Hi guys!!
The above post was mine (sorry I didn't tick the box) but I have no idea why so much of my writing is crossed out! I posted it the same way we do for any post, and all of a sudden it crossed out my writing! Hence I tried posting it as anonymous and it's still doing the same thing! Once again, I'll try posting my analysis and sorry if it still appears to be crossed out! (It'll be great if someone fixes it!!
Because I still want that text as it's part of the analysis
MissSmiley's analysis:
In response to Rufus Norris’ argument that creative arts education is being unfairly reserved for private elite schools, Karen Eslea writes a letter to the editor from Turner Contemporary school. By creating a sense of urgency through her desperate and optimistic tone as the Head of Learning, Eslea contends to UK’s Education Minister and schools that teaching in Arts needs to be fostered as soon as possible so that creativity promptly brings in society its cherishing benefits.
With the intent of threatening UK’s Department of Education, Eslea opens her letter by warning that a lack of skills and creativity teaching in schools will lead to the country represented by “we” left “poorer for it.” The poverty-stricken and beggarly connotations of the comparative adjective “poorer” allow her to illustrate that if the current mediocre consequences of a deficiency of creative ideas in children are not resolved by schools, the society will become “poorer” not economically, but of imagination.
Aiming to urge all UK schools to undertake teaching in Arts, Eslea provides a benchmark for her persuading by proudly stating her school’s acceptance of the “commitment” in supporting their students’ creativity, despite deteriorating rankings of UK schools in providing child rights. The valiant connotations of the words “commitment,” and “leadership” allow Eslea to present the need of providing Arts education to students, which should be the topmost priority and responsibility of schools, thus aiming to provoke comradeship in schools so that they can cater for “divergent think[ers]” in order to increase “child participation” in school.
Despite relying on a seemingly small statistic, 18% of the population who have a creative flair, Eslea disapproves the “country’(s),” a synecdoche for the educational department’s “disregard [for the] potential of creativity” at the expense of the benefits that creative students could offer to society. Calling the current situation as “staggering,” Elsea seeks to condemn schools for their unsteadiness and thus their carelessness in not thinking logically about children’s decreasing capability to think creatively if their talents are not given the necessary motivation at a young age. Her selection of a contrastingly bigger percentage- 98% of students, aims to implant guilt upon schools that are not offering Arts education to such a huge percentage of students in UK that are “genius” and thus are perceived to be ruining children’s education. This is designed to persuade schools into establishing teaching in the Arts sectors. Guilt is further instilled on such schools by Eslea by her listing of the positive benefits of “harness[ing]” arts education such as a “happier, healthier, fairer and more inclusive” society that is at present, not possible due to only ‘elite’ schools encouraging Arts. By foreshadowing an optimistic and democratic future with joyful connotations in her comparative adjective “happier,” “fairer,” Eslea aims to assure to schools that if her solution is carried forward– “investing in creative members” today and not waiting for the “future,” society is highly likely to be filled with positivity.
Thus, Eslea’s urgent call for Arts teaching in UK schools is deepened by her optimistic tone in aiming to transform the current unfair education system for creative thinkers into one which will value imagination as a boon to society’s social cohesion.
Mod Edit (sudodds): removed the strike through per your request! Next time though feel free to just message one of us rather than sending through a report