David Sirota presents several different arguments in this article, but there is one overlying truth that can be supported by sub-arguments. I will explore and explain the author’s opinions and arguments and analyze the extent to which the argument is presented. Following the outline of our first graded homework, the overall claim and premises found can be identified as follows:
Claim: Public school “reformers” fail to recognize and solve the real issue affecting schools- poverty.
P1: “Reformers” believe that American schools should be at the top of every international list and produce top-of-the-line educators and students P1a: They believe that testing is the best way to show growth and strength, and that all tests should produce results …show more content…
He says “That’s because the latest Department of Education study isn’t being released in a vacuum; it caps off an overwhelming wave of evidence showing that our education crisis has far less to do with public schools or bad teachers than it does with the taboo subject of crushing poverty” (Sirota, 2013). When saying that the study isn’t being released in a vacuum, he’s allowing the reader to get a different perspective in the way the study is being released (or not being released). It forces them to critically think too, with the way he worded it. Does that mean the study is easily and quickly revealing information like how quickly something is vacuumed up? Or are they taking their time releasing it and he’s saying it’s not like a vacuum? Also, it causes the reader to be suspicious about how the Department of Education is releasing their studies and how that affects our system, such as if recent findings could help improve an issue, but is too slow being released. One last key trope used by the author is an idiom in which he is talking about reform propaganda “jumping the shark”. Sirota uses this language in a way to which makes the reader perceive the reform propaganda as a challenge- that presenting it is a hard task and something that takes a great deal of talent and strength to accomplish. Is the propaganda used to try to exclude poverty and economic status from our school systems something that the reader easily follows and believes? Is there a way to challenge this and make the reader/listener think a different way? Any critical thinking
Claim: Public school “reformers” fail to recognize and solve the real issue affecting schools- poverty.
P1: “Reformers” believe that American schools should be at the top of every international list and produce top-of-the-line educators and students P1a: They believe that testing is the best way to show growth and strength, and that all tests should produce results …show more content…
He says “That’s because the latest Department of Education study isn’t being released in a vacuum; it caps off an overwhelming wave of evidence showing that our education crisis has far less to do with public schools or bad teachers than it does with the taboo subject of crushing poverty” (Sirota, 2013). When saying that the study isn’t being released in a vacuum, he’s allowing the reader to get a different perspective in the way the study is being released (or not being released). It forces them to critically think too, with the way he worded it. Does that mean the study is easily and quickly revealing information like how quickly something is vacuumed up? Or are they taking their time releasing it and he’s saying it’s not like a vacuum? Also, it causes the reader to be suspicious about how the Department of Education is releasing their studies and how that affects our system, such as if recent findings could help improve an issue, but is too slow being released. One last key trope used by the author is an idiom in which he is talking about reform propaganda “jumping the shark”. Sirota uses this language in a way to which makes the reader perceive the reform propaganda as a challenge- that presenting it is a hard task and something that takes a great deal of talent and strength to accomplish. Is the propaganda used to try to exclude poverty and economic status from our school systems something that the reader easily follows and believes? Is there a way to challenge this and make the reader/listener think a different way? Any critical thinking