I misread it too, don't think you're the only one!
I started my letter by referencing the opinion piece by the principal and explaining why i am an over protective mother. Then I said something about living near a city there are often drunks (refered to graph) so i don't want my children outside. Then I quote the Katharina lady thing and said I agree with her?
I think thats what i did anyway?
Hoping to pull some marks out of it? :S
I think you'll be fine, i did the same thing.
I rationalize itby saying the preface of the task was "Are we overprotected?" The preamble then went as far a to say that the following material presents a range of viewpoints on the issue.
By responding directly to such viewpoints, such as the letter, i think we've qualified a relevant response, because i personally, attacked the stance by Mr. Lee, basing my contention around that he was need of a reality check himself over his views on parenting. For the most art, students responding to the two opinion pieces who have explored and likely responded to the various tactics or viewpoints of the written material and how it respresents the issue.
The speech and the essay were far more clear cut. They set a specific question to respond to, and it is likely the VCAA will enforce the wording of the topic. But for the most part, as long as you comment on the necessity or lack thereof for parents to be overprotective, or even just protective then you've satisfied the core issue, and presented your point of view on this topic. Having a discernable contention that is relevant might just be enough for a relevant response.
The evaluation of whether or not your contention is relevant to the topic, "are we overprotective", will be decided as a yes or no. If no, then your score is limited, and i think the only way this can occur is if you've simply discussed the dangers of society, and not really addressed parenting styles at all. As the preamble delved into the nature of parenting styles, it can be assumed that this was relevant material for baing your contention
I think in the context of the issue, Jack Lee's article is flawed. His anecdotal piece is fantastic to analyse, but i doubt its relevance to the wider issue. His conern is mainly with his perception of the world as a dangerous place, and his article is a rambling justification of attentive parenting, and a loose one at that
Students who respond to Lee's opinion directly, evaluating his contention through a point of view should not be penalised for discussing the same dimension of the issue. My particular piece was a scathing personal attack on Lee and his article. As i have responded to the VCAA's direction that i must have written my response to the issue with the two opinion pieces in mind (i referenced Brown), then i have addressed the premise of question.
This could get ugly if the VCAA choose to regard such responses as irrelevant, and i intend to make it so, should that be their decision
Home
Help
Search
Login
