African Americans in Contemporary Media Landscape Article

African Americans in Contemporary Media Landscape - Article Example Throughout the years, numerous individuals who moved to America from different nations and mainlands in quest for different objectives are likewise viewed as African Americans. African Americans are regularly connected with dark skin and Africa. For quite a while throughout the entire existence of America, African Americans were viewed as second rate compared to their white partners and, along these lines, endured the results of racial isolation. Besides, the Black Americans, as they are once in a while alluded to, have significantly been related with destitution, drugs, brutality, ghettos, and wrongdoing. African Americans have been dependent upon a great deal of generalizations since the times of subjection. As a minority bunch in the U.S., they have for the most part been related with negative angles, conduct or ways of life even as their white partners are regularly connected with a great deal of good. In numerous TV programs, African Americans consistently take minor jobs or take on a supporting role to the principle entertainers. Likewise, as far as portrayal, they are consistently less in number in the TV programs in which they are highlighted. Generalizations might be certain, nonpartisan or negative. As a rule, the African American is constantly portrayed as being servile, stupid, slow-witted, crude, sedate addicts, poor, forceful, criminal, overweight (for females), sluggish, athletic, skilled to make music, and strict as supported by the M3 Foundation (n.d.). This rundown of generalizations is all negative aside from athletic and melodic blessing generalizations. Now and aga in, African Americans are likewise delineated as having no employments disregarding their training which drives them to stay poor. These delineations of the African American in TV programs and movies for the most part serve to strengthen the negative perspectives that whites have towards the Black Americans. African American Stereotypes as Presented on Contemporary TV Programs In Bravo's Top Chef, one generalization that is appointed to the African American is hostility. In the second period of the show, one of the characters in the TV program is an African American male called Cliff. At the same time, Cliff is portrayed as a skilled chef.â

Creating Positive School Experiences for Teens with Disabilities

All men are made similarly. Having incapacities doesn't establish having various rights. In any case, this isn't generally the situation. In the article entitled, Creating Positive School Experiences for Teens with Disabilities, the encounters in school of understudies with incapacities is handled and what positive activities should and should be possible so as to give these teenagers the legitimate treatment they merit. The topic of the article is to underline the significance of equity and solidarity in spite of the distinctions in abilities. It is an article that ought to be profoundly considered by understudies with inabilities, instructors and school guides engaged with programs for the prosperity all things considered, and different understudies who have direct experience with individual classmates that have handicaps. Understudies with inabilities regularly face separation and difficulties in view of the biasness individuals have towards them. Thus, they could without much of a stretch disguise contrary perspectives, influencing their conduct towards others. The article instructs individuals, particularly instructors and advocates, to help by making programs that would urge individuals to help in giving a positive situation to understudies with incapacities to take part in. The article doesn't express that extraordinary medicines are what understudies with inabilities need. What is increasingly significant is that they are given equivalent possibilities and the perfect measure of regard they merit. Harassing and different types of negative biasness ought to be killed from the educational system all together for the crippled understudies to develop well in a reasonable and just network. The article concurs with the Scripture as it features giving equivalent chances and regard for all individuals, regardless of what foundation they may have. The service ought to likewise help urge school chairmen to intercede and advance positive school encounters for the handicapped. Projects that underline on regard, fairness, and comprehension ought to rule the school rules.

Environmentalists say Down with the WTO essays

Earthy people say Down with the WTO papers Earthy people say Down with the WTO Exchange is the partner of working individuals, not their foe, WTO Director-General Mike Moore told worker's organization delegates. As expectations for everyday comforts improve, so too does training, wellbeing, nature and work guidelines. That is bogus; the primary objective of the WTO, since set up in 1995 is to advance universal exchange. They couldn't care less about the exchange off of a sheltered situation. Their fundamental concern is thriving economies regardless of ecological conditions exacerbating. Such activities stress tree huggers who contend the WTO favors the development of exchange over open wellbeing. People not benefits should be WTO's top need. We are endeavoring to get over the significance of natural security over unhindered commerce. Us hippies need them to tune in and make a move to guarantee the wellbeing of individuals and the earth. Naturalist met in Seattle to calmly pass on our wellbeing concerns. We need the WTO to comprehend that we are not against the universal association, we just need to be guaranteed that nature won't be undermined with the expectation of complimentary exchange. Daniel Seligman of the Sierra Club said it's not exchange and the globalized economy that upsets preservationists, however the way that World Trade Organization rules work to advance exchange. Their fundamental concern ought to be to implement and control wellbeing of individuals and the earth in the accompanying zones: clean water, clean air, thriving woodlands, normally developed (natural) vegetable, solid creatures without infusions, and no perspiration shops. The WTO needs to permit nations to boycott nations send out as a result of perilous condition rehearses. The WTO means to wipe out what they are calling non-levy exchange hindrances, Seligman told CNN. Furthermore, a great deal of those exchange boundaries are in reality hard-won ecological and sanitation insurances. According to ABC news on the web, Nations have just proposed another 150 things they need arranged, includi... <!

Focuses of school based instructional supervision

Focal points of school based instructional management A further sub-issue in the examination was to investigate members observations about the focal points of school-based instructional management. This area reports the discoveries with respect to the focal points of school-put together instructional management based with respect to survey and meeting information. Poll Findings Twenty-two explanations depicting the focal points of instructional management were recorded in every survey instrument (Appendices An and B). The announcements tended to the accompanying significant angles in regards to instructional oversight centers: (an) association of exercises, (b) topic, (c) students scholarly turn of events, (d) school educational program, (e) exercise plan, (f) understudies singular request, (g) showing guides, (h) course targets, (I) instructors character, (j) students character improvement, (k) understudies progress records, (k) records of work secured, (1) educators dress and appearance, (m) students awareness of other's expectations, (n) instructional course, (o) instructors addressing style, (p) study hall the board, (q) extracurricular exercises, (r) understudies execution in national assessments, (s) instructor self-assessment, and (t) educator student relationship. For insights concerning explicit proclamations with respect to management centers, see Appendixes An and B. The respondents were mentioned to demonstrate their current and favored degree of assessment of every perspective by settling on decisions from given options running from 1 (never inspected) to 5 (much of the time analyzed). The rate and recurrence dispersions just as mean scores and standard deviations were resolved for each of the core interests. The discoveries on educators impression of the focal points of school-based instructional oversight are introduced in this area as far as existing and normally liked recurrence of assessment of the core interests. I have included just the centers that positioned most noteworthy and least as far as recurrence of assessment as saw by educators. Instructors impression of the recurrence of assessment of existing and favored focal points of school-based instructional oversight were investigated (Appendix D, Table 3.1). The centers have been positioned from most elevated to least recurrence of assessment dependent on mean reactions for existing and favored focal points of school-based instructional oversight (see Table 3.2). The information gathered propose that accessibility of appropriately sorted out students progress records positioned first in quite a while of existing recurrence of assessment, educators worry with understudies execution in national assessments positioned second, and accessibility of exceptional pitifully record of work secured positioned third (Appendix D, Table 3.2). At the other outrageous, three centers positioned most reduced as far as existing recurrence of assessment: educators dress and appearance, instructors utilization of showing helps, and the way where the instructor poses inquiries in the cla ss (Appendix D, Table 3.2). As far as favored recurrence of assessment, the center that positioned first was instructors worry with students execution in national assessments, trailed by accessibility of appropriately composed understudies progress records, and, at long last, accessibility of forward-thinking week after week record of work secured (Appendix D, Table 3.2). The centers that positioned most minimal as far as favored recurrence of assessment included readiness of a fitting exercise plan, the way where the educator poses inquiries in the class, and instructors dress and appearance (Appendix D, Table 3.2). In view of t-test investigations, there were critical contrasts at the 0.001 level between educators impression of the recurrence of assessment of existing and favored focal points of school-based instructional oversight. When all is said in done, instructors favored that the focal points of school-based instructional management introduced in this investigation be analyzed more much of the time tha n was as of now being finished. Meeting Findings Meetings with instructors, headteachers, and training officials demonstrated five significant topics comparative with focal points of school-based instructional oversight: (an) educational plan and guidance, (b) understudy achievement, (c) educator execution, (d) instructors antiques of educating, and (e) human relations. Educational program and Instruction Three headteachers refered to three focal points of instructional oversight that are basically worried about educational plan and guidance: (an) instructors participation to planned exercises, (b) educators support in extracurricular exercises, and (c) schedule inclusion by the instructor. One educator, in a general comment, expressed as follows: I think it is critical to keep an eye on participation of instructors to their booked exercises or to their cooperation in extracurricular exercises with students. Headteachers ought to likewise ensure that educators spread the prospectuses in great time to get ready understudies for outside tests. Understudy Success Two instructors concurred that instructional chiefs should try to discover how educators survey their understudies work. They contended that the different procedures that educators use to survey understudies progress will decide how understudies are set up for national assessments. As one instructor commented, It would be useful to realize educators evaluate their understudies scholarly work since this is significant for understudies accomplishment in the national assessments. Instructor Performance Another region in regards to the focal points of school-based instructional oversight refered to by four interviewees was worried about instructor execution in the study hall. These members concurred that, to encourage educating and learning, the educators level of readiness and general adequacy in instructing ought to be the major focal points of the oversight of guidance. As one training official remarked, The best activity is for administrators to address zones like viability of their homeroom instructors and how they are set up to educate. Educators Artifacts of Teaching One headteacher saw that educators showing antiquities, for example, assessment and test papers, ought to be tended to during oversight process. This headteacher commented, Instructional directors should check the nature of assessment and test papers set by educators in light of the fact that these are significant instructing devices that would shape understudies achievement in the last assessments. Do they set top notch papers which can advance learning? Human Relations A last territory identifying with focal points of instructional oversight referenced by certain interviewees was worried about human relations. One training official noticed that how instructors associate with understudies ought to be considered in the acts of instructional oversight and that the educator student relationship ought to be a significant focal point of instructional management. Another instruction official remarked, When you are overseeing an educator, for instance in the homeroom, you should take a gander at how the instructor collaborates with understudies. This association is significant in light of the fact that it will influence learning. When all is said in done, the focal points of school-based instructional oversight refered to by interviewees agree with high-positioning centers comparative with the current and favored degree of assessment by the instructor from the poll information. Combination and Discussion of School-based instructional management Focuses The discoveries identifying with educators view of existing and favored recurrence of assessment of the focal points of school-based instructional oversight uncovered by survey information show that three centers got the most noteworthy positioning in both existing and favored recurrence of assessment: (an) accessibility of appropriately sorted out understudies progress records, (b) accessibility of state-of-the-art week after week record of work secured, and (c) instructors worry with students execution in national assessments. Additionally, one center the way where the instructor poses inquiries in the class-got the most reduced positioning in both existing and favored recurrence of assessment as saw by educators. The discoveries from the meeting information uncovered the accompanying focal points of school-based instructional management: (an) instructors participation to planned classes, (b) educators readiness, (e) instructors techniques for evaluation of understudies scholastic advancement, (f) nature of test papers set by the instructor, (g) prospectus inclusion by the educator, (h) instructors support in extracurricular exercises, and (I) educator student relationship. Pointers of Teacher Preparation The three focal points of school-based instructional management that got the most elevated positioning as far as existing and normally liked recurrence of assessment by the headteacher-accessibility of appropriately composed understudies records, accessibility of state-of-the-art records of work secured, and educators worry with students execution in national assessments were especially intriguing in light of the fact that, in Saudi Arabia, the three centers are among the markers of instructors readiness for powerful training that the Ministry of Education anticipates that headteachers should guarantee. As clarified by Saudi Arabian Ministry of Education (1998) headteachers, as chiefs of affirmed school educational program, are relied upon to guarantee that instructors get ready complete apparatuses of work, for example, exercise plans and week by week records of work done, and check occasionally students practice books, down to earth work, assignments, and nonstop appraisal to guara ntee ordinary stamping and methodical use in managing students. Educators Concern with Pupils Performance Educators worry with students execution in national assessments is a significant part of Saudi Arabias instruction framework, which appears to put a lot of accentuation on going of assessments. As Babtain (2004) noticed, the over-burden arrangement of training forces vicious rivalry among schools, where students are pushed to chop down others in national assessments, and powers educators to be occupied lasting through the year as they battle to finish the educational plan. To encourage understudies achievement in national assessments, as substantiated by Ibrahim (2000), educators are relied upon to create and transmit wanted knowl

Since humans and chimps are similar, do you think it would be useful Essay

Since people and chimps are comparative, do you figure it is valuable to utilize chimps as substitutes for people during logical res - Essay Example For people a procedure of educated agree is utilized to guarantee that the privileges of people are not traded off, however with chimps this is obviously incomprehensible, since chimps don't have the language abilities to comprehend what is proposed, or to communicate their perspectives. In 1994 a gathering of researchers discussed the utilization of chimpanzees in AIDS research and it reasoned that the need was there, because of an absence of options, and that it was worthy to direct research, for example, giving infusions and gathering blood tests, inasmuch as monetary help for long haul retirement of the chimps a short time later is ensured. (Akker et al, 1994, p. 51) This adds up to an acknowledgment of very obtrusive research as an end-result of some government assistance reward later. In 2010 researchers examining genomes and human genealogy explicit (HLS) groupings of obscure capacity considered the utilization of transgenic methods with incredible gorillas (chimpanzees, orang utans, gorillas) however presumed this would make hurt the primates and that â€Å"these hurts render the lead of this exploration morally unsuitable in chimps, defending administrative boundaries between these species and all other non-human primates for transgenic research.† (Coors et al., 2010), p. 658.

How to Throw an Affordable and Great Birthday

How to Throw an Affordable and Great Birthday How to Throw a Fun and Affordable Birthday Party for Your Child! How to Throw a Fun and Affordable Birthday Party for Your Child!It’s easy to overthink throwing a kids birthday party. What if this is the moment that locks in their popularity with their friends for the rest of their school years!? Is the only way to be safe to throw the most lavish party in history?Of course not! You can throw a fantastic (but still affordable) party that your child and all of their friends will enjoy. We spoke to the experts to get you the tips you need to throw a cheap party that won’t feel cheap. So dust off your mantle, because you’re about to get a “Best Parent Ever” award!Pick a theme and stick to it.A cheap but matching outfit is always going to look better than the most expensive clothes thrown together all willy-nilly. The same principle applies to parties. A cheaper party with a strong, committed theme is going to be better than dancing horses weaving in between robot butlers. As interesting as that may sound, it’s going to lead to a lot of fr ightened horses and broken butlers. Instead, choose a theme to build the party around, like Dr. Amy Cooper Hakim  did. Here’s what the founder of the Cooper Strategic Group told us:“It’s easy to make a nice party without breaking the bank. It’s all about balance. Simply focus on an inexpensive (yet really fun!) hobby as the theme. When my daughter, Adina, turned 10 she wanted to have a ‘girlie’ science party. We had the party at home, and she helped to plan it. She chose three science experiments that she found online. We printed out the directions and ordered enough supplies. Then, we picked up hot pink mixing bowls and glittery confetti for the tables.“On the big day, Adina was the star. She led the girls in each experiment. With a little help from some grownups on hand, we moved the party along and helped children who needed extra assistance with their experiments. We ended the party with a piñata filled with yummy candy! The girls took home their completed science experiments, as well. It was a home run! And, some of Adina’s friends even grew inspired to do their own science experiments as a result of the party.”Hanging with friends can make some of the best parties.When you think of your favorite parties you’ve gone to as an adult, how many were out at a big fancy event? Maybe you’re a social butterfly, but some of the best nights can happen just  hanging with a few close friends, and the same can be true for kids. That’s what Jennifer Bright Reich, publisher of the Mommy MD Guides, told us: “I’m a single mom of 11- and 10-year-old sons. We’ve been to plenty of pricey parties at party places, such as trampoline parks. My boys prefer to have simple playdates and sleepovers with close school friends instead.”“The cost is lowâ€"not much more than a regular sleepover,” Reich told us, before getting to the menu. “I usually buy pizza and some snacks and a cake. The next morning, we often all walk to Dunkin Donuts down the block and I treat the kids to donuts.”And Reich doesn’t let the kids leave empty-handed: “We put together generous, but low cost,   party favor bags, containing maybe a Pokemon card pack, small bouncy ball, and another small treat. I probably spend less than $100!”Leah Klein, of the Leah’s Life blog, shared her experience creating fun parties at home:“We are all about saving on birthday parties. There are a few ways to do so that make the party better too. One is to keep the numbers down. Sometimes a party with a few good friends is a lot more fun than one with the entire neighborhood. When we do have a large party. We have it outside and get a bouncy castle to put in the driveway. If you can pick up and drop off the bouncy castle yourself that will save on delivery fees. Set up some art supplies at a little table and a rug with some toys and its a party. Often parents go crazy for things that are just showy. The kids just want to play and have fun.“For older children, we get creative. My daughter has had a chef come and cook with her friends. A sleepover with some good food and a movie is all the older kids really need. Instead of catering a party or renting a party room, taking the kids to a diner or inexpensive restaurant can be just as fun especially if they have their own table to sit at and the chaperoning parents sit separately.”Klein wrote about one sleepover scavenger hunt party she threw here.Shop smarter, not… harder. Like with so much else in life, an affordable party comes down to your shopping abilities. Spend your money in the right places and you won’t have to spend as much of it.Randy Fuhrman, who has decades of experience putting together parties through Randy Fuhrman Events, gave us his tips for party shopping smart:“Being a great shopper is the way to get your money to stretch and not look shabby. I have been using the 99 Cent Only Store, The Dollar King, and The Dollar Store for years. You have to really go up and dow n the aisle as there are treasures  to find in every aisle you just have to keep your eyes OPEN.“I have found The Dollar King Store seems to be the best as they have everything in color order and have an amazing holiday section where you can find incredible things. They also have a BIG birthday section with balloons and favors for the kids.“It is about being creative and thinking outside the box. Using Ralphs Bakery or your local stores bakery rather than going to a regular bakery will save you money. The grocery bakery departments now do specialty cakes for half the price of getting it done at a regular bakery.“Being organized saves time and money so have a list of what you are looking for with the design and decor and what your menu will be. Let your fingers do the walking before you do the driving to make sure where you are going to buy what you need has what you want.“If you are doing all the food yourself, a fun thing to do that does not cost a fortune is call your loc al bakery and see if they will do colored or swirl breads for you if you are making sandwiches which is a great way to pull your color and make a wow factor without spending a lot. The kids love this (I find that Jewish bakeries are normally the ones I can find to do this).“Online you can find incredible things that are being discounted and great deals without having to even leave your home. Just type in what you are looking for and see the treasures that will show up.Follow these tips and youll throw your kids a truly epic a birthday party for the ages without an epic price tag to match!Visit OppLoans on YouTube | Facebook | Twitter | LinkedINContributorsRandy Fuhrman (@RandyFurhman) threw his first party for 500 guests at the age of 17. A few months, later he landed his first BIG event and first corporate client, AM Records. Forty-five years later, a true entrepreneur, Randy Fuhrman has produced everything from an intimate dinner for two to events for thousands for some of the b iggest names in Hollywood.Amy Cooper Hakim, Ph.D. (@AmyCooperHakim) is an industrial-organizational psychology practitioner and workplace expert. She is a speaker, author, and the executive consultant and founder of The Cooper Strategic Group. Her book, Working with Difficult People, provides clear strategies to effectively handle the ten types of difficult bosses, colleagues, and subordinates. The book recently hit #1 in sales at Amazon for Business Etiquette books and was highlighted in Parade Magazine. Dr. Hakim has been featured in numerous publications and has  also been a guest on the KRTH Morning Show, Think KERA Radio, the WBEZ Morning Shift, the Boca Voice, and Business Radio on Sirius XM.Leah Klein (@bffoodie) raises two kids in Cambridge, MA. She is a former 1st-grade teacher and is all about mixing the frugal with the luxurious. She writes the blog Leahs Life: Pearls Oysters (Leahslife.com).Jennifer Bright Reich  (@MommyMDGuides) is cofounder and editorial director of   Momosa Publishing LLC, publisher of the Mommy MD Guides books, featuring tips that doctors who are also mothers use for their own familiesâ€"and more, in Allentown, PA.

2012 Plan Performance Rankings Q1

Each quarter Savingforcollege.com analyzes the investment performance figures for thousands of 529 portfolios and ranks the 529 savings plans from best to worst for one-year investment performance, three-year investment performance and five-year investment performance. The top-performing 529 plans In producing our rankings, we compared the reported investment performance of a subset of portfolios from each 529 savings plan. The lower the "percentile," the better the ranking. For more details on our methodology. Here are our 529 performance rankings as of March 31, 2012. We ranked plans that consumers can enroll in directly (see below), as well as those sold through brokers). One-year performance ranking Rank State Plan Percentile 1 New York New York's 529 College Savings Program -- Direct Plan 23.61 2 Pennsylvania Pennsylvania 529 Investment Plan 25.08 3 Utah Utah Educational Savings Plan (UESP) Trust 26.11 4 Michigan Michigan Education Savings Program 27.14 5 Illinois Bright Start College Savings Program -- Direct-sold Plan 29.10 6 Iowa College Savings Iowa 30.22 7 Vermont Vermont Higher Education Investment Plan 31.46 8 New Mexico The Education Plan's College Savings Program (Direct-sold) 31.49 9 Oklahoma Oklahoma College Savings Plan 32.38 10 Georgia Path2College 529 Plan 32.86 See the full list of one-year direct-sold rankings. Three-year performance ranking Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Alaska T. Rowe Price College Savings Plan 19.99 2 Alaska University of Alaska College Savings Plan 22.58 3 Maryland College Savings Plans of Maryland -- College Investment Plan 24.30 4 Maine NextGen College Investing Plan -- Client Direct Series 28.25 5 Virginia Virginia Education Savings Trust (VEST) 40.69 6 Michigan Michigan Education Savings Program 42.29 7 New York New York's 529 College Savings Program -- Direct Plan 42.47 8 District of Columbia DC 529 College Savings Program (Direct-sold) 43.21 9 Utah Utah Educational Savings Plan (UESP) Trust 44.07 10 Rhode Island CollegeBoundfund (Direct-sold, Alternative RI) 45.26 See the full list of three-year direct-sold rankings. Five-year performance ranking Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Utah Utah Educational Savings Plan (UESP) Trust 29.67 2 Kansas Schwab 529 College Savings Plan 31.82 3 Pennsylvania Pennsylvania 529 Investment Plan 32.05 4 New York New York's 529 College Savings Program -- Direct Plan 32.08 5 Wisconsin EdVest (Direct-sold) 34.82 6 Ohio Ohio CollegeAdvantage 529 Savings Plan 34.95 7 Nevada The Vanguard 529 Savings Plan 36.42 8 Alaska University of Alaska College Savings Plan 37.36 9 Michigan Michigan Education Savings Program 37.57 10 Iowa College Savings Iowa 38.98 See the full list of five-year direct-sold rankings. For broker-sold plan rankings. How to rank 529 plan performance Ranking over 3,000 investment options is no easy task, considering the wide variety of options found in 529 savings plans, and it requires a special methodology. Step one: We select specific portfolios from each 529 plan that can be compared on an apples-to-apples basis to portfolios in other 529 plans, based on their allocation among stocks, bonds and short-term instruments (money market and guaranteed investments). We've set up seven different asset-allocation categories ranging from 100 percent equity to 100 percent short-term. Step two: Within each of the seven categories, we compare historical performance of the selected portfolios and assign each plan a percentile ranking between one (best) and 100 (worst). Separate rankings are developed for one-year, three-year and five-year performances. Step three: We take the average of each 529 plan's percentile rankings in the seven asset-allocation categories to produce a combined or "composite" percentile ranking. We then produce reports showing how the 529 plans rank against each other in their composite percentile rankings. Note: We currently produce these composite rankings for one-year, three-year and five-year performances. For a more in-depth explanation of our methodology, please read our white paper. See the one-year direct-sold, three-year direct-sold and five-year direct-sold rankings. More information Links to our full report on the composite rankings for this quarter are provided below for the direct-sold 529 plans. Only our Premium subscribers have access to composite rankings for advisor-sold 529 plans, to the underlying data supporting the rankings and to separate one-year, three-year and five-year rankings for each of the seven different asset-allocation categories. In addition, subscribers can easily look up the historical performance for every 529 portfolio in every available share class by using our Fee and Performance Lookup Tool. Each quarter Savingforcollege.com analyzes the investment performance figures for thousands of 529 portfolios and ranks the 529 savings plans from best to worst for one-year investment performance, three-year investment performance and five-year investment performance. The top-performing 529 plans In producing our rankings, we compared the reported investment performance of a subset of portfolios from each 529 savings plan. The lower the "percentile," the better the ranking. For more details on our methodology. Here are our 529 performance rankings as of March 31, 2012. We ranked plans that consumers can enroll in directly (see below), as well as those sold through brokers). One-year performance ranking Rank State Plan Percentile 1 New York New York's 529 College Savings Program -- Direct Plan 23.61 2 Pennsylvania Pennsylvania 529 Investment Plan 25.08 3 Utah Utah Educational Savings Plan (UESP) Trust 26.11 4 Michigan Michigan Education Savings Program 27.14 5 Illinois Bright Start College Savings Program -- Direct-sold Plan 29.10 6 Iowa College Savings Iowa 30.22 7 Vermont Vermont Higher Education Investment Plan 31.46 8 New Mexico The Education Plan's College Savings Program (Direct-sold) 31.49 9 Oklahoma Oklahoma College Savings Plan 32.38 10 Georgia Path2College 529 Plan 32.86 See the full list of one-year direct-sold rankings. Three-year performance ranking Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Alaska T. Rowe Price College Savings Plan 19.99 2 Alaska University of Alaska College Savings Plan 22.58 3 Maryland College Savings Plans of Maryland -- College Investment Plan 24.30 4 Maine NextGen College Investing Plan -- Client Direct Series 28.25 5 Virginia Virginia Education Savings Trust (VEST) 40.69 6 Michigan Michigan Education Savings Program 42.29 7 New York New York's 529 College Savings Program -- Direct Plan 42.47 8 District of Columbia DC 529 College Savings Program (Direct-sold) 43.21 9 Utah Utah Educational Savings Plan (UESP) Trust 44.07 10 Rhode Island CollegeBoundfund (Direct-sold, Alternative RI) 45.26 See the full list of three-year direct-sold rankings. Five-year performance ranking Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Utah Utah Educational Savings Plan (UESP) Trust 29.67 2 Kansas Schwab 529 College Savings Plan 31.82 3 Pennsylvania Pennsylvania 529 Investment Plan 32.05 4 New York New York's 529 College Savings Program -- Direct Plan 32.08 5 Wisconsin EdVest (Direct-sold) 34.82 6 Ohio Ohio CollegeAdvantage 529 Savings Plan 34.95 7 Nevada The Vanguard 529 Savings Plan 36.42 8 Alaska University of Alaska College Savings Plan 37.36 9 Michigan Michigan Education Savings Program 37.57 10 Iowa College Savings Iowa 38.98 See the full list of five-year direct-sold rankings. For broker-sold plan rankings. How to rank 529 plan performance Ranking over 3,000 investment options is no easy task, considering the wide variety of options found in 529 savings plans, and it requires a special methodology. Step one: We select specific portfolios from each 529 plan that can be compared on an apples-to-apples basis to portfolios in other 529 plans, based on their allocation among stocks, bonds and short-term instruments (money market and guaranteed investments). We've set up seven different asset-allocation categories ranging from 100 percent equity to 100 percent short-term. Step two: Within each of the seven categories, we compare historical performance of the selected portfolios and assign each plan a percentile ranking between one (best) and 100 (worst). Separate rankings are developed for one-year, three-year and five-year performances. Step three: We take the average of each 529 plan's percentile rankings in the seven asset-allocation categories to produce a combined or "composite" percentile ranking. We then produce reports showing how the 529 plans rank against each other in their composite percentile rankings. Note: We currently produce these composite rankings for one-year, three-year and five-year performances. For a more in-depth explanation of our methodology, please read our white paper. See the one-year direct-sold, three-year direct-sold and five-year direct-sold rankings. More information Links to our full report on the composite rankings for this quarter are provided below for the direct-sold 529 plans. Only our Premium subscribers have access to composite rankings for advisor-sold 529 plans, to the underlying data supporting the rankings and to separate one-year, three-year and five-year rankings for each of the seven different asset-allocation categories. In addition, subscribers can easily look up the historical performance for every 529 portfolio in every available share class by using our Fee and Performance Lookup Tool. 2012 Plan Performance Rankings Q1 Each quarter Savingforcollege.com analyzes the investment performance figures for thousands of 529 portfolios and ranks the 529 savings plans from best to worst for one-year investment performance, three-year investment performance and five-year investment performance. The top-performing 529 plans In producing our rankings, we compared the reported investment performance of a subset of portfolios from each 529 savings plan. The lower the "percentile," the better the ranking. For more details on our methodology. Here are our 529 performance rankings as of March 31, 2012. We ranked plans that consumers can enroll in directly (see below), as well as those sold through brokers). One-year performance ranking Rank State Plan Percentile 1 New York New York's 529 College Savings Program -- Direct Plan 23.61 2 Pennsylvania Pennsylvania 529 Investment Plan 25.08 3 Utah Utah Educational Savings Plan (UESP) Trust 26.11 4 Michigan Michigan Education Savings Program 27.14 5 Illinois Bright Start College Savings Program -- Direct-sold Plan 29.10 6 Iowa College Savings Iowa 30.22 7 Vermont Vermont Higher Education Investment Plan 31.46 8 New Mexico The Education Plan's College Savings Program (Direct-sold) 31.49 9 Oklahoma Oklahoma College Savings Plan 32.38 10 Georgia Path2College 529 Plan 32.86 See the full list of one-year direct-sold rankings. Three-year performance ranking Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Alaska T. Rowe Price College Savings Plan 19.99 2 Alaska University of Alaska College Savings Plan 22.58 3 Maryland College Savings Plans of Maryland -- College Investment Plan 24.30 4 Maine NextGen College Investing Plan -- Client Direct Series 28.25 5 Virginia Virginia Education Savings Trust (VEST) 40.69 6 Michigan Michigan Education Savings Program 42.29 7 New York New York's 529 College Savings Program -- Direct Plan 42.47 8 District of Columbia DC 529 College Savings Program (Direct-sold) 43.21 9 Utah Utah Educational Savings Plan (UESP) Trust 44.07 10 Rhode Island CollegeBoundfund (Direct-sold, Alternative RI) 45.26 See the full list of three-year direct-sold rankings. Five-year performance ranking Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Utah Utah Educational Savings Plan (UESP) Trust 29.67 2 Kansas Schwab 529 College Savings Plan 31.82 3 Pennsylvania Pennsylvania 529 Investment Plan 32.05 4 New York New York's 529 College Savings Program -- Direct Plan 32.08 5 Wisconsin EdVest (Direct-sold) 34.82 6 Ohio Ohio CollegeAdvantage 529 Savings Plan 34.95 7 Nevada The Vanguard 529 Savings Plan 36.42 8 Alaska University of Alaska College Savings Plan 37.36 9 Michigan Michigan Education Savings Program 37.57 10 Iowa College Savings Iowa 38.98 See the full list of five-year direct-sold rankings. For broker-sold plan rankings. How to rank 529 plan performance Ranking over 3,000 investment options is no easy task, considering the wide variety of options found in 529 savings plans, and it requires a special methodology. Step one: We select specific portfolios from each 529 plan that can be compared on an apples-to-apples basis to portfolios in other 529 plans, based on their allocation among stocks, bonds and short-term instruments (money market and guaranteed investments). We've set up seven different asset-allocation categories ranging from 100 percent equity to 100 percent short-term. Step two: Within each of the seven categories, we compare historical performance of the selected portfolios and assign each plan a percentile ranking between one (best) and 100 (worst). Separate rankings are developed for one-year, three-year and five-year performances. Step three: We take the average of each 529 plan's percentile rankings in the seven asset-allocation categories to produce a combined or "composite" percentile ranking. We then produce reports showing how the 529 plans rank against each other in their composite percentile rankings. Note: We currently produce these composite rankings for one-year, three-year and five-year performances. For a more in-depth explanation of our methodology, please read our white paper. See the one-year direct-sold, three-year direct-sold and five-year direct-sold rankings. More information Links to our full report on the composite rankings for this quarter are provided below for the direct-sold 529 plans. Only our Premium subscribers have access to composite rankings for advisor-sold 529 plans, to the underlying data supporting the rankings and to separate one-year, three-year and five-year rankings for each of the seven different asset-allocation categories. In addition, subscribers can easily look up the historical performance for every 529 portfolio in every available share class by using our Fee and Performance Lookup Tool. Each quarter Savingforcollege.com analyzes the investment performance figures for thousands of 529 portfolios and ranks the 529 savings plans from best to worst for one-year investment performance, three-year investment performance and five-year investment performance. The top-performing 529 plans In producing our rankings, we compared the reported investment performance of a subset of portfolios from each 529 savings plan. The lower the "percentile," the better the ranking. For more details on our methodology. Here are our 529 performance rankings as of March 31, 2012. We ranked plans that consumers can enroll in directly (see below), as well as those sold through brokers). One-year performance ranking Rank State Plan Percentile 1 New York New York's 529 College Savings Program -- Direct Plan 23.61 2 Pennsylvania Pennsylvania 529 Investment Plan 25.08 3 Utah Utah Educational Savings Plan (UESP) Trust 26.11 4 Michigan Michigan Education Savings Program 27.14 5 Illinois Bright Start College Savings Program -- Direct-sold Plan 29.10 6 Iowa College Savings Iowa 30.22 7 Vermont Vermont Higher Education Investment Plan 31.46 8 New Mexico The Education Plan's College Savings Program (Direct-sold) 31.49 9 Oklahoma Oklahoma College Savings Plan 32.38 10 Georgia Path2College 529 Plan 32.86 See the full list of one-year direct-sold rankings. Three-year performance ranking Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Alaska T. Rowe Price College Savings Plan 19.99 2 Alaska University of Alaska College Savings Plan 22.58 3 Maryland College Savings Plans of Maryland -- College Investment Plan 24.30 4 Maine NextGen College Investing Plan -- Client Direct Series 28.25 5 Virginia Virginia Education Savings Trust (VEST) 40.69 6 Michigan Michigan Education Savings Program 42.29 7 New York New York's 529 College Savings Program -- Direct Plan 42.47 8 District of Columbia DC 529 College Savings Program (Direct-sold) 43.21 9 Utah Utah Educational Savings Plan (UESP) Trust 44.07 10 Rhode Island CollegeBoundfund (Direct-sold, Alternative RI) 45.26 See the full list of three-year direct-sold rankings. Five-year performance ranking Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Utah Utah Educational Savings Plan (UESP) Trust 29.67 2 Kansas Schwab 529 College Savings Plan 31.82 3 Pennsylvania Pennsylvania 529 Investment Plan 32.05 4 New York New York's 529 College Savings Program -- Direct Plan 32.08 5 Wisconsin EdVest (Direct-sold) 34.82 6 Ohio Ohio CollegeAdvantage 529 Savings Plan 34.95 7 Nevada The Vanguard 529 Savings Plan 36.42 8 Alaska University of Alaska College Savings Plan 37.36 9 Michigan Michigan Education Savings Program 37.57 10 Iowa College Savings Iowa 38.98 See the full list of five-year direct-sold rankings. For broker-sold plan rankings. How to rank 529 plan performance Ranking over 3,000 investment options is no easy task, considering the wide variety of options found in 529 savings plans, and it requires a special methodology. Step one: We select specific portfolios from each 529 plan that can be compared on an apples-to-apples basis to portfolios in other 529 plans, based on their allocation among stocks, bonds and short-term instruments (money market and guaranteed investments). We've set up seven different asset-allocation categories ranging from 100 percent equity to 100 percent short-term. Step two: Within each of the seven categories, we compare historical performance of the selected portfolios and assign each plan a percentile ranking between one (best) and 100 (worst). Separate rankings are developed for one-year, three-year and five-year performances. Step three: We take the average of each 529 plan's percentile rankings in the seven asset-allocation categories to produce a combined or "composite" percentile ranking. We then produce reports showing how the 529 plans rank against each other in their composite percentile rankings. Note: We currently produce these composite rankings for one-year, three-year and five-year performances. For a more in-depth explanation of our methodology, please read our white paper. See the one-year direct-sold, three-year direct-sold and five-year direct-sold rankings. More information Links to our full report on the composite rankings for this quarter are provided below for the direct-sold 529 plans. Only our Premium subscribers have access to composite rankings for advisor-sold 529 plans, to the underlying data supporting the rankings and to separate one-year, three-year and five-year rankings for each of the seven different asset-allocation categories. In addition, subscribers can easily look up the historical performance for every 529 portfolio in every available share class by using our Fee and Performance Lookup Tool. 2012 Plan Performance Rankings Q1 Each quarter Savingforcollege.com analyzes the investment performance figures for thousands of 529 portfolios and ranks the 529 savings plans from best to worst for one-year investment performance, three-year investment performance and five-year investment performance. The top-performing 529 plans In producing our rankings, we compared the reported investment performance of a subset of portfolios from each 529 savings plan. The lower the "percentile," the better the ranking. For more details on our methodology. Here are our 529 performance rankings as of March 31, 2012. We ranked plans that consumers can enroll in directly (see below), as well as those sold through brokers). One-year performance ranking Rank State Plan Percentile 1 New York New York's 529 College Savings Program -- Direct Plan 23.61 2 Pennsylvania Pennsylvania 529 Investment Plan 25.08 3 Utah Utah Educational Savings Plan (UESP) Trust 26.11 4 Michigan Michigan Education Savings Program 27.14 5 Illinois Bright Start College Savings Program -- Direct-sold Plan 29.10 6 Iowa College Savings Iowa 30.22 7 Vermont Vermont Higher Education Investment Plan 31.46 8 New Mexico The Education Plan's College Savings Program (Direct-sold) 31.49 9 Oklahoma Oklahoma College Savings Plan 32.38 10 Georgia Path2College 529 Plan 32.86 See the full list of one-year direct-sold rankings. Three-year performance ranking Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Alaska T. Rowe Price College Savings Plan 19.99 2 Alaska University of Alaska College Savings Plan 22.58 3 Maryland College Savings Plans of Maryland -- College Investment Plan 24.30 4 Maine NextGen College Investing Plan -- Client Direct Series 28.25 5 Virginia Virginia Education Savings Trust (VEST) 40.69 6 Michigan Michigan Education Savings Program 42.29 7 New York New York's 529 College Savings Program -- Direct Plan 42.47 8 District of Columbia DC 529 College Savings Program (Direct-sold) 43.21 9 Utah Utah Educational Savings Plan (UESP) Trust 44.07 10 Rhode Island CollegeBoundfund (Direct-sold, Alternative RI) 45.26 See the full list of three-year direct-sold rankings. Five-year performance ranking Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Utah Utah Educational Savings Plan (UESP) Trust 29.67 2 Kansas Schwab 529 College Savings Plan 31.82 3 Pennsylvania Pennsylvania 529 Investment Plan 32.05 4 New York New York's 529 College Savings Program -- Direct Plan 32.08 5 Wisconsin EdVest (Direct-sold) 34.82 6 Ohio Ohio CollegeAdvantage 529 Savings Plan 34.95 7 Nevada The Vanguard 529 Savings Plan 36.42 8 Alaska University of Alaska College Savings Plan 37.36 9 Michigan Michigan Education Savings Program 37.57 10 Iowa College Savings Iowa 38.98 See the full list of five-year direct-sold rankings. For broker-sold plan rankings. How to rank 529 plan performance Ranking over 3,000 investment options is no easy task, considering the wide variety of options found in 529 savings plans, and it requires a special methodology. Step one: We select specific portfolios from each 529 plan that can be compared on an apples-to-apples basis to portfolios in other 529 plans, based on their allocation among stocks, bonds and short-term instruments (money market and guaranteed investments). We've set up seven different asset-allocation categories ranging from 100 percent equity to 100 percent short-term. Step two: Within each of the seven categories, we compare historical performance of the selected portfolios and assign each plan a percentile ranking between one (best) and 100 (worst). Separate rankings are developed for one-year, three-year and five-year performances. Step three: We take the average of each 529 plan's percentile rankings in the seven asset-allocation categories to produce a combined or "composite" percentile ranking. We then produce reports showing how the 529 plans rank against each other in their composite percentile rankings. Note: We currently produce these composite rankings for one-year, three-year and five-year performances. For a more in-depth explanation of our methodology, please read our white paper. See the one-year direct-sold, three-year direct-sold and five-year direct-sold rankings. More information Links to our full report on the composite rankings for this quarter are provided below for the direct-sold 529 plans. Only our Premium subscribers have access to composite rankings for advisor-sold 529 plans, to the underlying data supporting the rankings and to separate one-year, three-year and five-year rankings for each of the seven different asset-allocation categories. In addition, subscribers can easily look up the historical performance for every 529 portfolio in every available share class by using our Fee and Performance Lookup Tool. Each quarter Savingforcollege.com analyzes the investment performance figures for thousands of 529 portfolios and ranks the 529 savings plans from best to worst for one-year investment performance, three-year investment performance and five-year investment performance. The top-performing 529 plans In producing our rankings, we compared the reported investment performance of a subset of portfolios from each 529 savings plan. The lower the "percentile," the better the ranking. For more details on our methodology. Here are our 529 performance rankings as of March 31, 2012. We ranked plans that consumers can enroll in directly (see below), as well as those sold through brokers). One-year performance ranking Rank State Plan Percentile 1 New York New York's 529 College Savings Program -- Direct Plan 23.61 2 Pennsylvania Pennsylvania 529 Investment Plan 25.08 3 Utah Utah Educational Savings Plan (UESP) Trust 26.11 4 Michigan Michigan Education Savings Program 27.14 5 Illinois Bright Start College Savings Program -- Direct-sold Plan 29.10 6 Iowa College Savings Iowa 30.22 7 Vermont Vermont Higher Education Investment Plan 31.46 8 New Mexico The Education Plan's College Savings Program (Direct-sold) 31.49 9 Oklahoma Oklahoma College Savings Plan 32.38 10 Georgia Path2College 529 Plan 32.86 See the full list of one-year direct-sold rankings. Three-year performance ranking Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Alaska T. Rowe Price College Savings Plan 19.99 2 Alaska University of Alaska College Savings Plan 22.58 3 Maryland College Savings Plans of Maryland -- College Investment Plan 24.30 4 Maine NextGen College Investing Plan -- Client Direct Series 28.25 5 Virginia Virginia Education Savings Trust (VEST) 40.69 6 Michigan Michigan Education Savings Program 42.29 7 New York New York's 529 College Savings Program -- Direct Plan 42.47 8 District of Columbia DC 529 College Savings Program (Direct-sold) 43.21 9 Utah Utah Educational Savings Plan (UESP) Trust 44.07 10 Rhode Island CollegeBoundfund (Direct-sold, Alternative RI) 45.26 See the full list of three-year direct-sold rankings. Five-year performance ranking Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Utah Utah Educational Savings Plan (UESP) Trust 29.67 2 Kansas Schwab 529 College Savings Plan 31.82 3 Pennsylvania Pennsylvania 529 Investment Plan 32.05 4 New York New York's 529 College Savings Program -- Direct Plan 32.08 5 Wisconsin EdVest (Direct-sold) 34.82 6 Ohio Ohio CollegeAdvantage 529 Savings Plan 34.95 7 Nevada The Vanguard 529 Savings Plan 36.42 8 Alaska University of Alaska College Savings Plan 37.36 9 Michigan Michigan Education Savings Program 37.57 10 Iowa College Savings Iowa 38.98 See the full list of five-year direct-sold rankings. For broker-sold plan rankings. How to rank 529 plan performance Ranking over 3,000 investment options is no easy task, considering the wide variety of options found in 529 savings plans, and it requires a special methodology. Step one: We select specific portfolios from each 529 plan that can be compared on an apples-to-apples basis to portfolios in other 529 plans, based on their allocation among stocks, bonds and short-term instruments (money market and guaranteed investments). We've set up seven different asset-allocation categories ranging from 100 percent equity to 100 percent short-term. Step two: Within each of the seven categories, we compare historical performance of the selected portfolios and assign each plan a percentile ranking between one (best) and 100 (worst). Separate rankings are developed for one-year, three-year and five-year performances. Step three: We take the average of each 529 plan's percentile rankings in the seven asset-allocation categories to produce a combined or "composite" percentile ranking. We then produce reports showing how the 529 plans rank against each other in their composite percentile rankings. Note: We currently produce these composite rankings for one-year, three-year and five-year performances. For a more in-depth explanation of our methodology, please read our white paper. See the one-year direct-sold, three-year direct-sold and five-year direct-sold rankings. More information Links to our full report on the composite rankings for this quarter are provided below for the direct-sold 529 plans. Only our Premium subscribers have access to composite rankings for advisor-sold 529 plans, to the underlying data supporting the rankings and to separate one-year, three-year and five-year rankings for each of the seven different asset-allocation categories. In addition, subscribers can easily look up the historical performance for every 529 portfolio in every available share class by using our Fee and Performance Lookup Tool.