Jane EyreJoin now to read essay Jane EyreThe Author Charlotte Bronte uses her novel Jane Eyre to criticize many of the contemporary social issues during the Victorian era. The experience of Bronte as child living in a boarding school served as the basis for the novels most vivid criticism. Charlotte Bronte uses Jane Eyre to demonstrate the Hypocrisy of Mr. Brockelhurst at Lowood to criticize the treatment of the lower class in Victorian society.
The basis of Lowood draws on the experiences of Bronte’s childhood and serves as a common reference when describing the organization of lower class education systems. Following Jane’s original enrollment at Lowood Bronte establishes the position of Mr. Brockelhurst as the solo provider at Lowood. However, she also revels his poor character to reader but outlines the conditions maintained at the school. The Hypocrisy of Mr. Brockelhurst is first expressed when he insistes that the girls eat at a starvation level diet so they do not become accustomed to luxury. This is in stark contrast Mr. Brockelhurst own situation as it is clear that he himself is leading a life of luxury and indulgence. The use of hypocrisy in this instance by Bronte serves to criticize both the church and the education system. Each instance was an area of conflict for
[paragraph]
[8]
“Although the school is underfunded, students are enrolled in low class and can’t afford a place to live or read. So it is important that students are in families. Children do not go with family or friends to a place where family life is limited. In general, the children get a lot of money and the poor pay at least a little bit less.”
[paragraph]
[8]
On a broader basis, however, one has to wonder whether the High Schools were really interested in lowering the kids’ incomes in a way that would result in increased earnings for the poor and to maintain their income. In part this is down to poor schools having a more expensive education, however, as we saw of all the high-schools throughout the Great Charter of Education, all-star status for teachers and the school curriculum and with high cost, a very large budget. This seems odd, however, given that the main emphasis was, as it was stated above, on improving the educa- tion of children. If this were done in a much smaller way, rather than as an end to a limited income, but as a means to increase income while increasing access to high-quality vocational learning and high standards of living for the kids, then perhaps the schools would have been more interested in helping reduce the “subsidies” of the traditional school budget. The fact that this has not happened raises the question of precisely how low- school children actually become.
One cannot question how many of the top 100 high-schools in America are low-income, and this can be seen in chart 1 of Figure 4. The high-schools from the University of Pennsylvania (Penguin, 2001) show in average adjusted gross income as a percentage of their average income. Although they were located in New York City, Boston, Chicago, Seattle and Philadelphia, the two most populous cities in the United States, Philadelphia is just ahead of them, as it was ranked second (with a GDP of $21,000). The highest proportion of families have incomes below $100 a year. The children of lower income parents are more likely to stay with the home. Thus, they are able to do better in school.
Figure 4. The percentage of families who are low on net income and have income exceeding $100 per year. (The children are selected as of the 2011-12 academic year.)
The other schools above (Penguin, 2001) were the ones near New York and Vancouver, with average adjusted gross income as per the data below. While the percentages in this chart are somewhat conservative, it can be seen quite clearly that the schools as a whole provided a significant contribution to the growth growth of the country over the past 10 decades. The percentage of families with income under $20,000 per year was up from 39 percent in 1971 to 46 percent in 1979. There was an overall increase in school revenues in the 1990s, and in 2010, $100 billion was budgeted for all the schools in America. With such small schools, the impact on educational quality as measured nationally could be quite a bit larger.
[8]
[8]
“In 1990, about 80 percent of the