Outline and assess New Labours strategies Essay Example for Free

Outline and assess New Labours strategies Essay New Labour strategies and theories on educational policies have contributed significantly on influencing a better change on education since the 1988 Education Act. There were four major changes which had been made to the education system; the changes were introduced in order to manage the diverse problems with had recently emerged. Machin and Vignoles (2006) outlined these four categories as; secondary education standards falling, limited participation in post-16 (sixth form), students having a poor grasp of basic skills and unequal participation in higher education. The classified problems were not only problems identified by New Labour; New Right too had similar concerns about the education system. However New Right have previously been criticised as they were more concerned regarding the problems surrounding the participation in Post 16 and the poor grasp of basic skills rather than all four of them as a whole. Hence, I will outline and evaluate New Labour’s approach concerning the educational policies. The first problem identified was the standards of secondary education declining, because of this New Labour believed that in order to raise the standards they would have to provide greater parental choices. Giving this privilege would enable more competition which was their clear aim as competition would influence a rise in the standards of schools as there would be a gap in the market for more choice and diversity. A model example of how effective parental choice would be take academies, faith schools and specialist schools they are given more freedom to choose, this creates a friendly rivalry amongst parents and children to achieve the possible best. Some critics view that giving parents the right to more choice would result in further inequality rather than equality, take middle-class parents for instance they use their material and cultural wealth to ‘buy’ their children’s education and gain places in much better schools. Sociologist Ball (2008) also criticises this view he states how giving parents the ability to choose produces social segregation which further influences inequality. Another way in which New Labour had believed they would be able to raise the standards of secondary education would be to improve the teaching standards due to the pressure of market forces in state schools this would therefore increase the participation in further education which would influence an equal participation in higher education. However a criticism would be that the rise in exam success may not necessarily be due to the impact of marketisation it could be because of the other factors. The second problem which was identified by New Labour was the limited participation in post-16, they considered two significant ways in which they would be able to increase this participation. The first idea was to develop vocational courses, for example; GNVQ’s, modern apprenticeships and diplomas. Sociologist Ball (2008) identified that 40% of students will take vocational courses. By introducing more vocational courses, they would be able to improve the perceived skills deficiencies of British Workers and give themselves more of an ability to gain work. However a rising concern is regarding the division between vocational and non-vocational students, New Labour recognise this division as a concern with the development of the knowledge economy. Ball identifies that a significant amount of education has been ‘geared to the knowledge economy and education is now being dominated by its subservience to the requirements of the economy’. This however would lead to the creation and reinforcement of inequality within divisions of class and ethnicity. The second idea was to develop on the ideology of personalisation. This is giving students qualities such as; independency and individualisation, students are given mentoring and individual action plans where they are expected to become active learners and reliant upon themselves. However, this method of increasing participation is criticised as if this was to be used within the education system it would only be purposeful to individuals from a middle-class background as they would be able to use their cultural and economic advantage to benefit from this. This method does create a competitive economy as it tied together with the demands of the labour market, it may seem as if the individuals are empowered however when in fact they are tied together with the economic system. Another way in which New Labour has aimed to increase the participation of students within Post-16; they encouraged students to stay on for further education by introducing EMA (Educational Maintenance Allowance) which is basically a financial incentive mainly for those individuals who are from a less privileged background. Machin and Vignoles agree that this scheme does have a positive impact upon disadvantaged students as it assists those who suffer most from material deprivation. However, there is also criticism against the introduction of EMA as it not only helps disadvantaged students it too is available for middle-class students. The third problem recognised by New Labour was the lack of basic skills amongst individuals. This was a significant factor in education; both the New Right and New Labour had aimed to improve the standards of basic skills. In order to improve on this aspect, the New Right introduced the National Curriculum which was a segment of the 1988 Education Reform Act. The New Labour took action by introducing within the National Curriculum, national literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools. However, it was difficult to estimate whether the National Curriculum was effective in improving the basic skills of students as there was little room for comparing work, although it was easy to identify that literacy and numeracy hours did have some influences. Sociologist Machin and McNally (2004) have identified that literacy hours did have a significant influence on improving reading and English attainment as boys who took part in the hour improved their reading skills. This helped to reduce gender inequality in education as both genders are given equal amount of time and opportunity to improve on their basic skills giving them an equal chance in the future. This shows how schools are able to have a significant influence on making a difference to their students’ results if the education institution implements the right strategies.

What Happened to Disco? Essay -- essays research papers

What happened to Disco? Bellbottoms, afros, music, sex and drugs can best describe the Disco Era. The Disco Era was a care-free time in which there were no rules. People danced the nights away. Most of the people of the Disco Era lived normal lives, working nine to five jobs during the week, but when the weekend rolled around they put on their bellbottoms and dancing shoes and hit up the Disco Clubs. This is an era that will never be forgotten but will probably never be relived. Disco is said to have begun in the gay nightclubs of New York City in the mid 1960's. At these clubs Deejays played records from little known black artists and quickly and accidentally began channeling underground music to the population. This quickly caught the attention of major record production companies. Up until this point in time, deejays didn't get very much respect for their profession. Disk Jockeys began to play a major role, and soon they became celebrities, in the entertainment world. The whole idea to "Disco Music" was mixing recorded music with other forms of music. This included mixing it with live music as well as mixing it with other recorded tracks. As this type of sound became very popular, recording artists started mixing different types of music in the recording studio. There were so many popular artists during the Disco Era, and much of their music is still listened to today. One particular group that gained much fame during this era was the Bee Gees. When the Bee Gees first came out their popularity skyrocketed. They were said by many to be the next Beatles only with a different type of music. Those who did characterize them as the next Beatles were exactly right. They produced number one hits one after the other. Some of their biggest hits were placed on the soundtrack to Saturday Night Fever, which became the biggest selling album in history up to that point. Saturday Night Fever, starring John Travolta, was a movie based on the life of Disco. John Travolta became a cultural Icon to young males during the 70's. Every guy dressed like him and wanted to live like him, and every female wanted to date him. This movie became one of the biggest influences on disco goers of this era. Before this movie came out, disco was very popular. After the re lease of the mo... ...because they acted like themselves. They didn't feel as though they had to be "Politically Correct" anymore. They went out and did what they wanted to do, when they wanted to do it, including, the chronic drug use and the careless sex. The sad thing about the Disco era is, although it will always be a part of our culture as a nation but it will never make a comeback. Sure, people still wear bellbottoms, and there are still hippies and disco music is still very popular, but the United States has become too modernized for the disco era to ever make a comeback. Personally, I think that it would be very cool if it were to make a comeback. I think that it would be fun to wear bellbottoms and crazy shirts, but I'm sure that I would get sick of it very quickly and go back to the way that I am used to living. First of all, the music industry would never allow for new disco acts to burst upon the scene. The music industry is what got the era going in the first place. Secondly, the United States government would never allow for such an era to occur again. The Disco Era will always play a very important role in the history of the United States and will forever live on in spirit.

Examine Shakespeare’s presentation of Ophelia Essay

Throughout the play, Ophelia is treated as an inferior by the men in her life. She is instructed and also used by them to achieve their own selfish goals. As Rex Gibson states, Shakespearean women were ‘virtually helpless pawns in the power games of their main relatives. ‘ Her tone towards them is most often submissive and accepting of their commands, although the audience is given occasional glimpses of the seemingly intelligent and opinionated young woman beneath her clichi d exterior. In the play, she is merely a side story. She has no particular role in the play rather than to reflect the traits of other characters, and this secondary importance to the plot reflects Shakespeare’s presentation of her. Upon Ophelia’s first appearance in the play, it becomes obvious that she and her brother have a close relationship. Laertes tells Ophelia, ‘let me hear from you’, to which she replies ‘Do you doubt that? ‘ Laertes mentions Hamlet as a cause for concern, ‘weigh what loss your honour may sustain, If with too credent ear you list his songs, Or lose your heart, or your chaste treasure open To his unmastered importunity. ‘ He believes that Hamlet’s intentions are dishonourable. He is quick to form this opinion, and as he feels he knows Hamlet’s true motives, this suggests that men of the era shared this abusive attitude towards women. While he may be expressing a genuine concern for his sister’s well-being, there is a tone of authority in his voice. He is not her father, but as a male he talks down to her. His primary concern may be more for the honour of his family, which Ophelia would destroy should she conduct a relationship with Hamlet. She does however retort defensively with, ‘Do not as some ungracious pastors do, Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven, Whiles like a puffed and reckless libertine Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads’. Here she is warning him against hypocrisy and recognising that some men (‘ungracious pastors’) are promiscuous while expecting women to be virtuous. In seeing that society has double standards, the audience is shown that there is a side to Ophelia deeper than is obvious in most of her appearances in the play. A modern audience would feel that her reply is justified, and would respect her for standing up for herself. She has a more relaxed attitude to verbalisation of her thoughts when she is in the presence of her brother, but still respects and accepts his will. In conversation with Polonius for the first time in the play, the audience sees the submissive side to Ophelia. Polonius is also quick to suspect Hamlet’s motives, reinforcing the suggestion that all men of this time have a common view of women. Polonius’ treatment of her reflects the double standards of Shakespeare’s society, as he at first seems disgruntled that she acts like an inexperienced ‘green girl | Unsifted in such perilous circumstance’ and then goes on to say ‘think yourself a baby’, enforcing her inexperience. Ophelia implies her own inability to form an opinion – ‘I do not know my lord what I should think’. This seemingly ‘air-headed’ behaviour could cause much annoyance to a modern audience, whether she simply cannot think for herself or has an opinion and is too intimidated to voice it. Polonius’ perception of his daughter becomes clear with the statement ‘you have ta’en these tenders for true pay | Which are not sterling. Tender yourself more dearly’. The financial references here show that these ‘tenders’ are worth nothing to Polonius unless they become cash, or ‘stirling’, in his hand. The acquisition of wealth comprises all of Ophelia’s uses to him. She is a possession and a tool to him. This is noted by Gibson, ‘women were regarded as possessions, as capital to be exploited. ‘ He also harbours selfish concerns about his own social standing, and that Ophelia will ‘tender’ him ‘a fool’, as her behaviour reflects upon him as a father. Ophelia concludes by submitting yet again, ‘I shall obey, my lord. ‘ Despite the fact that Ophelia has firstly rebelled against expectations by meeting with a man without the permission of her father, or has ‘gone against social mores’ (Pitt), she continues to treat her father as her superior and conform to his wishes. Again the audience witnesses the dual personality of Ophelia. This could leave an audience confused, and unsure of exactly what to think of her as a character, as her true identity remains a mystery until her death. After Hamlet advances upon her looking like ‘he had been loosed out of hell’, Ophelia runs to her father, seeking protection and comfort. She enters the room saying ‘O my lord, my lord, I have been so affrighted’. Modern audiences may draw comparisons between this and the behaviour of a small child. Not only is she treated like one by men, but at this point she proves their treatment to be right. This might anger a modern audience who could perceive her to be lacking common sense and therefore totally unable to deal with a hostile situation. To increase the antagonism of a post-feminist audience, she then goes on to relate that she was ‘sewing’ in her ‘closet’ at the time of incident – while to a Shakespearean audience sewing was part of life for women, a modern audience would see this as a stereotypically effeminate activity being used by Ophelia to play up her helplessness. As stated by A. C. Bradley in the Victorian era, ‘a large number of readers feel a personal kind of irritation against Ophelia; they seem unable to forgive her for not having been a heroine. ‘ While this does not represent the viewpoint of today’s audience, it shows that even in Victorian times when women were still much less free than they are now, Ophelia’s helplessness is exaggerated to the point of irritation. We witness Ophelia’s utter submissiveness yet again, and her acting as if she has no thoughts of her own – ‘I do not know, | But truly I do fear it. ‘ Ophelia incessantly addresses her father submissively as ‘my lord’. It can be presumed that Ophelia has been taught to address him thusly, reflecting on Polonius as a father, who is an example of men at the time of the play. Polonius sees Ophelia as being far inferior to him. He speaks to her in short commands – ‘Come, go with me’, rather than asking her to do things. He also seems to think that she is untrustworthy, as he questions her, ‘Have you given him any hard words of late? ‘ suspecting that she has not done what he told her to do. As Ophelia’s letters are read aloud, she stands on the stage in silence to endure this harsh and humiliating experience. She is utterly powerless as her most intimate secrets are exposed to the King and Queen. Her father has granted her no right to privacy, to the point that he publicly proclaims and meddles in her affairs. Polonius says ‘I have a daughter – have while she is mine’, this bluntly suggests his intentions to ‘sell’ her, and continues ‘Who in her duty and obedience, mark, | Hath given me this’. Here, it is as if he is marketing her, making her ‘good’ qualities known to the King and Queen, telling them to ‘mark’, possibly in the hopes that they approve of her as a wife to Hamlet. In this situation Polonius’ social standing would vastly improve. She is certainly seen by him as ‘capital to be exploited’. Upon the King’s questioning Ophelia’s chastity, Polonius asks him ‘What do you think of me? ‘ This shows that in a Shakespearean society, the behaviour of a daughter was seen to be an indication of how honourable her father was, again proving that women were taught ‘chastity, modesty, obedience and faithfulness to their husbands’ (Gibson), to be used as social and financial tools. Elaine Showalter accurately describes Ophelia as ‘that piece of bait’. She is used to confirm whether or not Hamlet’s separation from her is the cause of his madness. Before the first conversation between Hamlet and Ophelia (which is held under surveillance by Polonius and the King), Ophelia is not even given a greeting, but is spoken to only by the Queen, and exclusively about Hamlet – ‘And for your part Ophelia, I do wish That your good beauties be the happy cause Of Hamlet’s wildness’. Their main concern is Hamlet’s return to his prior sane state and hope to be able to use Ophelia as a way of bringing it about. Ophelia herself has absolutely no control over events relating to her. She speaks briefly, only when spoken to, and to express her desire to see Hamlet well again – ‘Madam, I wish it may. ‘ Her father again talks to her commandingly, as if she were a dog, ‘Ophelia, walk you here’. When she is at first left with Hamlet, she remains silent onstage throughout his long monologue, until he mentions her. A conversation begins with Ophelia’s greeting Hamlet, ‘Good my lord’, and hereafter she uses the words ‘my lord’ repetitively. When she mentions ‘rememberances’ that she as ‘longed long to re-deliver’, she is shunned by Hamlet, as he says ‘I never gave you aught’. Ophelia further shows the audience that she is an intelligent young woman rather than a girl who is full of nonsense. She elaborates on her feelings for Hamlet with the words: ‘My honoured lord, you know right well you did, And with them words of so sweet breath composed As made these things more rich. Their perfume lost, Take these again, for to the noble mind Rich gifts wax poor when givers prove unkind. There my lord. ‘ The audience sees here through her passionate statement that these ‘words’ held great importance to Ophelia and that she is expressing the depth of her emotion. With Hamlet she gives the first indications of her true feelings, things that she would not share with her father. She is however belittled and mocked by Hamlet (‘Ha, ha, are you honest? ‘). Her clever response to Hamlet’s mad ramblings gives us another insight into the more hidden side of Ophelia. Fundamentally, however, Ophelia is a side story, and is of secondary importance to the main plot and ‘has no story without Hamlet’. ‘She appears in only five of the play’s twenty scenes’ (Showalter) and is used to inform the audience of what Hamlet was like before his descent into madness. As stated by Angela Pitt, ‘Ophelia’s main function in the play is to illuminate a particular facet of Hamlet’s decline. She has known him in both friendship and gallant devotion’. She fulfils this role: ‘O what a noble mind is here o’erthrown! The courtier’s, soldier’s, scholar’s, eye, tongue, sword, Th’ expectancy and rose of the fair state, The glass of fashion, and the mould of form’. While we see here that she is articulate, is underestimated by Polonius and does have something of value to say, it is quite tragic that this outburst of expression is not of herself, but of Hamlet’s personality prior to his father’s death. As she is used throughout the play by men, here Shakespeare uses her as a way of imparting information to the audience. At this point in the play, the audience can sympathise with Ophelia, as the pain of rejection by a lover exists outside of time. By proving to the audience that she is intelligent and educated, she wins respect, as modern society values these qualities highly in both men and women. Just before the play, Hamlet initiates a tirade of sexual references directed toward Ophelia. It begins with ‘here’s metal more attractive’, a mocking reference to her looks. He goes on to say to Ophelia ‘Lady, shall I lie in your lap? ‘ to which she replies ‘No my lord’. He persists in trying to humiliate Ophelia with phrases such as ‘Do you think I meant country matters? ‘ and ‘That’s a fair thought to lie between maid’s legs’. Ophelia’s responses are short and she again repeats ‘my lord’ – ‘No my lord’, ‘Ay my lord’, ‘I think nothing, my lord’. Her words are sharp and brief as she denies Hamlet the pleasure of provoking an outburst from her. While this repetition could show her merely being weak and submissive, as she is forced to take his insults, it can also be argued that she knows here exactly what she is doing, as she later goes on to retaliate, ‘You are naught, you are naught’ – ‘Ophelia’s naivety must be assumed and not genuine, because later she gives as good as she gets’ (Pitt): ‘Ophelia. You are keen my lord, you are keen. Hamlet. It would cost you a groaning to take off mine edge. Ophelia. Still better, and worse’. Here she neglects to say ‘my lord’, which shows that her tone has changed, and she has given up trying to be tolerant of Hamlet. Ophelia’s descent into madness portrays her in an ironic and rather tragic light. Her condition has caused her to be more vocal and to reject authority. Now people notice that Ophelia is speaking, and try to understand what she says, when her mind is not her own – nothing she says makes sense. Even though she is louder, her position is still largely unchanged – her madness expresses itself through her, but does not allow her to express her own true thoughts. At the time, women who were vocal and opinionated, who challenged authority or sought freedom were often portrayed as being insane. This overly emotional, nonsensical state was also thought to be womanhood in its purest, unsuppressed form – ‘Ophelia might confirm the impossibility of representing the feminine in patriarchal discourse as other than madness, incoherence, fluidity, or silence †¦ Ophelia represents the strong emotions that the Elizabethans as well as the Freudians thought womanish and unmanly. ‘ (Showalter). The themes of her songs are death and true love – the two issues that have most recently affected her. Firstly, her exploitation by Hamlet: ‘And I a maid at your window, To be your Valentine. Then up he rose, and donned his clothes, And dupped the chamber door, Let in the maid, that out a maid, Never departed more. ‘ In Shakespearean times, it was extremely important that a woman maintained her chastity – it is implied quite obviously by these songs that Ophelia did engage in sexual relations with Hamlet. This would have meant the loss of her reputation altogether. People will now take notice of these open declarations, as a woman her promiscuity is condemned, whereas a man’s promiscuity (Hamlet’s) will be overlooked. This exposes Shakespearean society’s double standards. A woman of high social standing such as Ophelia was expected even more so to exhibit virtue, and so was very vulnerable and open to condemnation, with every relationship putting her in a potentially life-destroying position. Now, when the relationship has dissolved, she is in a difficult position. Her imprisonment is particularly distressing to a modern audience, who are very used to seeing women with much more freedom. While today’s morals are not quite as tight as Shakespearean morals, a modern audience will still feel a lot of sympathy for the poor abused and abandoned Ophelia. As well as being an issue of chastity, it also involves trust. She trusted Hamlet with her love and her reputation – wrongly. Secondly, she sings about her father’s death: ‘At his head a grass-green turf, At his heels a stone. ‘ His death has marked the loss of two of the men in her life who, while they were controlling and dictating, were all that she had, and both of whom she loved dearly. When Ophelia falls into the river where she eventually perishes, she does nothing to save herself. She is as passive at the moment of her death as she was throughout life, doing nothing to save herself. Gertrude is able to describe Ophelia’s death in detail, down to the exact type of flowers Ophelia had decked herself with (‘crowflowers, nettles, daisies, and long purples’). This may be seen as Gertrude’s expression of genuine sympathy for her fellow woman. Ophelia’s death can be seen as a suicide, but Gertrude, perhaps to prevent Ophelia from being denied a Christian burial, which would have deepened Laertes’ grief, describes her as having been ‘one incapable of her own distress’, suggesting that she fell in and simply did not care enough to get out. Ophelia’s last influence in the play is her funeral, where Laertes jumps into her grave in grief. Hamlet however jumps in after him, and they begin to grapple irreverently, arguing over who loved her more: ‘Hamlet. I loved Ophelia, forty thousand brothers Could not, with all their quantity of love, Make up my sum – what wilt thou do for her? Hamlet persists in trying to out-do Laertes in his love for his sister, to the point of ridiculousness – ‘Woo’t drink up eisel, eat a crocodile? | I’ll do’t. ‘ This sudden display of affection for Ophelia from Hamlet contrasts hugely with his treatment of her during her life, and seems unrealistic. Laertes’ grief for Ophelia is overshadowed by his desire for revenge as Hamlet has destroyed his family. The two use their ‘love’ for Ophelia as an excuse to let private rivalries surface, even at her funeral. This is symbolic of how she has been used throughout the play, by Polonius to get closer to the king and by Hamlet to portray his insanity. To a Shakespearean audience, people’s treatment of Ophelia would have been typical of the way in which women were treated. Her silence and oppression would have been met with sympathy, as well the empathy of women of the time. While her situation with regards to Hamlet and his cold rejection of her still holds poignancy with a modern audience, people today may question more why she made little attempt to defend herself in certain situations, and why she so blankly followed the instructions of her father and brother at the expense of her own mental and emotional well-being. Bibliography Shakespeare, William, ‘Hamlet’, Heinemann, 1996 Pitt, Angela, ‘Shakespeare’s Women’, David and Charles, 1981 Gibson, Rex, Cambridge Student Guide: ‘Hamlet’, Cambridge University Press, 2002 A. C. Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy, 1904 Showalter, Elaine, ‘Representing Ophelia: Women, Madness and the Responsibilities of Feminist Criticism. ‘ in ‘New Casebooks: Hamlet’, Macmillan, 1992 Eleanor Crossey Malone L6G.

Hmong Refugees After The Secret War With The Pathet Laos

My family immigrated to the United States in the late 1970s, as Hmong refugees after the secret war with the Pathet Laos. My family originally settled in San Diego, California for several years before they decided to move to Fresno, California. When my parents came to Fresno they were receiving welfare and attending adult school. My father noticed that their friends and relatives were earning more money working in the fields than going to school. My parents dropped out of adult school and started farming to support themselves and my five siblings. My parents felt they couldn’t stop farming because this was now their only way of earning an income to support the family. Growing up, my parents would emphasize the importance of school and getting a bachelor degree. My family plays an important role in my life. I have a strong relationship with my parents, three sisters, two older brothers and my husband. My younger brother left the home when he was 12 years old and the family has no contact with him. My family strength is our support system and helping each other out. The other systems education, work, social interaction and health are also important in my life. In my culture, the youngest son is supposed to take care of my parents. However, my younger brother joins a gang and was getting involved in criminal activities in middle school. These activities would never or would ever be permitted back in Laos. But due the environment of this American culture, my parent had noShow MoreRelatedGenocide in Laos During the Vietnam War582 Words   |  2 Pages A genocide that is still currently happening is the one in Laos which is the result of the Vietnam War. It was a war against the communist North and the democratic South with the help of the U.S. The U.S got involved because they want to prevent the spread of communism, which is known as the â€Å"domino theory† where if a surrounding country falls into the ideology of †¦ then the rest will fall wi th it. The leader of North Vietnam was Ho Chi Minh, a strong dictator that managed to get support of his