The Right Words Make All The Difference
Walt Gardner’s article “Evaluating High Schools Through One Lens Only” describes the point of view of public school systems today on promoting higher education after high school. [While I didn't particularly enjoy writing this paper, I did find this article really interesting and I never really thought about the argument he poses that much before, but it really is true! Public schools place way too much emphasis on every student going to college.] Gardner focuses on the idea that schools are putting too much emphasis on attending college after graduating high school, and not presenting other options to students. He uses examples to show that college is not for everyone such as economic status, ability level, or specific aptitude. He explores the possibility that certain jobs not requiring a college degree are going to be more prevalent in society in upcoming years. Gardner not only states this frame of mind as a problem, but offers a solution towards the end of the article, directly speaking at this point to the audience. Gardner’s intended audience in this article are public school boards around the country, but specifically ones who view college as a necessity and force the post-graduate path on students. Gardner’s audience is also the general American public as well because he uses terms and phrases that suggest he is trying to identify with the average American. [I was a little vague here and in other parts of my paper about the audience. I could have mentioned a more specific audience, such as only one group.] Overall, Gardner provides a solid argument and delivers his claims well by using descriptive language, connecting with the audience, and using credible sources to back up his assertions. [Personally, I think I have a knack for creating thesis'. I really liked mine in this paper!]Expressive language is a main part of Gardner’s article; he uses his word choice in a very effective way to appeal to the audience and keep the reader captivated. In the beginning of the article, Gardner discusses the viewpoint of New York city public schools and states that “rather than rely almost exclusively on the percentage of students who earn a high school diploma as a sign of success, the New York City Department of Education now demands to know how many of these students are prepared for college. It is a totally predictable but absolutely wrongheaded strategy.” (Gardner par. 2) Gardner immediately refutes this point-of-view and does so as if he was expecting it to come up all along, calling it “predictable.” His word choice here is essential to showing his audience that he’s one step ahead of possible opposing arguments. Later on, Gardner calls the “obsession with college a virus that indiscriminately infects” (Gardner par. 4) Comparing schools’ emphasis on college to a virus is an effective way that Gardner assigns guilt towards the intended audience. This simple choice in words puts the spotlight on the public school system and forces them to think twice about their current methods. [I definitely should have added more example of word choice, I don't think I presented that strong of an argument to someone that may have not read the article.]
Gardner tries to not only resonate with the school boards of America throughout the article, but also students, parents, and anyone else connected to public schooling in our country. When talking about the financial burden of college for some students, Gardner adds in the phrase that debt is “no small consideration these days” (Gardner par. 4) He appeals to the average American by alluding to the current state of our economy and presenting this as a legitimate problem families have to face. Not only does he show that he sympathizes and understands, but he also uses this statement to once again appeal to the emotions of the public school board members. [I kind of went back and forth in this sentence; I could have stated my argument here differently to make it make more sense.] He is attempting to present a problem that the school board might be able to identify with as well, in order to shift their thinking and present the other side of the argument. Gardner also discusses the fact that not all students have the desire or the ability to attend a four-year college after high school. He implies that these students are looked down upon by society by saying that they are “not failures by any means.” He is once again showing his sympathy for any student who has ever gotten made fun of simply because they did not want to attend college after high school because they didn’t believe they were smart enough or just had other plans for their life. [This was a point where I needed to be more clear with my audience.] Gardner also points out that “by refusing to acknowledge their worth, we do them a terrible disservice. What we are saying to these students in effect is that they have no future" (Gardner par. 3). He is attempting to connect with the students that may be reading this article that have dealt with being called a failure before; he effectively does this by contradicting what society has told them, that they have no future if they do not receive a college diploma.
In the beginning of the article, Gardner provides a link to a separate article entitled “Schools Are Given a Grade on How Graduates do,” an article featured in the New York Times in August, 2010. The fact that Gardner has an entire article to back up his claims about how public schools systems are handling the presentation of college to students supports his argument immensely and establishes credibility directly from the introduction, and into the article itself. At one point, Gardner sites an article written about careers that only require a two-year degree to begin. This article was written by Sue Shellenbarger, a columnist for the Wall Street Post. By using another legitimate source such as this, Gardner raises his own credibility even more and gives all the more evidence for his argument. Gardner also mentions that Mrs. Shellenbarger’s article contains data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which adds yet another reference of credibility to his claims (Gardner par. 5). [I should have talked more about this article to show that he has legitimate evidence to back up his argument.]
Walt Gardner uses complex, emotional word choice, connects with the audience on a personal level, and uses credible sources to aid him in his argument. [I really liked how I re-worded my thesis here as well!] One criticism that can be pointed out is that he does not provide any counter-arguments that he directly refutes. He alludes to possible counter-arguments, but does not explicitly mention what the public school board might say in response to his claims. However, the last, and I believe most important, component of Gardner’s article is that he not only explains a problem that needs to be solved, but also proposes a solution. By seeming to have a plan of action, Gardner seems like a legitimate author that we can believe and look up to because he’s not writing an article for the sole purpose of complaining; he knows that there is a problem in America’s public school systems, but he also wants to do something about it! [I should have mentioned his attempt at a solution earlier in the paper, not in the conclusion.] This makes the article more enjoyable to read because the audience doesn’t feel completely hopeless at the end and is able to see the light at the end of the tunnel, if only we’re willing to make a few changes in our society. Overall, I think that Gardner has written an exceptional article about one of the many problems facing public schools and their students. If public school boards were to actually read this article, I think it would make them seriously think twice about how they have approached this issue, and would cause them to reconsider their actions for the sake of their students, and students everywhere.
Works Cited
Gardner, Walt. "Evaluating High Schools Through One Lens Only - Walt Gardner's Reality Check - Education Week." Education Week: Blogs. 16 Aug. 2010. Web. 28 Feb. 2011. <http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/walt_gardners_reality_check/2010/08/grading_high_schools_on_only_one_criterion.html?qs=evaluating high school through one lens only>.
No comments:
Post a Comment