1. What is Great Britain like outside of the school circa 1983?
Economics: 1979–1990 The Thatcher Era
When Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister in 1979, her main priorities were to reduce the role of the state in the economy and to reduce the power of the unions and their ability to paralyse the economy, a battle which culminated in the Miners' Strike of 1984. She also applied monetarist policies to reduce inflation, and reduced public spending--these deflationary measures resulted in the 1979-80 recession that led to 100,000 being added to the unemployment register every month. Her rhetoric was of a trimmer civil service and good housekeeping. Major state controlled firms were privatised, including British Aerospace (1981), British Telecom (1984), British Leyland (1984), Rolls-Royce (1987), and British Steel (1988). The electricity, gas and English water industries were split up and sold off. The ultimate success of Thatcher’s approach has been contested, but the political landscape has changed, with the chief opposition to Thatcher's Conservatives, the Labour Party, advocating many of the same economic methods, but with a greater social dimension.
Since 1973, the UK has been a member of the European Union and its predecessors. Various British governments have signed on to measures which have been aimed at improving economic conditions, such as the Single European Act (SEA), signed by Margaret Thatcher. This allowed for the free movement of goods within the European Union area. The ostensible benefit of this was to give the spur of competition to the British economy, and increase its ultimate efficiency.
Exchange controls, in operation since the war, were abolished in 1979. British net assets abroad rose approximately ninefold from £12 billion at the end of 1979 to nearly £110 billion at the end of 1986, a record post-war level and second only to Japan. [4] Privatisation of nationalised industries increased share ownership in Britain. The proportion of the adult population owning shares went up from 7% in 1979 to 25% in 1989.[7]
During much of the 1980s Britain experienced a period of boom, including an unprecedented housing boom. However, the period was also characterised by continued social strife. Unemployment skyrocketed and social ills such as homelessness and absolute poverty, which had been almost entirely eradicated in Britain during the post-war era, became common features of British life again. There was rioting in various city centres including Toxteth and Brixton, violent clashes during the miner's strike, and a wave of civil disobedience culminating in rioting when the Thatcher government introduced, ultimately unsuccessfully, the Poll Tax. While the policies of "Thatcherism" took hold in Britain, a similar set of policies were also being adopted in the U.S. through so called "Reaganomics", named for the American president, Ronald Reagan, who championed them. However, Thatcherism in the UK paid more attention to budget-balancing than Reaganism, which argued increased growth would makeup budget shortfalls - something criticised by George H. W. Bush as "voodoo economics".
It is not clear whether Thatcherism was the only reason for the boom in Britain in the 1980s, as there was also a world wide boom around the same time. However many of the economic policies put in place by the Thatcher governments have been kept since, and the Labour Party which had once been so opposed to the policies had by the late 1990s quietly dropped all opposition to them.
Race and Class in Great Britain in the 1980’s:
Post-war immigration (1945-1983)
Until the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, all Commonwealth citizens could enter and stay in the United Kingdom without any restriction. The Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 made Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKCs) whose passports were not directly issued by the United Kingdom Government (i.e. passports issued by the Governor of a colony or by the Commander of a British protectorate) subject to immigration control.
Indians began arriving in the UK in large numbers shortly after their country gained independence in 1947. More than 60,000 arrived before 1955, many of whom drove buses, or worked in foundries or textile factories. Later arrivals opened corner shops or ran post offices. The flow of Indian immigrants peaked between 1965 and 1972, boosted in particular by Idi Amin's sudden decision to expel all 50,000 Gujarati Indians from Uganda. Around 30,000 Ugandan Asians migrated to the UK.[5]
By 1972, only holders of work permits, or people with parents or grandparents born in the UK could gain entry - effectively stemming primary immigration from Commonwealth countries.
Following the end of World War II, substantial groups of people from Soviet-controlled territories settled in Britain, particularly Poles and Ukrainians. The UK recruited displaced people as so-called European Volunteer Workers in order to provide labour to industries that were required in order to aim economic recovery after the war.[6] In the 1951 census, the Polish-born population of the UK numbered some 162,339, up from 44,642 in 1931.[7][8]
There was also an influx of refugees from Hungary, following the crushing of the 1956 Hungarian revolution, numbering 20,990.[9]
Contemporary immigration (1983 onwards)
The British Nationality Act 1981, which was enacted in 1983, distinguishes between British citizen or British Overseas Territories citizen. The former hold nationality by descent and the latter hold nationality other than by descent. Citizens by descent cannot automatically pass on British nationality to a child born outside the United Kingdom or its Overseas Territories (though in some situations the child can be registered as a citizen).
Immigration officers have to be satisfied about a person's nationality and identity and entry could be refused if they were not satisfied.[10]
European Union
One of the Four Freedoms of the European Union, of which the United Kingdom is a member, is the right to the free movement of people.
Since the expansion of the EU on 1 May 2004, the UK has accepted immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe, Malta and Cyprus, although the substantial Maltese and Greek- and Turkish-Cypriot communities were established earlier through their Commonwealth connection. There are restrictions on the benefits that members of eight of these accession countries can claim, which are covered by the Worker Registration Scheme.[12] Most of the other European Union member states have exercised their right for temporary immigration control (which must end by 2011[13]) over entrants from these accession states,[14] although some are now removing these restrictions.[15]
2. Hector vs. Irwin/Schoolmaster: Philosophy vs. Practicality
In The History Boys, one of the key conflicts is represented by the “opposing” viewpoints of Hector and the schoolmaster/Irwin. Hector represents philosophy in the true meaning of the word (philo: “love of” + sophia “wisdom”). Schoolmaster/Irwin represent a much more practical approach to education. They see learning as a “means to an end”-namely entrance for their students into Oxford or Cambridge.
In many ways, this struggle between Hector and Schoolmaster/Irwin represents a larger debate about education that played out in reality in Great Britain and the United States in the 1980’s and 1990’s.
Standards-based education reform
Education reform in the United States since the late 1980s has been largely driven by the setting of academic standards for what students should know and be able to do. These standards can then be used to guide all other system components. The standards-based reform movement calls for clear, measurable standards for all school students. Rather than norm-referenced rankings, a standards-based system measures each student against the concrete standard, instead of measuring how well the student performed compared to others. Curriculum, assessments, and professional development are aligned to the standards.
Standards-based school reform has become a predominant issue facing public schools. By the 1996 National Education Summit, 44 governors and 50 corporate CEOs set the priorities (Achieve, 1998) [1]
High academic standards and expectations for all students.
Tests that are more rigorous and more challenging, to measure whether students are meeting those standards.
Accountability systems that provide incentives and rewards for educators, students, and parents to work together to help students reach these standards.
By 1998, almost every state had implemented or was in the process of implementing academic standards for their students in math and reading. Principals and teachers have received bonuses or been fired, students have been promoted or retained in their current grade, and legislation has been passed so that high school students will graduate or be denied a diploma based on whether or not they had met the standards, usually as measured by a criterion-referenced test.
An 2002 BBC Article About “A-Level” Exams in Great Britain:
Tuesday, 13 August, 2002, 23:00 GMT 00:00 UK
A-levels are not an accurate test of a student's abilities and potential, academics have said.
Students would need to be tested for 40 hours for each subject for universities to have a true picture of their abilities, according to academics from King's College, London.
The release of their findings coincides with a renewed debate about exam results and whether standards are slipping.
Professor Dylan William and Professor Paul Black believe standards have been "broadly maintained".
But they say universities need other evidence of a student's abilities besides A-level grades. Professor William says grades might be improving because students are working harder and schools are increasingly "teaching to the test".
He said: "Whether standards are going up or down is not the issue - standards have been broadly maintained.
"The problem is we just don't know how accurate examination grades are for individual students, and they are of only limited use as predictors of future performance."
The academics said research in the 1970s showed A-levels were only accurate to plus or minus a grade.
They say the only way to make A-levels accurate to a 10th of a grade would be to increase the amount of exams students had to take to about 40 hours for each subject.
Prof William said this would not be popular with students so instead people would have to start trusting the judgements of teachers and university admissions tutors.
Some universities, including Kings College, use aptitude tests to gauge potential.
They are routinely used at American universities.
Professor William said although candidates for medicine at Kings usually have to get two As and a B, the college had accepted nine students from state schools who had Cs and Ds but scored well in tests on science reasoning.
Philanthropist
This is an approach advocated by the Higher Education Minster Margaret Hodge, who has said universities should consider lowering their A-level requirements for students from working-class backgrounds.
In a speech in April, she said A-levels were poor at measuring a student's potential.
At Bristol University, admissions tutors look at the average A-level scores of children at a candidate's school before awarding a place.
A pupil who had done much better than their school friends would be given a place even if their A-level results did not match those of other people previously accepted by Bristol.
The use of aptitude tests to spot talented students is advocated by Peter Lampl, the philanthropist behind the Sutton Trust educational charity.
He says more universities should use them to open their doors to bright children from low-income families.
The Secularization of the Church
Albert Mohler
President, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
December 11, 2008
Secularization is the process by which a society becomes more and more distant from its Christian roots. Though the formal sociological theory is more complicated than that, the essence of secularization is the fact that the culture no longer depends upon Christian symbols, morals, principles, or practices. While most of the world is resolutely unsecular, much of Europe is pervasively secular -- and this includes Great Britain.
Nevertheless, the secularization of society is one thing, but the secularization of the church is another. Yet, at least one major leader of the Church of England now assumes what can only be described as a secular vision of the church.
Writing in a new publication of the Institute for Public Policy Research in London, Dr. John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, calls for the Church of England to represent people of all faiths, and those of no faith at all.
Writing in Faith in the Nation: Religion, Identity, and the Public Realm in Britain Today, the Archbishop argues that the Church of England deserves its place as the established church of Great Britain because it now serves as a "public utility" serving the common good.
As The Times [London] reported the story:
The Church of England should be open for use by people of any religion or none, like a hospital, says Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York.
There is a strong case for regarding the Church as a public body that does not exist simply to serve believers, he argues. Whether or not most people attend regularly is irrelevant.
This is a strange and pathetic vision of the church. No longer the assembly of believers, the church is now defined merely as a public utility. What does this public utility do? It exists, he argues, in order to provide service such as education, funerals, and a context for important national events -- such as, he suggests, the funeral of Princess Diana.
In his chapter in the book, Archbishop Sentamu argues that the Church of England serves as a public utility that offers services "at the point of need for populations who will sooner or later require their services." Quoting researcher Grace Davie, a specialist on religion in Britain, Archbishop Sentamu explains that "the fact that these populations see no need to attend these churches does not mean that they are not appreciated."
This has to be one of the strangest and most unbiblical concepts of the church ever to reach print. The church is now to be more or less on-call for a population that sees no need to attend these churches but nonetheless is assumed to appreciate the fact that they exist. Confused?
Well, the Archbishop goes on to cite Grace Davie again in proposing the idea of "vicarious religion." As she explains, "vicarious religion" is "the notion of religion performed by an active minority but on behalf of a much larger number who (implicitly at least) not only understand, but quite clearly approve of what the minority is doing."
Finally, the Archbishop argues that the church provides "faithful capital" for the society at large, building community and relationships and social cohesiveness. Of course, as he acknowledges, all this is supposed to come without much (if any) emphasis on actual Christian beliefs or teachings. As a matter of fact, he assumes that most people will never attend church anyway. Evidently, the Archbishop no longer sees that as much of a problem.
This is the end result of liberal theology -- a thoroughly secularized church. This Archbishop celebrates multiculturalism and religious diversity. No urgent concept of evangelism is to be found in his essay, for he appears to believe that no such effort is needed.
Archbishop Sentamu effectively erases the boundary between belief and unbelief, suggesting that the church belongs to believers and unbelievers alike. The saving message of the Gospel -- the message of salvation from sin through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ -- is replaced with a social function. The Body of Christ is transformed into a public utility.
In Matthew 16, Jesus states that his church is built on the confession that he is "the Christ, the Son of the Living God." But in the church of liberal theology, any belief (or no belief at all) will eventually do. Furthermore, no one actually needs to come. Nothing of eternal significance is hanging in the balance anyway. A clear proclamation of the Gospel and the bold preaching of the Word of God may be missing, but the architecture is grand and the music is glorious.
Of course, Archbishop Sentamu is attempting to argue for the continued existence of the Church of England as an established state church. His argument represents what happens when the interests of the state are all that remain. But Christians in America -- which thankfully has no state church -- are not immune from the same temptation to reduce the meaning and mission of the church to social capital and public utility.
This is ultimately where liberal theology leads, and where the church meets its end. The gates of hell will easily prevail over anything reduced to the status of a "public utility."
No comments:
Post a Comment