Ragged Schools in the Victorian Era

Ragged Schools in the Victorian Era Victorian times started out in 1800s and lasted  until 1901. During this period of time, children were living in poverty, thus one of the great movements of Victorian philanthropy was establishing of ragged schools to provide education opportunity, like its name, Ragged Schools provide education for children who are too ragged, filthy, wretch forlorn to enter any other places (Besant, 1984). The origin of ragged schooling was first founded by John Pounds (1766 1839), he was a cobbler in Portsmouth and initiated by using his shop in 1818 for educational activity. John pound actively recruit children by spending time on streets and quays of Portsmouth by making contacts with children as well as bribing them with baked potatoes (Guthrie, 1847). After recruiting these children, he would then teach the girls to cook simple food where the ragged school cookery class is form. As for the boys, he would impart his skills set as a cobbler to them which would eventually representing industrialism. Reading, writing and arithmetic were also taught thoroughly thus making education as a base for schooling (Montague, 1904 p.40-41). Another Ragged School would be St. John’s School which is situated at Forton, a small village in Staffordshire in England. During year 1830 to 1831 it was being used as a Sunday School before being converted to a ragged school in 1861. During 1861, boys and girls schools were built within the existing premises, thus, different sexes would be posted to their designated buildings respectively. There were also blackboards and slate pencils available as well as cane which is being used as implementation of punishment system for children being late or playing truancy (Turner, 1986). As children during Victoria’s England, it was a time where child dominate the society, thus, during this time families tends to be large which eventually leading to overcrowding which then leading to poor families. Poor children are often put to work at early age such work places could be textile mills and also coal mines where working conditions are often deadly thus, education are something of a luxury for the children (Boone, 2005). Thus, the ragged school provides a safe environment and protection for children which has proper mentor in guiding skills set for them. Such protection would be to protect them from their parents who did not know how to guide a child into the right path (Silver, 1983 p. 20). Charles Dickens was another person whom brought the whole of Britain attention to children (Smith, 2001). He wrote the first letter on ragged schooling after he visited Field Lane Ragged School which was established in 1841, which later appeared in The Daily News on February 4th 1846. He mentioned â€Å"they are never taught; that first distinctions between right and wrong are, from their cradles, perfectly confounded and perverted in their minds; that they come of untaught parent† (Charles, 1846). Children were not taught on morality and were unable to differentiate neither what is right nor what is wrong, thus resulting in higher crime rate such as pickpocketing, thus, ragged school rescues children who are facing such difficulties in their lives (Boone, 2005). Dickens (1841) also described the boys that were age from mere infants to young men who were rescued to Field Lane Ragged School when he made his way down to the chamber room where these boys are going to live in. When he first saw the boys, he could not see any ingenuous, frank or even pleasant in their faces but their expressions and behaviours looked vicious, wicked, cunning, feeling being abandoned from all help (Boone, 2005). Some people might think that Dickens is being extremely harsh with the above comments but, he points out severe problems with the education system in Victorian England. As the teachers are mostly volunteers, basic education such as writing, reading and arithmetic were all being provided for these children as well as a sheltered place for these children (Macgregor, 1853). However, majority of the children were not as civilised and their behaviours constantly poses problems to the teachers. They could be listening attentively at sometimes while totally changes to another personality in a short time frame causing nuisance hence, punishment system was implemented. One of such punishment would be to forfeit the day’s pleasure if one is found with being disobedient to teachers. Whenever the day arrives and the children whom misbehaves realises that they were not going anywhere, they would start crying. This would serve as a reminder to them which would gain beneficial and positive result in shaping their behaviours and improving their manners (Walvin, 1982). There was another man whom made a great contribution to the Ragged School movement, Dr Thomas John Barnardo (July 1845 – September 1905) who started his own experimental Ragged School in late 1866 (Fletcher, 2005 p.41). He met the first destitute child, Jim, in 1866 and described Jim as â€Å"genuine Arab boy, friendless, homeless† (Marchant, 2007, p. 342). Barnardo also mentioned that when he saw the upturned faces more of those boys, he realises the fact that all absolutely destitute and homeless, he knows himself that he must look for ways to save these boys whom were also labelled as â€Å"street-arabs† (Wagner, 1979). First, he started a marketing strategy for his ragged school, â€Å"photographic marketing† (Ash, 2008 p.180) to increase the public’s awareness surrounding those pauper children during Victorian times as well as to raise funds for his ragged school. He would create postcards of poverty-stricken, dirty children before coming to orphanage and compare and contrast with the after photograph where the children are well-dressed and good-manner (Swain and Hillel, 2010). In this, much awareness was gained about how parents have failed in giving their child proper education and understanding of own morality, thus, bringing up issues of children during that time (Ash, 2008 p. 180) Lastly, there were two logbook entries by their headmaster from Kidmore End Ragged School which started recording in 1873. â€Å"8 October 1868 1st class not well attended. Boys wanted for work for tending cattle and working in the field† and â€Å"3 April 1871, Harry Castell and George Prior punished for playing truant since yesterday afternoon. There was no drill in the afternoon, the weather being damp and showery† (Hendrick, 1997). From the above entries, we could deduce that children who were attending Ragged School were still constantly wanted for work however, they would be punished for truancy, thus enabling them to change their behaviours as well as for them to realise the importance of education during Victorian times. With all these evidence to support the contributions of the Ragged School has made during Victorian times, although their facilities are not as good as those normal schools, however, the intentions of the founders were the same. They wanted to build a better future for British’s children during that time. They foresee that only when children receive more education, the country would then be able to progress (Hendrick, 1997). References Ash. S 2008, ‘Heroin Baby: Barnardo’s, Benevolence, and Shame’, in Journal ofCommunication Inquiry, 32(2), 179-200. Ashley, M 1850. Ragged Schools and Emigration Special Appeal. The Times, 10 July. Besant, W 1894. The Jubilee of the Ragged Schools Union, London: RSU. Boone, T Youth of Darkest England: Working-Class Children at the Heart of VictorianEmpire. New York: Routeledge, 2005. Fletcher, W 2005, Kepping the Vision Alive: The Story of Barnardo’s 1905 -2005. Barnardo’s Organiszation, Essex. Guthrie, T 1847 Plea for Ragged Schools, or Prevention is Better Than Cure, Edinburgh HC Deb 1849. Ragged Schools. [ONLINE] Available at:http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1849/jul/24/ragged-schools. [Accessed 29 October 14]. Hendrick, H 1997, Children, childhood and English society, 1880-1990, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Macgregor, J 1853, Ragged Schools: their Rise, Progress and Results. London. Marchant, J 2007, Memoirs of the Late Dr. Barnardo, Hodder and Stoughton, London. Montague, C. J. 1904 Sixty Years in Waifdom. Or, the Ragged School Movement in English history, London. Silver, H 1983 Education as History, London: Methuen. Smith, M 2001 â€Å"Ragged schools and the development of youth work and informaleducation†. The encyclopaedia of informal education. [www.infed.org/youthwork/ragged_schools.htm]. Swain, S and M Hillel 2010, Child, Nation, Race and Empire: Child Rescue Discourse, England, Canado and Australia, 1850-1915, Manchester University Press, Machester. Turner, O 1986. Forton St. Johns School. 1st ed. Staffordshire: London. Wagner, G 1979, Barnardo, Weidenfield and Nicolson, London. Walvin, J 1982 A Child’s World. A social history of English childhood 1800 – 1914, London: Pelican. WT14041938 Page. 01 of 06

Moral Obligations about Charity views of Peter Singer and John Arthur Essay

The fact that we can afford to provide for ourselves even beyond our basic needs bring an important question. Is it then our duty to provide financial assistance to those who do not have enough to provide for their own basic needs? Peter Singer, in his piece, â€Å"Famine, Affluence, and Morality† would argue that we ought to prevent bad things from happening without sacrificing something of equal importance. Here is the argument Peter Singer presents to us in standard form 1) Millions of people are suffering from hunger every day. 2) Suffering and death from hunger is bad. 3) If it is within our power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to morally do so. 4) It is within the power of affluent people to prevent hunger by sacrificing only their luxuries, which are of lesser moral importance. However, John Arthur disagrees with Singer’s conclusion in his piece, â€Å"World Hunger and Moral Obligation: The Case against Singer† and believes that although we should help those in need, it is not imperative to do so. John Arthur’s argument in basic form looks like this: 1) Singer says that all affluent people have a moral obligation to give their money to poor people to the extent that the affluent person would be on the same level as the poor person. 2) Poor people have no positive right to our assistance, because affluent people made no contract to do so. 3) Affluent people have a negative right to their property, which weighs against their obligation. Therefore, the obligation that Singer imposes on affluent people is not as extensive as Arthur. I will analyze both sides of this argument and in the end, propose my own position on this subject. Singer’s main point as stated above is that we ought to prevent bad things from happening without having to sacrifice something of equal importance. In other words, we should give to those in poverty as long as we do not put ourselves in a position of poverty. Singer starts his argument by making the assumption that it is a bad thing when people suffer and die from the lack of food and shelter. Since this is a bad thing, we ought to do something in order to prevent these things from happening without sacrificing anything of equal moral importance to ourselves. This point essentially puts the responsibility of the well-being of all people who are in some way suffering from lack of food and shelter into the hands of those who are in a position to do something about it. The fact that it is now our responsibility makes it morally wrong to not care for these people with our financial assistance. Singer does not see the act of giving money in order to prevent something bad from happening as charity, but instead as our duty. With charity comes the moral option to not give and to spend money on luxuries. If giving to prevent bad things from happening is something that we ought to do, to not do it would be wrong. Money that would have been spent on luxuries should be sent to parts of the world that need it on the basis of their lack of food, shelter, and adequate clothing. On the other hand, John Arthur brings up a strong argument against Singer. Arthur contests that a person has a right to do with their money as they please. There is no contract between ourselves and those in need, therefore we are entitled to invoke our own rights as a justification for not giving to those in need. The interesting thing about this argument is that Arthur is not saying that it is a good thing that we ignore the needs of others, but is instead saying that we have to right to not give. Arthur thinks that we are expected to give to those in need, but we also have the right to invoke our own rights of not giving to those in need. Arthur argues that if we were to live by Singer’s moral standards by following â€Å"greater moral evil rule† then we should not only give monetary charity but also give to the extent of donating parts of our bodies to help someone from dying. He says this because if you can survive without a certain body part (like a kidney) then according to Singer you should give it to someone to save their life because the kidney is less significant than a person dying  (Arthur 473). Arthur does not agree with this idea he sees this as a person violating our negative rights to property, protesting, that it’s your body, and you have a right to it, outweighs any duty you have to help. Both Arthur and Singer agree that there are millions of people suffering from hunger everyday and that this suffering causing death is a bad thing. However Singer believes that it is our moral duty to assist the poor not a choice to do so. While Arthur believes that although we should help those in need, it is not required of us to do so. Therefore the obligation that Singer imposes on people is not as extensive as that of Arthur. As a moral person, one is morally obligated to act in a way which will bring about the greatest happiness. Whether that action is positive or negative doesn’t matter to the pain or pleasure that is produced. No distinction is necessary to the morality of the action. Pain and pleasure are still the measure of moral significance that are used to judge whether a given charity is good or bad. Then the given rules of charity are used to judge the morality of an individual’s acts of charity. Arthur argues that duty to help a stranger in need would be some sort of positive right such as an agreement or contract. However when it comes to assisting in the world hunger situation there are no such agreements or contracts between flourishing countries to assist non flourishing countries. Arthur is correct in arguing that there is something more in the terms of Singer’s argument in the case about the drowning child that if we are able to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing something of moral significance then we have the moral duty to do it. With the example of the drowning child in the shallow pond, even though we might get our clothes muddy if we were to save the child. As a consequence, like this child case, people have an obligation to rescue strangers when they have the ability to do so that it is our moral duty to do something. Arthur argues the point that these rights as well as deserts are important parts of our moral code based on values such as fairness, justice, and respect. From Arthur’s point of view, there are two significant human rights which are â€Å"negative rights† and â€Å"positive rights†. â€Å"Negative rights†, â€Å"rights of noninterference† (473) in another word, are rights not to be interfered by  anyone such as a right not to be killed. The other rights which are also ignored are â€Å"positive rights† same as called â€Å"rights of percipience† These rights are based on agreements. As long as people have an agreement something, they have a right to receive it. In addition to rights, desert is a second form of entitlement. As an example, a hard working farmer is able to harvest a lot of wheat as a result of his great effort. On the other hand, a lazy farmer is starving because of his laziness. In this case, the hard working farmer should not have any obligation to give wheat to the lazy farmer. Thus, the farmer should consider â€Å"fairness, justice, and respect.† (474). In this case is the farmer who worked hard be obligated to give some of his harvest to the farmer who didn’t do anything to secure a harvest to provi de for him and his family. Looking at Singer’s view on charity makes me wonder, He believes that as citizens of affluent countries we are morally obligated to donate most of our wealth to the starving poor of countries unable to provide for their own with their basic needs to survive like food, shelter and adequate clothing. That theory sounds great, however I have a problem with the fact that are focusing on the welfare of the struggling poor in other countries, while we ignore the suffering of our own right here in our backyard. Yes, I said the United States of America should take care of its own first. Before we spend our precious dollars taking care of the rest of the world. Let me say I cannot fathom a world as progressive as ours and yet people are still starving and dying right here in our own backyard. But it is a reality. Billions of dollars are given to aid so many other countries. While less and less is used here to provide relief for our own who are suffering. So, what is my point you say, my point is we spend a lot of money taking care of people around the world. As a society we are generous. Everyday I listen to politicians and others pointing fingers at each other playing the blame game for our economic crisis. Blaming the Republicans, or blaming the Democrats, Blaming the rich or poor, but the fact is all the blame in the world isn’t fixing the problem. Seeing all the dollar amounts being used to fund all these different relief efforts worldwide is simply amazing. But just think how far those dollars would go if they were to keep them here in the United States and use them to help keep a family member or a neighbor from losing  their home or life. Why are we providing billions of dollars in scholarship aid to foreign students when graduates of our own high schools can’t afford a college education? Why are our religious organizations donati ng billions of dollars to provide health care and literacy programs to foreign countries when our own kids are on Medicaid and illiterate? How much money would go back into restoring our own economy and helping citizens of the United States of America if we kept our money here? Will become the nation known for letting its own people suffer while we take care of the suffering in other countries. Will we keep playing the blame game and turn our backs to the pain and suffering of the people on our own soil. If so, maybe we should change our name to â€Å"The United States Charitable Citizens for the Rest of the World.†

What Is Auxesis in Writing and Speech

Auxesis is a rhetorical term for a gradual increase in the intensity of meaning with words arranged in ascending order of force or importance. Etymologically the term auxesis is a Greek word that means growth, increase or amplification. Hyperbole is a form of auxesis which intentionally exaggerates a point or its significance. Here are some other examples of auxesis. Examples of Auxesis From Literature Its a well-hit ball, its a long drive, it might be, it could be, it IS ... a home run. Jeans That CanLengthen LegsHug Hips Turn Heads Seven years, my lord, have now passed since I waited in your outward room, or was repulsed from your door; during which time I have been pushing on my work through difficulties, of which it is useless to complain, and have brought it at last to the verge of publication, without one act of assistance, one word of encouragement, or one smile of favor. Such treatment I did not expect, for I never had a patron before.The notice which you have been pleased to take off my Labours, had it been early, had been kind; but it has been delayed till I am indifferent and cannot enjoy it, till I am solitary and cannot impart it, till I am known and do not want it. It is a sin to bind a Roman citizen, a crime to scourge him, little short of the most unnatural murder to put him to death; what then shall I call this crucifixion? Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there wondering, fearing,Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before. Shakespearean Auxesis And he, repulsed, a short tale to make,Fell into a sadness, then into a fast,Thence to a watch, thence into a weakness,Thence to a lightness; and by this declensionInto the madness wherein now he raves,And all we wail for.Since brass, nor stone, nor earth, nor boundless sea,But sad mortality oer-sways their power. Richard Lanham on Auxesis and Climax Auxesis is usually not listed by theorists as synonymous with the Climax/Anadiplosis cluster of terms, but the difference between auxesis, in its main sense of augmentation, and climax is a fine one. The difference between the auxesis and climax clusters seems to be that in the climax cluster, the climactic series is realized through linked pairs of terms. One might, therefore, say that the auxesis cluster is a figure of amplification and the climax cluster a scheme of arrangement. Observing this distinction, however, we can call a climactic series a climax only when the terms are linked. Henry Peacham on Auxesis and Incrementum By the figure auxesis, the orator doth make a low dwarf a tall fellow . . . of pebble stones, pearls; and of thistles, mighty oaks. . . .Incrementum, when by degrees we ascend to the top of something, or rather above the top; that is when we make our saying grow and increase by an orderly placing of our words, making the latter word always exceed the former . . .. In this figure, the order must be diligently observed, that the stronger may follow the weaker, and the worthier the less worthy; otherwise, you shall not increase the oration, but make a mingle-mangle, as doth the ignorant, or else make a great heap, as doth congeries. Quintilian on Auxesis For sentences should rise and grow in force: of this an excellent example is provided by Cicero, where he says, You, with that throat, those lungs, that strength, that would do credit to a prizefighter, in every limb of your body; for there each phrase is followed by one stronger than the last, whereas, if he had begun by referring to his whole body, he could scarcely have gone on to speak of his lungs and throat without an anticlimax.

SAT Scores for Admission to South Carolina Colleges