District Writing Assessment. You MUST make this up by Monday, 10/1.
– HOMEWORK: Read. Finish "Power of Words" handout.
Tuesday, September 25: Roots (get the 3 roots from a neighbor). HAND IN REVISED PARAGRAPH. Discuss heroes vs villains (get notes from a neighbor).
– HOMEWORK: Read the article on pages 3-4. Is he a hero or not?
Monday, September 24: MUGS 3. Notes on heroic / unheroic traits (get from a classmate).
– HOMEWORK: Read about two heroes (see links on homepage). Revise paragraph for tomorrow!
Friday, September 21: SSR (reading time). Notes on "Words to Avoid." Work on "Power of Words" handout. Revise "The Scarlet Ibis" paragraphs.
– HOMEWORK: Read. Revise Paragraphs. Work on handout.
Thursday, September 20: Embedding Quotes handout. MLA Notes – get handout from Absent Work Bin then complete notes using link on homepage, password: bengals.
Wednesday, September 19: Roots (week 1). Complete in-class writing assignment (last two pages of unit 1). Hand in paragraph, grid, and rubric.
Tuesday, September 18: Terms (Motif). ACT Aspire (must be made up by 9/21). Work on Grid.
– HOMEWORK: Finish Grid for tomorrow. Read!
Monday, September 17: MUGS #2. Work on the grid following "The Scarlet Ibis." Needed for Wednesday in class.
Friday, September 14: (Due: Questions for "The Scarlet Ibis") NoRedInk Diagnostic. You need to get logged in and set up your account. See the home page for the instructions.
Thursday, September 13: Library day! Check out a book and bring it tomorrow!
– HOMEWORK: Read!! Fill out your pacing bookmarks and get started. "The Scarlet Ibis" questions due tomorrow.
Wednesday, September 12: Pick up "Roots" handout as a reference. Read "The Scarlet Ibis". Answer the questions (1-7) – due Friday.
– HOMEWORK: Finish questions 1-7 for Friday.
Tuesday, September 11: (Due: Questions 1-8, "The Necklace") Literary Terms – Theme. Discuss some questions from the story. Take notes on writing.
Monday, September 10: (Due: Introductory Paragraphs) MUGS #1, Read the short story "The Necklace." Answer questions 1-8 at the end.
– HOMEWORK: Answer questions 1-8 at the end of the story.
Friday, September 7: Review questions for "Thank you Ma'am." Review Introductory Paragraphs (1st page of writing handbook). Assign writing paragraph (page immediately following questions for short story).
– HOMEWORK: Write an introductory paragraph in the accurate format for the short story "Thank You Ma'am." Due Monday.
Thursday, September 6: PICTURES! Get the Unit 1 Packet then read "Thank you Ma'am" and answer the questions.
Wednesday, September 5: Root Kahoot online (review of Greek roots). Assemble binders for class.
– HOMEWORK: Email due tomorrow (see Tuesday). Picture day tomorrow.
Tuesday, September 4: Finish "Power of Punctuation" notes. Go over Email Netiquette (get notes from classmate).
– HOMEWORK: Write one email for one scenario – due Thursday 9/6/2018. SUPPLIES/SYLLABUS DUE TOMORROW.
– HOMEWORK: Signed syllabus and supplies due 9/5/2018. Get notes from a classmate and complete exercise.
Thursday, August 30: First day of class! Welcome back!
– HOMEWORK: Complete "You Are Here" worksheet for tomorrow.


Nike brings fashion and sports together with these low top trainers. So versatile thanks to the fabric upper and black colour, they combine comfort and style. The synthetic sole and the comfortable synthetic lining make them a must-have. Sporty yet sleek, urbanites won't be able to resist!
Perfect, very comfortable and true to size. They have support in the arch area which a lot of trainers do not. Very happy.


Many factories (particularly ones built before year 2000) will contain some forms of asbestos or asbestos-containing materials (ACMs).
Factory workers are unlikely to be at risk in the course of their normal activities, the most likely way asbestos or ACMs will create a risk in factories is when they are disturbed or damaged.
The likelihood of factory workers disturbing asbestos-containing materials is slim but does need to be considered as part of the business management arrangement, any vulnerable or exposed panels should be identified and protected or removed.
"Enviro-safe came in for a removal job where they had to tackle two floors of Asbestos Insulation Board and remove the boxing around structural columns, we were really impressed with how they worked so quickly and with minimal mess or noise disturbance, would definitely use them again." - We went into Halesowen in Birmingham to remove two floors of boxed in structural AIB, we found this slightly more challenging than usual jobs as it was spread across multiple floors of the building.


text:
Q: Javascript request over XHR I am attempting to download a web page through XHR, and then render it in the browser (using document.write()), but when I do this, although the page is displayed, the jQuery's ready() function does not execute. If I download the exact same page directly, it does execute. Is there something that needs to be done to make the page delivered through XHR execute the ready() function?

A: Don't use document.write() to replace page contents, it'll end in tears.
Just find a suitable top-level element and use .replaceWith() to get rid of its existing contents and include the new contents retrieved from the XHR, e.g.:
$.get(url, function(html) {
    $(body).replaceWith($(html).find('body'));
});

Note that this won't replace the <head>, nor will it execute any additional Javascript blocks that might be included in the new content.
You can also use .load()
$(body).load(url);

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Last March 19, some friends from the 700 Club Asia came over for a shoot. Here's what happened.
After the interview, it took another hour or so to shoot a few more scenes (a bit of acting was involved, and I had to change clothes 3 times!). Then it was time to eat. I cooked pasta and paired it with French Bread with garlic olive oil.
Friends from our Church, Ralph and Abie, came over to provide moral support. We chatted a lot before they headed home.
Ralph and Abie with our baby, Cain.
So what is this all about? Find out on April 13, 11:00pm at the GMA News TV (formerly QTV).