I felt that WA helped me the most in terms of analysis than Wysocki. In WA it may be a little harder to deduct the claim, the warrant, and the qualifier but once you do it's easier to analyzed that and make a deduction of what the writer is saying. Whereas in Wysocki it's easier to identify the elements, but contextualizing the elements seems a little bit harder to figure out. For example look at body posture, You can try to analyze someone's body posture and try to deduct what they are feeling or thinking but that's not always an accurate way of deducting of what they are thinking or feeling. Wysocki seems too vague, and can be easily misinterpreted.
Discourse Analysis Paper:
MLA Sources:
“Budget Cuts to Maternal Child Health and Early Childhood Education.” 22 Feb. 2011.
YouTube. 27 Feb. 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEXU4IDijGc
Dolan, Maureen, Brian Walker, and Staff Writers. “Cutting Kindergarten?” CDAPress.com.
9 Feb. 2011. Web. 27 Feb. 2011.
Harrison, David. “Idaho's Tom Luna offers sweeping school overhaul plan.” Stateline.
25 Feb. 2011. Web. 27 Feb. 2011.
In these current times our economy isn’t in that of a great shape and in this financial crunch, programs are being cut and reorganized, the education system is no exception to this rule. Because of the severity of our financial crisis, drastic measures of being taken such as the possibility of eliminating or greatly reducing early childhood education programs such as kindergarten and head start. The public, especially those involved with early child education are strongly against some of the measures that our legislatures are considering taking to help balance the budget.
Utilizing the Toulmin model from the book Writing Analytically, I analyzed this online news article, “Cutting kindergarten?”. In this article it was discussing about a piece of legislature in the Idaho congress that “would eliminate $30 million in funding used for pre-first-grade classes” (Dolan, Walker, and Staff Writers).The article presented two sides, what the legislatures wanted to do (Claim) and how local school districts felt about the proposed bill that legislatures were proposing(Rebuttal). Legislatures wanted to reduce the annual $50 million budget set aside for kindergarten education to $17 million and have that “to be used to prepare at-risk students to enter first grade” (Dolan, Walker, and Staff Writers). Their reasoning for doing this is to free up money that it could be “used to plug holes in the state education budget for grades one through 12” (Dolan, Walker, and Staff Writers). This phrase, “used to plug holes in the state education budget” is implying to me that the writer feels the proposed solution is like a patch, it’s a temporary fix but a not a solution to the problem. On the rebuttal, I felt that this article gave more of voice to them. Local school officials were definitely against the proposed bill. Typically “school districts [receive] money for 36 weeks of kindergarten, [under the proposed plan they] would only get enough money for about 12 weeks”. The article quoted Pam Pratt, the director of elementary education for a local school district, “If you cut kindergarten, you are creating holes... Instead of early intervention, you're going to pay for it later.” There’s more voice, more opposition to the bill. I feel that the writer values education a lot because of his attention on side of the rebuttal. Because of this I feel the overall tone of this article was basically disapproval of choice of possibly cutting kindergarten.
In this YouTube video, you have a woman speaking to a group of protestors that are opposed to federal budget cuts to maternal child health and early childhood education. She claims that budget cuts would put women’s health in jeopardy and bring low educational achievement. I feel like the speaker uses strong rhetoric to get her point across, she state’s the positives the programs are promoting such as for head start every dollar spent, it brings back $7 back and also it helps decreased welfare dependency. It conveys a why fix something that’s not broken type of deal attitude. I feel that the overall tone is disapproval of cutting back on these services. The viewpoint that these people are conveying is that the congressman are going to comprise their health and education of their children.
In this last news article, “Idaho's Tom Luna offers sweeping school overhaul plan”. They talk about the one of the proposed solutions to the budget crunch offered by Tom Luna. The website itself that this article is hosted on looks very professional. It reminds me of the New York Times paper. There is a lot text on the page split into many paragraphs. The text itself seems bland, kind like those professional or peer reviewed journals that seem so boring to those outside of that field. The website is constantly updated and up kept for example “Editor's note: This story has been updated to reflect the Idaho Senate's vote Thursday” (fox12idaho.com).
Overall the tone towards cutting money out of early education is basically disapproval. It's an important issue that has an significant number of people raising concern. The value of education is pretty high, and I think everyone can agree on that. But what are proposed solutions to help with the budget cuts? All I hear is don't cut this or don't cut that? But how can we maintain education system if we don't have the money for it? What are we willing to give up in order to meet our budget?
Good write up. I appreciate how your able to capture the overall tone of your sources. I wonder if it might have been interesting to look at some sources that actually back cutting funding for education or Luna's plan? This would have helped you address how different "camps" are in conversation with one another.
ReplyDelete