[2016 LA Club] Week 15

[literally lauren]

A pair of quick little Letters to the Editor this week for you, responding to the recent furore over whether or not texts on the VCE Literature list need to be screened (i.e. approved by government officials) before schools can nominate them as set texts. This was sparked by the inclusion of the play Tales of a City by the Sea earlier this year, which has since been removed after the Education Minister deemed it culturally insensitive. These Letters were published in The Age in response to the proposal to screen all texts for VCE English, Literature, and Theatre subjects.

Contentions are very similar this week, and there's even some similarity in the kinds of techniques and language devices being used here, but there is a slight difference in the focus of these two pieces - their titles and conclusions might give this away *hint hint*


Opening young people's minds to the world

Surely the point of teaching literature to students is to expose them to the widest possible range of ideas and cultures, in the hope that it might actually make them think. This was the underlying raison d'etre when I chose texts as a Literature and English teacher for over 20 years in a small but very effective country secondary school.

Reading "confronting", challenging texts with content and messages outside students' comfort zones works wonders: they come to a realisation that the world is a much bigger, more complex and frightening place than their safe, secure world would have them believe. In the process, such reading teaches exactly what those who fear it most should prize: tolerance, an opening up of the mind, a broadening, which encourages young readers to see life as others see and live it.

- Anne McClelland, Birchip


Trust teachers to teach with integrity

As an English faculty leader at a secondary school, I find it deeply concerning that teachers' professional integrity is yet again challenged by the government through its call for a review of the VCE English, Literature, Drama, and Theatre Studies text lists. We do not teach in isolation. It is our professional responsibility to our students and our discipline – and to the cause of thinking in general – to challenge what is presented on the page. This ensures we are adequately preparing students for the deeply divided world that they live in. The classroom is a safe environment to expose them to diversity of opinion and teach them to think critically and compassionately about a range of beliefs. It is time to stop undermining the capabilities of educators, and trust us to get on with our job.

- Sarah Catton, Forest Hill

[michael leahcim]

Due to the recent removal of the text Tales of a City by the Sea from the VCE literature course by the Education Minister, there has been much discussion on whether or not censorship of texts due to their content should be permissible. As debates range from distrust in the teacher profession, to cultural and social misappropriation in literature, and to the impacts censorship may have upon student learning, various letters-to-the-editor have been published on ‘The Age’ addressing these concerns. Anne McClelland expresses from her experience as a Literature and English teacher, the possible repercussive effects of censorship in hampering a student’s ability to critically think. Similarly Catton also addresses this in her letter. However, Catton also contends that the government needs to put more faith in the teacher’s professional input in the classroom, rather than expurgate ideas, which may be inappropriately propagandised to students in class discussions led by teachers. Lol

Immediately, McClelland highlights in the title of her letter, her “open” support for the “minds” of young people around “the world”. As she discloses her own background as a teacher at “a small but very effective country secondary school”, McClelland seems to be validating her stance as one, which stems from having both a professional background in teaching and personal experience with dealing with students. In asserting a humble background of teaching in a “country secondary school”, she tenderly emphasises her point about the need for students to go beyond beliefs “outside [their] comfort zone”. As she juxtaposes the government’s censorship with the “realisation” of a “much bigger, more complex and frightening place” outside of school grounds, McClelland emphasises the contradiction in the government’s proposal for censorship with the “underlying raison d’etre” of the subject itself in supporting life beyond schooling. That the proposal is simply disabling the “broadening” of a young mind “to see life as others see and live it” is a particularly strong way to express the pernicious effects of censorship beyond high school, as it imparts in her readers, professionalism, rationality and judiciousness in her expression of concern. Even readers who have no experience as a teacher would be inclined to agree that the support in a student’s ability to critically think is imperative to creating a supportive learning environment in school. Thus, McClelland highlights to her reader, the need to support student learning, and the benefits of “confronting” readings of literature as promoting rather than hindering the "open[ness]" of a student’s mind.

Similarly, Catton also highlights a “deeply divided world”, which McClelland also describes in her letter, a constant rivalry to the “safe, secure world” the government seems to be championing in their response to the cultural insensitivity of texts in the VCE literature course. In an almost declarative statement, by employing an alliterative statement – “Trust teachers to teach with integrity” – Catton implies the government’s underestimation of the teacher’s ability to “get on with our job” and their needless surveillance of students, who under the teacher’s “professional responsibility” have been provided with “safe” exposure to diverse ideas. Catton furthers this idea as she passionately asks for the government “to stop undermining the capabilities of educators” confidently suggesting that this is not the first time that educators have been denied of withholding the same standards as other professions, indicating to readers an injustice displayed by the government's biases against teachers. This positions readers to put further trust in their educators, while also rejecting the authority and objective officialdom the government seems to impose upon teachers and by extension the students’ confidence in their abilities to commit and explore “compassionately about a range of beliefs”. Therefore, Catton demonstrates to her readers of the unjust biases of government decisions, inviting the reader to place more faith in teachers, engendering a subtle skepticism of not only the proposed censorship of texts in schools but also of the government's own abilities to see past their prejudices.

[michael leahcim]

Even readers who have no experience as a teacher would be inclined to agree that the support in a student’s ability to critically think is imperative to creating a supportive learning environment in school. Thus, McClelland highlights to her reader, the need to support student learning, and the benefits of “confronting” readings of literature as promoting rather than hindering the "open[ness]" of a student’s mind.

"Even readers who have no experience as a teacher would be inclined to agree with McClelland, as she demonstrates a high sense of duty by considering students outside of her classroom and school, establishing her views as aligning with "tolerance, an opening of the mind" rather than the unprofessional views, indicated by the government's distrust in the learning environment."

For some reason I can't edit or modify my post...

[HopefulLawStudent]

Both McClelland and Catton mitigate their audience’s concern through the implication that there is a broader purpose to assigning difficult texts. McClelland indicates that the roe of education is to enlighten students, exposing them to a world view that is “much bigger, more complex and frightening” than students had realised. Her enumerations amplify the magnitude of these benefits, giving the impression that there is a far-reaching advantage in continuing to assign these texts. She couples this with her blunt use of the world “surely” in order to convey that the sole purpose of education is to broaden the understanding of students. She thereby appeals to her audience’s reason and logic, presenting this idea as obvious. She intimates that removing these texts from the curriculum would negate the purpose of teaching Literature. Her mocking derision for calls to review the text list, scornfully conveying that “it might actually make them think” highlights just how ludicrous and foolish she believes such actions would be. She therefore manoeuvres the audience to emulate her disdain for such a review, placing faith in the ability of teaching staff to do their job, even if it means exposing students to difficult material. In a similar fashion to McClelland, Catton also highlights her professional experience with the curriculum, indicating she had been “an English faculty leader at a secondary school”. This establishes the writer as an expert whose knowledge was relevant and an accurate indication of the view held by the majority of those working in the teaching industry, positioning readers to be more inclined to value and consider in depth Catton’s opinions; this notion is enhanced by the writer’s use of the inclusive “we” and “our”. Her “yet again” implies that distrust in teachers is a common problem; her frustrated and exasperated tonality intimates that such concerns are unmerited. This impresses the audience with the view that the controversy surrounding these texts has been largely overstated. Where McClelland was more concerned with justifying the use of difficult texts, Catton indicates that it is necessary for the reader to trust in educators to do what is right. Her use of the colloquialism “get on with our job” implies that doubting educators only impedes upon their ability to teach and that it is necessary for the reader to simply place their faith in the audience to do what they were trained for. The implication is that doubting a teacher’s ability to teach is silly considering that is what they were trained to do; this obligates the reader to disregard whatever anxieties they may have harboured regarding the VCE curriculum.

[literally lauren]

Due to the recent removal of the text Tales of a City by the Sea from the VCE literature course by the Education Minister, there has been much discussion on whether or not censorship of texts due to their content should be permissible. As debates range from distrust in the teacher profession, to cultural and social misappropriation in literature, and to the impacts censorship may have upon student learning, various letters-to-the-editor have been published on ‘The Age’ addressing these concerns. Don't spend too long on the background information; this is probably the maximum you'd want to allow before jumping into the details of the piece. Remember, the author's contention is your priority, so you don't have to flesh out the issue too much, unless you think it's necessary. Anne McClelland expresses from her experience as a Literature and English teacher, the possible repercussive effects of censorship in hampering a student’s ability to critically think. Similarly Catton also addresses this in her letter. sentence is a bit too short; try and combine this with the following sentence that further explains Catton's point However, Catton also contends that the government needs to put more faith in the teacher’s professional input in the classroom, rather than expurgate ideas, which may be inappropriately propagandised to students in class discussions led by teachers. Lol <-- you think this is bad, you should read what this guy wrote. That was actually on my SAC in yr 12. Much facepalming.

Immediately, McClelland highlights in the title of her letter, her “open” support for the “minds” of young people around “the world” no real need to be quiting here. As she discloses her own background as a teacher at “a small but very effective country secondary school”, McClelland seems to be validating her stance as one, which stems from having both a professional background in teaching and personal experience with dealing with students. In asserting a humble background of teaching in a “country secondary school”, a bit of repetition here; try not to dwell on one quote for so long you need to quote it twice she tenderly emphasises her point about the need for students to go beyond beliefs “outside [their] comfort zone” 'go beyond outside their comfort zone?' Careful with expression here. As she juxtaposes the government’s censorship with the “realisation” of a “much bigger, more complex and frightening place” outside of school grounds, McClelland emphasises the contradiction in the government’s proposal for censorship with the “underlying raison d’etre” of the subject itself in supporting life beyond schooling good . That the proposal is simply disabling the “broadening” of a young mind “to see life as others see and live it” is a particularly strong way to express the pernicious effects of censorship beyond high school, as it imparts in her readers, professionalism, rationality and judiciousness in her expression of concern. also good Even readers who have no experience as a teacher would be inclined to agree with McClelland, instead of having to comment on whether or not readers would be inclined to agree, focus instead on what the author is intending (i.e. 'McClelland suggests that...' rather than 'readers agree with McClelland's suggestion that...') as she demonstrates a high sense of duty expression by considering students outside of her classroom and school, establishing her views as aligning with "tolerance, an opening of the mind" rather than the unprofessional views, indicated by the government's distrust in the learning environment you're spending quite a bit of time dealing with the author's credibility and how she positions herself, which isn't a bad idea, but won't always be possible given the material, so just make sure you're not forcing this in where it doesn't belong and that you have another way to kick off your analysis when needed.

Similarly, Catton also highlights a “deeply divided world”, which McClelland also describes in her letter, a constant rivalry to the “safe, secure world” the government seems to be championing in their response to the cultural insensitivity of texts in the VCE literature course. In an almost declarative statement the quote you're talking about would be an imperative statement, by employing an alliterative statement – “Trust teachers to teach with integrity” – Catton implies the government’s underestimation of the teacher’s ability to “get on with our [their] job” and their needless surveillance of students, who under the teacher’s “professional responsibility” have been provided with “safe” exposure to diverse ideas these quotes are well integrated, but all you're doing is quoting to summarise. Can be good to pause and just analyse the words occasionally to make sure your piece doesn't become too summative. Catton furthers this idea as she passionately asks for the government “to stop undermining the capabilities of educators” confidently suggesting that this is not the first time that educators have been denied of withholding the same standards as other professions, indicating to readers an injustice displayed by the government's biases against teachers. This positions readers to put further trust in their educators, while also rejecting the authority and objective officialdom the government seems to impose upon teachers and by extension the students’ confidence in their abilities to commit and explore “compassionately about a range of beliefs” good point, but again, the quotes are only being used to summarise rather than underpinning the basis of the conclusions you're drawing. Therefore, Catton demonstrates to her readers of the unjust biases of government decisions, inviting the reader to place more faith in teachers, engendering a subtle skepticism of not only the proposed censorship of texts in schools but also of the government's own abilities to see past their prejudices. excellent assessment of the impact - this is the kind of specificity you need!

Most prominent concern here is that there are very few moments where it feels like you're directly analysing the language. You're able to comment on the suggestions that stem from the author's arguments effectively, and you can integrate quotes that support your understanding of what the author is saying, but some teachers are sticklers for the metalanguage, so if you're not engaging in close analysis, they can get snarky.

Quoting to summarise is an easy problem to fix (and tbh it was the biggest problem I had with L.A. in Year 12, so can confirm it's easily solved by reminding yourself to zoom in and unpack words/phrases/techniques) and it means you clearly understand what the author is communicating, which is at the core of the task anyway. It's just safer if you're doing more explicit analysis, so see how you go with that

Both McClelland and Catton mitigate their audience’s concern through the implication that there is a broader purpose to assigning difficult texts nice link b/n pieces; though obviously this'd be the kind of thing you'd use at the start of a second body paragraph or something, after you'd already established their contentions in the intro and what 'texts' you're talking about. This is a perfectly good T.S. though. McClelland indicates that the role of education is to enlighten students, exposing them to a world view that is “much bigger, more complex and frightening” than students had realised. Her enumerations amplify the magnitude of these benefits, giving the impression that there is a far-reaching advantage good pick up in continuing to assign these texts. She couples this with her blunt use of the world “surely” in order to convey that the sole purpose of education is to broaden the understanding of students. She thereby appeals to her audience’s reason and logic, presenting this idea as obvious. She and intimates that removing these texts from the curriculum would negate the purpose of teaching Literature. Her mocking derision for calls to review the text list, scornfully conveying that “it might actually make them think” highlights just how ludicrous and foolish she believes such actions would be. She therefore manoeuvres the audience to emulate her disdain for such a review, placing faith in the ability of teaching staff to do their job, even if it means exposing students to difficult material. In a similar fashion to McClelland, Catton also highlights her professional experience with the curriculum, indicating she had been “an English faculty leader at a secondary school”. This establishes the writer as an expert whose knowledge was relevant and an accurate indication of the view held by the majority of those working in the teaching industry, positioning readers to be more inclined to value and consider in depth Catton’s opinions; this notion is enhanced by the writer’s use of the inclusive “we” and “our” not sure this is really relevant to the analysis on either side of it. How would the inclusive language be encouraging readers to value or consider Catton's opinions? Her “yet again” bit more context for this quote would be good. What's happening 'yet again?' Your assessor will have read the piece, but it can still be a little jarring if there isn't enough grounding in your essay to let them know what specific part you're talking about implies that distrust in teachers is a common problem; her frustrated and exasperated tonality intimates that such concerns are unmerited. This impresses word check - you could say 'impresses upon,' though that's a little unconventional. Might be better to find some different synonyms. Saying 'impressed' in this context would mean the author was entertaining or pleasing the audience somehow the audience with the view that the controversy surrounding these texts has been largely overstated. Where McClelland was more concerned with justifying the use of difficult texts, Catton indicates that it is necessary for the reader to trust in educators to do what is right. Her use of the colloquialism “get on with our job” implies that doubting educators only impedes upon their ability to teach and that it is necessary for the reader to simply place their faith in the audience should this be 'place their faith in teachers'(?) to do what they were trained for. The implication is that doubting a teacher’s ability to teach is silly bit colloquial; go for 'foolish' or 'ludicrous' considering that is what they were trained to do; this obligates the reader to disregard whatever anxieties they may have harboured regarding the VCE curriculum. bit general at the end here, but overall this is a really solid demonstration of your analysis.

For all the sentences where I haven't made any comments, you can assume those bits were totally fine. All those bits were really well done, and the progression of your analysis was excellent. Great vocab too, though...

Synonyms for implies/indicates/intimates:
- suggest
- convey
- insinuate
- elucidate
- propound
- evince
- impart
- disclose
- betray
- illuminate
- explicate

^they're not all perfect synonyms, but should help you vary your verb usage a bit

[HopefulLawStudent]

For all the sentences where I haven't made any comments, you can assume those bits were totally fine. All those bits were really well done, and the progression of your analysis was excellent. Great vocab too, though...

Synonyms for implies/indicates/intimates:
- suggest
- convey
- insinuate
- elucidate
- propound
- evince
- impart
- disclose
- betray
- illuminate
- explicate

^they're not all perfect synonyms, but should help you vary your verb usage a bit

Thanks Lauren. I really needed those verbs.

Question: You mentioned that my closing sentence was a bit general? How would I make it more specific?

[michael leahcim]

Most prominent concern here is that there are very few moments where it feels like you're directly analysing the language. You're able to comment on the suggestions that stem from the author's arguments effectively, and you can integrate quotes that support your understanding of what the author is saying, but some teachers are sticklers for the metalanguage, so if you're not engaging in close analysis, they can get snarky.

Thanks for the feedback! Yeah, I should probably add more meta-language to support what I say along with its impact on the audience. I just generally find selecting pieces of information and integrating them into my own sentences hard. So, when I do integrate them, it usually ends up making my sentences a bit aimless, so it might explain why my analysis isn't looking at the details of the author's language closely enough - but I'll keep what you said in mind.  Anyways, much appreciated

[Anonymous]

I tried. 

Spoiler

NOTE:I didn't analyse both letters (just one) and did so accordingly to the new study design. Also, it's unfinished .

Recently, controversy over the decision to include a text in the VCE Drama curriculum has sparked debate on if officials, other than VCAA, should screen chosen VCE texts. In Sarah Catton's letter to the editor, titled Trust teachers to teach with integrity, she argues that it is teachers' responsibility to decide if a text is appropriate or not. By adopting a formal yet critical tone, Catton attempts to persuade her audience of The Age readers to agree with her.

Catton begins with an appeals to authority, evident in how she introduces herself "as an English faculty leader". By beginning as such, Catton immediately establishes authority amongst her audience through the mention of her status in the education field. Catton then suggests that it is "deeply concerning that teachers' professional integrity is yet again challenged by the government".

Catton then argues that teaching confronting texts will "adequately [prepare] students for the deeply divided world that they live in". From this, the use of "adequately" leads the audience to infer that without such challenging texts, students will not be prepared for the real world. An appeal to their moral responsibilies, the argument in turn positions the audience to believe that by agreeing to screen VCE texts, students could be at a disadvantage.

Catton finishes with the assertion that teachers should be left out "get on with" their job. By finishing as such, Catton's contention is further reinforced.   

[literally lauren]

Recently, controversy over the decision to include a text in the VCE Drama curriculum has sparked debate on if officials, other than VCAA, should screen chosen VCE texts. In Sarah Catton's letter to the editor, titled Trust teachers to teach with integrity, she argues that it is teachers' responsibility to decide if a text is appropriate or not. By adopting a formal yet critical tone, Catton attempts to persuade her audience of The Age readers to agree with her. Try to avoid these more generic sentences. Any time you're saying something like 'The author attempts to convince readers to agree with her contention' - it usually means you're not being specific enough. Either say something about the author's particular argument, or just get rid of these phrases altogether.

Catton begins with an appeals to authority, evident in how she introduces herself "as an English faculty leader". By beginning as such, Catton immediately establishes authority amongst her audience through the mention of her status in the education field. Catton then suggests that it is "deeply concerning that teachers' professional integrity is yet again challenged by the government". And why would Catton want to suggest this? How does it help her argument?

Catton then argues that teaching confronting texts will "adequately [prepare] students for the deeply divided world that they live in". From this, the use of "adequately" leads the audience to infer that without such challenging texts, students will not be prepared for the real world good, though you could do more with these words. Why would the author stress that they need to be "adequately" prepared? What is she implying about the possibility of inadequate preparation?. An appeal to their moral responsibilies, the argument in turn positions the audience to believe that by agreeing to screen VCE texts, students could be at a disadvantage. okay, this sentence is a bit confusing to me. How is this to do with morality, for starters? You'r right, but you need to 'show your workings' to ensure your assessor can follow your train of thought. Secondly, how is this appeal leading readers to think that screening texts would disadvantage students? Again, you've gotten the right understanding out of this material, but you kind of need to back track a bit and explain your process to get more marks

Catton finishes with the assertion that teachers should be left out "get on with" their job. By finishing as such, Catton's contention is further reinforced. This is also very general; try to tell me how the contention is reinforced through this language.

Great start so far; just make sure you concentrate on how language is contributing to the author's argument (be as detailed as possible here; it's easier to cut down later than it is to get halfway through Year 12 and then need to start adding more analysis) and avoid those very general phrases/sentences like "this strengthens the author's contention" or "this lends credibility to the author's point of view" etc.