2018 AA Club - Week 4

[scout]

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.

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]

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 

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  . 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 

Well done on the analysis, MissSmiley  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]

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

A good introduction, it has everything that is necessary i.e contention, author etc. Good job

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

Overall, this paragraph was rather summative. Try mention more on the effect on the audience and linking it back to author intent and contention.

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

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

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.

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!

[MissSmiley]

Well done on the analysis, MissSmiley  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!

Thanks so much clarke54321! Thanks for your help!
Next time I'll write one paragraph that'll incorporate the big ideas, instead of worrying about the intro and conclusion just yet!
Thanks a lot! 

[MissSmiley]

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

Thanks a lot, sophomania !!
Thanks a lot for your willingness to mark my writing!
I'll work on the long sentences and include some more audience reactions!

[Anonymous]

So I wrote an Introduction and one body paragraph for this topic and I would love to get some feedback on it.




In response to an opinion piece by Rufus Norris which argues that creative arts education is being unfairly reserved for private schools,Karen Eslea, head of learning and visitor experience wrote a letter to the editor from Turner contemporary school. In a tone that can be described as urgent yet hopeful,eslea contends that  teaching arts should be encouraged so that creativity helps society become a happier place.



Elsea condemns the country's disregard for creativity and the arts. "That a country should disregard the views of more than 18% of its population..." she calls the current situation "staggering" as there is a greater potential for  creativity and divergent thinking in students.Elsea uses a second statistics,when 98% of pre-school children are ranked genus..", to show the levels of creativity that children have. She describes it as "decreasing". She uses a rhetorical question,"why not use it now?, to portray hope and to show that it is not too late.she then follows this up with words such as "happier","healthier" and "fairer", to display the potential that society has if children and adults learn from each other.Also she states that "investment in these highly creative members of society can pay today if we let them, Why wait for the future" to show the benefits that can occur by engaging and fostering the arts.

[MissSmiley]

So I wrote an Introduction and one body paragraph for this topic and I would love to get some feedback on it.

In response to an opinion piece by Rufus Norris which argues that creative arts education is being unfairly reserved for private schools could this be just a fact and not an argument? I feel like you could say that he's arguing for creative arts education to be started in all schools and not just private schools. But that's just me! Karen Eslea, head of learning and visitor experience wrote a letter to the editor from Turner contemporary school. It's good that you've brought in what Rufus Norris was arguing and then what Eslea wrote, so you could even make a point of similarity by saying something like "On the same grounds, Eslea, head of....wrote a letter to the editor. In an tone that can be described as urgent yet hopeful tone Eslea contends that teaching arts should be encouraged in all schoolsso that creativity helps society tobecome a happier place. Yeah, good introduction! I can definitely see the argument and tone coming through!

To commence,Elsea condemns the country's disregard for creativity and the arts. "That a country should disregard the views of more than 18% of its population..." she calls the current situation "staggering" as there is a greater potential for  creativity and divergent thinking in students. Elsea uses a second statistics,when 98% of pre-school children are ranked genus..", to show the levels of creativity that children have. She describes it as "decreasing". She uses a rhetorical question,"why not use it now?, to portray hope and to show that it is not too late ...(to do what? to introduce education of arts in schools) She then follows this up with words such as "happier","healthier" and "fairer", to display the potential that society has if children and adults learn from each other. yes, but could you link it to 'how' arts education can create this better world? To answer a part of this question, you could pull out the connotations of happier, healthier and fairer and say how it'll be a really just environment to live in compared to the injustice that we're living in (that's what Eslea's trying to imply, not me!!) Now that I read your next sentence, you could continue saying ...learn from each other "if education in arts is encouraged and forstered," just so that the same thing won't be repeated later.Also she states that "investment in these highly creative members of society can pay today if we let them, Why wait for the future" to show the benefits that can occur by engaging and fostering the arts.

Good job! You've definitely understood the central argument, but at some places it just gets a bit too repetitive.
I think your biggest focus would be to try and follow the  "what (the evidence), "how" (its connotations and what emotions that technique instils in readers - this is what clarke54321 emphasises so much!!! I feel hilarious quoting clarke54321 right now!!  She's no doubt, the best!! and also the "why" (what does the writer want readers to do?) for every piece of evidence you quote. This will make your writing seem like you're not just summarising what Eslea's doing. And this is good, because you can flip around the what, how and why as you incorporate these 3 in your sentences!

Also, please don't think my suggestion is the be all end all thing, because I'm nowhere near perfect, but at the same time, I love reading sample pieces of writing and breaking them down! So please feel free to disagree with anything! But you're gonna get so much out of the what, how, why structure!

I hope this helps!

[Anonymous]

Thank you for the feedback

[scout]

In response to an opinion piece by Rufus Norris which argues that creative arts education is being unfairly reserved for private schools this is a really minor point but try to avoid quoting the background info box word-for-word if you can, to show off your understanding of the text ,Karen Eslea, head of learning and visitor experience wrote a letter to the editor from Turner contemporary school. In a tone that can be described as not necessary urgent yet hopeful, eslea contends that  teaching the arts should be encouraged in young children of all ages (this is Eslea's main contention that differentiates her opinion from Norris', which she's responding to. It's a subtle point, but important to note if you can!) so that creativity helps society become a happier place the creative thinking ability nurtured through this education can be used to create a more understanding and thus, a more united and happier society - for example. Be as precise as possible, especially in reference to the contention.

Elsea condemns the country's disregard for creativity and the arts Same as above: Elsea is complaining that there isn't much focus being placed on teaching creativity and the arts to children. So this is more of a demographics issue.. "That a country should disregard the views of more than 18% of its population..." Avoid starting a sentence with a quote, especially a long one like this - it can throw the reader off balance. Also, ensure you analyse every quote you mention.  she calls the current situation "staggering" as there is a greater potential for  creativity and divergent thinking in students you've paraprased the actual text itself here. What's the 'reader effect' of the word 'staggering' in relation to Elsea's contention? . Elsea uses a second statistics,when 98% of pre-school children are ranked genus..", to show the levels of creativity that children have Great quote selection - now really dissect it!
 98% is a huge, huge number. And the fact that they've been labelled 'genius'.. that's a big number of geniuses! So what's the reader effect?
 For e.g. perhaps they'll feel astonished at the enormous talent in the country's youth waiting to be unleashed, but disappointed that this is all going to waste due to the country's lack of interest in capitalising upon children's creative capacitie . She describes it as "decreasing" Don't quote without analysis. She uses a rhetorical question,"why not use it now?, to portray hope and to show that it is not too late to...? (Same point as MissSmiley).she then follows this up with words such as "happier","healthier" and "fairer", to display the potential that society potential in what? Be as precise as possible. You could try exploring the connotations of these words, or the image they conjure in the readers' minds.has if children and adults learn from each other.Also she states that "investment in these highly creative members of society can pay today if we let them, Why wait for the future" to show the benefits that can occur by engaging and fostering the arts. This is too much of an empty statement. Look at the message embedded in this quote. Elsea is focusing a lot on the implications for the present if we make creative education accessible for all ages. Think about why she might be doing that. Why the emphasis on the present? Then think about how the reader might feel about the issue.

You've got a good understanding of the argument - great job. That is, after all, the most important bit to nail first!
Just remember to be as precise as possible in your analysis. Every time you're analysing a piece of textual evidence, think 'how', think 'why'. Keep the writer's contention in the back of your mind to aid with this process, because that puts everything into perspective.

[Anonymous]

Thank you

[Anonymous]

Amid recent discussion regarding approaches to education, Karen Eslea, the head of learning at an art gallery, has written a letter-to-the-editor in response to Rufus Norris’ opinion piece. Building upon his view that arts education should be encouraged in all schools as an investment for the future, Eslea employs a concerned tone to allege that the current impact children can have is being overlooked. Ultimately, Eslea aims to enhance the general public’s value in art and youth contribution.

From the outset, Eslea accentuates the loss to society caused by ignoring children’s abilities using a concerned and grim tone. The inclusive ‘we will be poorer for it’ is intended to instil a sense of loss in the reader and in turn make the reader feel that the country is missing out. This is backed up by the statement that ‘capability’ is ‘decreasing’ as kids age. Eslea’s later tonal shift when highlighting the ‘investment’ readers can make that ‘can pay today’ is an attempt to mitigate the audience’s previously captivated sense of loss. Through this juxtaposition between loss and gain, she eases the audience while simultaneously fueling their belief in childhood contribution. Furthermore, having described a future with childhood intelligence utilised as ‘happier’, ‘healthier’, ‘fairer’ and ‘inclusive’, Eslea elicits a sense of community by envisioning a world where children are ‘deeply engaged’ in ‘their communities.’ This string of romanticised and positively connoted language depicting the future engenders the audience to consider the immense benefits to the community and in turn side with her contention.

Eslea consistently promotes the power of children throughout her letter, positing that their abilities are currently undervalued. The use of the tricolon ‘skills, creativity and ideas’ when showcasing their capability is an attempt to stress this very view. This is further enforced by the repeated idea of the ‘divergent thinking’ and ‘creativity’ these ‘highly creative members of society’ are capable of. Through being repeatedly exposed to these desirable characteristics, the audience is invited to have a stronger belief in the abilities of children. The author insures to completely remove doubts in readers’ minds by providing the statistic ’98% of pre-school children are ranked ‘genius,” This statistic in combination with her company’s view that children can make an ‘enormous contribution’ to society adds authenticity to her argument that children are more capable than commonly believed. Lastly, the pejorative ‘staggering’ used when positing that the country disregards ‘18% of its population’ is aimed to strongly condemn the action of ignoring a big part of the population. This in conjunction with her portrayal of the importance of children breeds a sense of concern in the audience and positions them to believe that possibly the most important section of the population is not heard.

Overall, Karen Eslea advances the potential of children while ensuring the general public understands what society is missing out on. Through igniting fear for wastage of knowledge on one hand while using colourful language to describe power on the other, Eslea ultimately aims to generate a sense of value of the contribution of young kids and in turn advocate for an increase in involvement of children in the United Kingdom.

[Lear]

My first time posting and forgot to tick the not Anonymous box ._. ^
Just a side question, am I allowed to analyse previous weeks (1-3) or is that passed?

[clarke54321]

My first time posting and forgot to tick the not Anonymous box ._. ^
Just a side question, am I allowed to analyse previous weeks (1-3) or is that passed?

I don't see why not! I'm sure there will be plenty of users willing to correct previous pieces