Politics assignment

[BuFfY]

I have an essay due soon about politics and education.
We have a focus on liberalism, socialism and culturalism. On how each perspective views local and central power (with an emphasis on education - compulsary, free and secular)
Was wondering if anyone on here can give me a few insights on this topic! Is a 2000 word essay, which is not quite long enough for me to babble on (I like longer essays as you can draw on more examples)

Thanks in advance

[ManDownUnder]

Ixion, III... guys - you're needed!

[limbimtimwim]

My politics degree has a use!!

YES!!

But I don't quite understand what you want. Does this essay have a question?

[BuFfY]

My question is.....

"One of the difficulties that arise on the question of education, when the state takes the matter up, is occasioned by the different opinions men hold as to central and local administration - how far central control should be enforced, and how far the system should be locally administered" Quote by Charles Bowen 24th July 1877 when introducing the Education Bill into the House of Representatives.

Discuss the political philosophies behind the different opinions referred to by Charles Bowen in the above quotation with reference to the 'free, secular, and compulsary' clause in the 1877 Education Act.

[jrandom]

Fucking hell, girl, you really are as dumb as you appear to be.

[Edit: Seriously. Asking people on an internet biker forum to help you write an answer to an essay assignment is really, really sad.]

[BuFfY]

I am asking for a few explanations on liberalism, socialism and culturalism. I am not asking for my essay question to be answered! (hence not putting it in the first post)
I have just been introduced to these terms and a lot of my readings I don't understand because... well... I have never been exposed to it!

I am an A grade student, I work bloody hard and just because I am asking for a little help does not make me dumb or sad.

[Nitzer]

There is a book called 'Beginning Theory' by Peter Barry which might be of use to you. It covers Liberal Humanism, Cultural matarialism etc. It's a fairly easy read which gives a good clear insight to different theories.

If you can't find a copy at the library you are more than welcome to borrow my copy.

[Beemer]

Fucking hell, girl, you really are as dumb as you appear to be.

[Edit: Seriously. Asking people on an internet biker forum to help you write an answer to an essay assignment is really, really sad.]

A tad harsh, Fish! I don't think she's asking us to write it, just to explain a few of the concepts as they are unfamiliar to her.

But I did get a text from a friend last week, asking me if I could proofread a 1000-word assignment. English is not her first language so I wasn't keen anyway, even less so when I discovered it was for her flatmate. I've never met him and apparently he's a DOCTOR, so if he needs help with an extramural assignment, I wondered where he'd got his medical qualifications from! He didn't just want it proofread either, he basically wanted it rewritten as his grammar and sentence structure needed work too... I explained to her that I was in the middle of doing two of my own extramural assignments and I didn't really have time to help him with his.

[Ixion]

My question is.....

"One of the difficulties that arise on the question of education, when the state takes the matter up, is occasioned by the different opinions men hold as to central and local administration - how far central control should be enforced, and how far the system should be locally administered" Quote by Charles Bowen 24th July 1877 when introducing the Education Bill into the House of Representatives.

Discuss the political philosophies behind the different opinions referred to by Charles Bowen in the above quotation with reference to the 'free, secular, and compulsary' clause in the 1877 Education Act.

The fundamental issue that Bowen was dealing with was whether schooling at (what would later be) the primary level should be run by churches (locally controlled) or by central government. (Bowen favoured the latter )

Nothing to do with socialism though. So the homonymic gentleman and I will have nothing to debate.

The issue is sometimes presented as a "religious versus secular" argument, but it wasn't really. It was more a matter of local versus central. Local schools, funded through parish funds , teachers either the local minister or employed by the vestry/synod, could make their own decisions about what they taught. State run schools, funded by central government, and teachers hired and paid by central government, would teach what central government said. Not just the curriculum of course, things like school hours discipline etc all came into the argument.

The general nature of the debate broadly paralleled that of England (not surprising since most of the country were recent immigrants). So reference to the varied arguments of the country in the 19C will be useful.

Obviously, in NZ the centralist lobby (eg Bowen) won the day resoundingly.So much so that many New Zealanders, especially those in the educational system, have great difficulty comprehending of the possibility of any alternative order of things.

Education is totally in the control of the bureaucrats in Wellington, and has been for a century. There is no provision for local input , either regionally, or by parents. The only , very limited, exceptions are by way of "opting out", eg by home schooling or some of the religious schools (Jews, Muslims for instance).

This may be contrasted with the position in the USA ,where , although the debate has swayed back and forth, by and large education is directed and governed at a much more local level, by school boards and state legislatures . This is why , in the USA, there is great controversy about teaching Creationism in schools. In NZ of course there would be no controversy because the option simply would not exist. In the States, the Federal government cannot easily stop local educational authorities following their own path.

As to the broader philosophies behind the dispute, have a read of the "I'm not happy with Helen" thread, and consider some of the "Political Compass" stuff. In this debate the differences were not around economics (socialism versus capitalism), but around the libertarian versus authortarian axis and my suggested "third axis" of centralist versus local control.

[Macktheknife]

Goes to the central theme of seperation of church and state, compulsory education in a secular fashion ultimately benefits the greater society and empowers the 'common man'.
Very socialistic and liberal in initial import but quite contradictory of some of his other comments in the Canterbury region.
So what do you actually want to know?

I see Ixion has other idea's, this could be interesting.

[jrandom]

A tad harsh, Fish!

I know.

I feel remorse.

[Macktheknife]

To add further contextual information, Charles Bowen argued with the introduction of the bill that the variety of energetic and powerful denominations meant that a comprehensive education system could not offer religious teaching. He stressed that the bill embodied secularism not as a positive doctrine but only as a means of avoiding conflict.
This places the background of the social and political implications of the Bill firmly in the arena of the religous power struggle that was present in Politics at the time.
There is also the influence of money from the public purse, the (predominantly Catholic) schools of the time were clamouring for money from the government to recognise the importance of their teaching. Bowen was a protestant Irishman episcopalian, he was keen to see education made available to all without the addition of spiritual or religous dogma complicating and possibly antagonising the situation.
Additionally there was the issue of standards of education, which were variable across districts according to (among other things) finances, teacher availability, teachers training levels, and of course, attendance which was usually a function of how much needed doing in the family circumstances. eg: farming.

[Hitcher]

Remember that most academics are dripping-wet, soft-cock, left-wing liberals. Write something that panders to their prejudices and all will be sweet.

[James Deuce]

I am asking for a few explanations on liberalism, socialism and culturalism. I am not asking for my essay question to be answered! (hence not putting it in the first post)
I have just been introduced to these terms and a lot of my readings I don't understand because... well... I have never been exposed to it!

Liberalism: Embodied by Marie Antoinette - People with lots of money expressing remorse that people with no money don't have an iPod.

Socialism: Embodied by Che Guevara - Adopt my form of Government or I'll shoot you and then go and sell my shooting services to other people and keep the money to distribute amongst my mates who have beards and Khaki uniforms. And styley moustaches.

Culturalism: Emobodied (sic) by Pita Sharples - You people Get Orf My Laaand - What do you mean you're not going to Get orf? OK then we'll create a methodology for being compensated in full and final payment - repeatedly. Plus you'll have to pick up the tab for introducing a lifestyle that doesn't agree with the Physiognomy and Physiology of us people what were here first. Or second. Or maybe third. Anyway we was here before you fullas.

[Skyryder]

I have an essay due soon about politics and education.
We have a focus on liberalism, socialism and culturalism. On how each perspective views local and central power (with an emphasis on education - compulsary, free and secular)
Was wondering if anyone on here can give me a few insights on this topic! Is a 2000 word essay, which is not quite long enough for me to babble on (I like longer essays as you can draw on more examples)

Thanks in advance

Liberalism that much maligned word that today is one step away from anarchy. At one time it espoused ideas that were of value to the community as a whole, now it proposed ideas that are of value only to the indavidual.

Socialism. Commonly mistrued as as communist. It is a western concept that socialism is synonymous with communism. The distinction is never made that socialism is based on co-operation within the variouse sectors of society working in unison to produce a better society. Socialism has never advocated a one party state. That was Marx.

Culturalism. A mish-mash word the meaning of which is not far from total confusion or total justification in all things. It just depends on what side of the fence you are sitting on.


The problem with bringing these three concepts (socialism, liberalism and culturalism) into the realm of education both secular, free and compulsary is that each one is 'political' in their own right and as such now come under the umbrella of a 'subjective' interperatation. To marry these three concepts into a society, through education, that puts it's emphasise on 'competition' in all the various interpretations is one of the fundametal flaws of the society that we live in. It is essentially what is wrong with education today. Put more bluntly everybody wants their thumb in the pie and now that the pie is contaminated (too many thumbs) it is someone elses fault.

I'd better stop. You might take all this too seriously and get a D.

Hope some of this has helped

Skyryder