VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

2018 AA Club - Week 4

(1/4) > >>

scout:

--- Quote --- Background: An opinion piece by Rufus Norris, published in a British newspaper, argues that creative arts education is being unfairly reserved for private 'elite' schools. In response is the following letter-to-the-editor.
--- End quote ---

Rufus Norris says “During these uncertain times we must feed any golden geese we have, and a steady stream of qualified graduates and school-leavers is the strongest investment for the future we can make” (Why are we squeezing creativity out of our schools?, 17 January). But why wait for the future? If we disregard the skills, creativity and ideas that children have at this very moment, we will be poorer for it. They also have a lot to teach.

At Turner Contemporary, we are committed to supporting children’s leadership through the arts, and recognise the enormous contribution that children of all ages can make to society. Distressingly, in 2017, in part because of lack of child participation, the UK fell dramatically in global rankings for child rights from 11th to 156th.

That a country should disregard the views of more than 18% of its population is staggering, particularly given their potential for creativity and divergent thinking, as explored by Sir Ken Robinson. When 98% of pre-school children are ranked “genius” level at divergent thinking, with this capability decreasing as we become older, why not harness it now? If adults and children genuinely learn from each other, society has huge potential to be happier, healthier, fairer and more inclusive, with adults and children deeply engaged in the arts, their own learning, and their communities. Investment in these highly creative members of society can pay today if we let it. Why wait for the future?

-Karen Eslea, Head of learning and visitor experience, Turner Contemporary

Anonymous:
Thanks guys for letting us practicing our AA skills! :) :)

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’,” 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.

MissSmiley:
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  :)

clarke54321:

--- Quote from: MissSmiley on January 22, 2018, 11:04:07 pm ---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 optimisticdoes optimism precipitate urgency? Perhaps fervour or zeal would be better choices. tone as the Head of Learning, Eslea contends toawkward phrasing. You can't contend to someone. Leave it as ...author X contends that...... You can spice it up by adding an adjective before contends, like ardently/fervently. 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 benefitsa bit too wordy.with some refining, this introduction has the potential to be fantastic! You've devised an awesome structure  :D

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 ithmm...expression is obscuring meaning here. Can you rephrase?.” 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.<---great ideas embedded in this sentence, but it is too clunky. Simplicity>Superfluous sophistication. Keep the language short and crisp. To do this, include shorter sentences. A two sentence paragraph doesn't allow for adequate depth.

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 again, you've managed a lovely fusion between technique + argument, but it is too long. Work on conciseness.. The valiant connotationsbe more specific. 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. <--these sentences are becoming too long.

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 <--goodness, this is very long  :o. 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 fantastic idea in here, but cut down on words.. 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 unfortunately your insight is becoming clouded by all these words. I really recommend that you split your ideas into 2-3 sentences. You need more breathing space to flesh out your explanation, and the what-how-why process. This is seemingly designed to persuade schools into establishing teaching in the Arts sectors. Guilt is further instilled onremember the dangers of subjectivity. Try Eslea endeavours to instil further guilt in readers by..... 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 again, length is an issue here. Divide sentences.. 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 very nice analysis of the comparatives. Can you be more specific than "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  :)

--- End quote ---

Well done on the analysis, MissSmiley  ;D Again, your notional structure and original insight are wonderful facets to your writing. To capitalise on this to a greater extent, however, you must cut down on sentence length. In some sentences, I am seeing the what-how-why all combined together! As a reader, it is sometimes difficult to comprehend your analysis and justifications. Perhaps you should make it your task to write one well-rounded paragraph, which really hones in on effective explanation. In this way, you won't become overwhelmed by everything happening in the article, but will be able to work on your skills. Keep up your fantastic work!

sophomania:

--- Quote ---In response to Rufus Norris’ argument argument sounds too general, I would suggest something like opinion piece that creative arts education is being unfairly reserved for private elite schools, Karen Eslea from Turner Contemporary school I'm just moving this phrase around as it sounds like you're saying the editor of Turner Contemporary schoolwrites a letter to the editor. By creating a sense of urgency through her desperate and optimistic tone it kinda sounds weird how an optimistic tone can create urgencyas the Head of Learning, Eslea contends there is nothing wrong with saying 'contend' - however it is generally quite neutral, so I would avoid it if I could use a better word to UK’s Education Minister I'm not too sure where you got this from? and schools that teaching in Arts needs to be fostered as soon as possible so that creativity promptly brings in society its cherishing benefits. I might reword the last bit of the paragraph, it's just a bit wordy - a suggestion is "advocates for more creative arts education in schools for its potential cherishing benefits in our society
--- End quote ---
A good introduction, it has everything that is necessary i.e contention, author etc. Good job :)


--- Quote ---With the intent of threatening UK’s Department of Education once again, I'm not too sure where you got this from. It's good if you have background knowledge, but you don't exactly want to be wrong, Eslea opens her letter by warning that a lack of skills and creativity teaching in schools will lead to the country represented by “we” quote was a bit clunky, not a very seamless integration - you were probably better off without it 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
--- End quote ---
Overall, this paragraph was rather summative. Try mention more on the effect on the audience and linking it back to author intent and contention.


--- Quote ---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 wordy, try "her school's support of their student's "commitment"
 to 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 how exactly? how do these connotations specifically support her case and prevent the necessity of art education?, which should be the topmost priority and responsibility of schools irreleavnt, thus aiming to provoke comradeship in schools nice so that they can cater for “divergent think[ers]” in order to increase “child participation” in school. nice link to contention
--- End quote ---
Not bad, last sentence was quite nice. Good job :)  I think you can also mention a bit more, maybe about the declining rankings and how they might provoke fear? unease? in the readers


--- Quote --- Despite relying on a seemingly small statistic that18% of the population who have a creative flair, Eslea disapproves the “country’(s),” a synecdoche whoa fancy word, I don't even know what it means 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. <--sentence a bit wordy, I had trouble followingHer 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.good, but sentence is wordy This is designed to persuade schools into establishing teaching in the Arts sectors. great, link to contentionGuilt 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. great analysis, but long sentence..

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.

--- End quote ---
I think this gave a much deeper analysis than previous paragraphs. You were doing a lot more analysis, as opposed to summary than the previous paragraphs. Well done!

Notes:
- I think you can still talk add in more in audience reaction. You focus a lot on authorial intent, but still try to consider how the author might want the audience to react.
- you still have long sentences - try becoming a bit more succinct in your writing

Overall a good job!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page