Okay, this is from longer ago than I realised, but nonetheless - welcome to ATARNotes, and let me know if you have any questions about the feedback!An editorial titled “Religion does not belong in our schools” appeared in a response to the Andrew government’s decision to remove special religious instructions during school hours. Editors of The Age
approve and welcome the decision in a relieving manner
what’s a ‘relieving’ manner? Do you mean ‘relieved’?, while
satirically condemning schools that allow special religious instructions
in a satirical tone. Specifically targeted at the Victorian parents who have students attending religious school, the editors adopt formal yet powerful language to denigrate the practice of religion classes to parents while promoting the benefits to students education that the new changes to students’ education that the new changes to the policy brings. Fervently, A letter to the editor written by Michelle Goldsmith, entitled “The rightful place”, support the new policy by her personal anecdote. Similarly, accompanying letter to the editor “values worth learning” by John Smith empowers
you can’t ‘empower’ a change – do you mean ‘support’ or ‘endorse’ or ‘approve’? the change, in an assuring
like before, a tone can’t be ‘assuring’; it can be ‘assured’ (i.e. confident) or ‘reassuring’ (i.e. encouraging, removing doubt) tone, by stating that while learning about religion is important, studying different faiths and ethics is more important.
The editors begin the editorial The editorial begins with an explosive connective “at last”, aiming to give the readership a sense of relief. Such usage of word contextualises the issue to religion being an indoctrination
how does it do that? I’m pretty dumb, you need to explain out to me how that word does that or I won’t get you! 
. By mentioning that education was legally defined to be “free, secular and compulsory 143 years ago”, the editors
readily attacks schools that implemented and forced religious instructions within school
same thing here; you’re right about the effect, but you’re leaving a gap by not explaining HOW and WHY that quote attacks schools and influences the readers that way. , thus predisposing the readers to be displeased about religious practice. By highlighting the fact that “the number of primary school students enrolled in special religious instruction classes”
you don’t need this quote because you’re not analysing the words in that quote; as a rule of thumb, only quote what you’re going to specifically analyse was halved in 2014, compared to the year 2011 since the responsibility to participate has been reversed, the editor seeks to demonstrate the fallibility of agenda of the previous government. By introducing such facts, the readers gain an insight to the popularity of religious instructions. Accompanied by the sentence “the public clearly agrees”, the editor predisposes the parents to jump on the latest bandwagon, which is to not send their children to religious instruction classes by implying that many parents acknowledge the problems within the programs already and are starting to pull their kids out, and so should them.
really nice analysis, and you explain the whole way without leaving any gaps – a five-year-old could understand that! 
repeat lots of times, and you’ll smash the essay Thus, the readers will
MAY be distrustful of the religious instruction classes and
won’t may not feel the need to send their children to religious instruction classes despite all
they won’t want to send them, DESPITE these faults? Do you mean because of? these blatant faults in how it is operated.
Throughout the editorial “Religion does not belong in our schools” there are consistent attacks on special religious instruction classes running during school hours.
since you’re already talking about the editorial the paragraph before (I think?) you don’t have to reintroduce it like this By referring to the issue to religious instruction being unnecessary, non-educational but merely “ancient parables”, the author seeks to instil a sense of outrage by insinuating that previous government has enabled our “next generations” to receive needless education in the reading audience as many Victorian parents would consider school as a place of “practical, essential [and] academic learning” for their children.
You’re making it hard for yourself by quoting too much in this sentence, so you’re not giving yourself ‘room to move’ – because you put a lot of quotes in one sentence, there’s really not room to pull them apart in that sentence. I wouldn’t quote if you don’t intend to analyse; instead, think about the words ‘ancient parables’ and try to pull apart how those two words influence the reader, and later you can then go on to ‘practical, essential…’. Readers are further positioned against “indoctrination” that religious instruction classes supposedly gives to students.
see, ‘indoctrination’ would be a cool word to analyse here; it’s pretty loaded… what does that word make you think of? How does it make you feel? The author amounts to creating a distinct fine line between what is acceptable and what is not; lessons about “various belief systems” and ethics is essential to allow students to understand and encourage harmonies within community, whereas “indoctrinating” the children with one specific belief.
this is less analysis, and more just describing what the author is saying, so you want to minimise thisIn the following paragraph, practical difficulties are introduced. Within schools that take religious instruction classes, “students who do not elect to do [religious instrmuction classes] were left to idle in school” or “were given free time”, which appeals to the parental desire of education.
again, could pull apart a bit more how this influences the audience Similarly, a letter to the editor titled “The rightful place” written by Michelle Goldsmith criticises religious instruction classes. She highlights the fact that one’s religious belief is, and should remain, utterly optional. Being a devoted believer herself, she understands the need to teach “humanist ethics and comparative religious studies” but claims that special religious instruction classes must not be imposed out of context. Goldsmith’s idea is identical to what the editors believe is fair – moving programs to “the period outside formal hours” so that the “content taught within the curriculum” can be “enriched”. Use of anecdote in her letter
reinforces her personal connection to the issue and thus, the impact. Goldsmith and the editors strongly support the new change of the policy. Goldsmith firmly criticises the denouncers of the new policy by stating that those are “disingenuous to argue otherwise”.
After the rest of your writing (which has been awesome)… well, the underlined bit was the only part of the paragraph that analysed the impact of the language; the rest just described the author’s contention. Try to minimise this and be more like the rest of your writing 
The accompanying letter to the editor “values worth learning”, written by John Smith,
It can sound nicer to say ‘John Smith’s accompanying letter, “Values worth learning”, reiterates…’ reiterates the arguments of The Age
’s editorial by asserting that understanding and respecting various religions are crucial to children’s learning. Appealing to patriotism, he conveys to readers that, as a proud multi-cultural nation, “we” must learn about world religions, “as well as Christianity”. Additionally, he promotes “values of love and non-violence” to be taught in schools as “self-centredness” is abundant in our society.
again, back to… how does this change the way that we feel? Why does he say this? How does he want to make us feel through his language? The Age
’s editorial delivers the same message – using belligerent language, the reader is told of tales of domestic violence and other shocking statistics of crimes that are allegedly related to the children’s lack of understanding regarding those issues, and which can be solved by teaching the children how to respond to such situations. Disclosing surprising statistics, the readers are more likely to grasp the fact that our society hears increasingly many cases of “domestic violence and sexual abuse” and instead of religious instruction classes, if students can learn about how to respond to a stressful, even damaging, situation, it would be more useful.
sentence structure could be clarified (read it and let me know if you can’t figure out what’s wrong) Hence, the editorial and letters to the editor hint at the benefit the mandatory classes on social awareness issue or world religions and harmonisation would bring, in contrast to religious instruction classes.
Absolutely no judgment; you actually write beautifully; the language is smooth and sophisticated, with only a few expression issues that we all have. Your comparison and transition between articles was great.
The key thing is making sure that you pull apart the impact on the reader. Why does the author use X word or argument style? How does that word/argument make you feel? Why does it make you feel that way? And think of me like a dumb 5-year-old who doesn't get what you're saying unless you step it out really, really, really clearly. You need to hold my hand and step me through every piece of logic, not just saying 'this word makes us feel bad'... I can't fill in the gap as to why it makes me feel bad, I need you to show me exactly how and why!
You'll find it easier if you focus on picking out individual words and pulling them apart before moving to something else. And remember that anything that you quote or talk about, you should be looking at why it's there and how it affects the mindset of the reader
Home
Help
Search
Login
