comparative analysis
sbndri33
ComparativeAnalysisExample4.docxKitchens 1
Last Name 1
First Name Last Name
Professor Lindsey Barlow
English 1302-33003
13 February 2017
Education and Where It’s Headed
Everyone is reliant on the education system to be functional, as school is a forum for people to learn how to prosper in the world. There are many topics in politics and in the U.S. media surrounding educational systems. One increasingly meaningful problem since the Regan era is private vs. for-profit education. Ellen Bosenberg and Corey Iacono discuss the multi-faceted issues surrounding education in their articles, “Privatizing Public Schools: Education in the Marketplace” and “3 Reasons to Support School Choice.” I chose these articles as they are in direct opposition to each other. Bosenberg’s article does a good job at underlining the root of the issue, yet is weak in other areas like providing good evidence, and discussing how it is currently at play in the world. Iacono’s article is very well organized and attacks a clear opposition, but does not have good evidence. Neither article discusses the oppositional arguments in detail, or list very much common ground which makes them both seem biased.
Titles are very important to a written piece because they help define its credibility and generate immediate interest. Unless the piece is satirical in nature, the title in a political text should be gripping, yet scholarly. The title of Bosenberg’s paper does that in a way, but only to an informed reader. The author states the topic, “Privatizing Public Schools,” which on its own would be very dry, and follows it with “Education in the Marketplace.” The second part has one stop and think about how education has been entering the market. Most people know in the back of their minds this has been going on, but if one isn’t fully aware, the title might be enough to turn one off. This article is sort of like the T.V. show Frasier; it is interesting, but could use some more hype in its preview to gain more attention. The second article called “3 Reasons to Support School Choice” is also very cut and dry, although a bit more interesting (Iacono). The conservatives are, apparently, now calling the idea of educational privatization “school choice.” This is a good move because now social ideologists and pro-public school advocates won’t immediately discredit the article because of the word “privatization.” Also, including the words “school choice” is objectively attractive as this is not a common idea in our countries’ culture, and I’m sure many parents would agree. Iacono’s title is a bit more drawing to a general reader’s attention than Bosenberg’s.
An author’s claim should be clearly stated, yet subtle enough to point out that it is not the end-all be-all message. This lets the audience rally behind the belief or argument, or if they are in opposition, the claim would hopefully inform them of the side of the story they possibly had not explored. When the claim is political in nature, it will inevitably will lean left, right, or potentially way off to one side. In this regard, Bosenberg does a decent job, but is also a little too vague. Her claim is that, “The privatization of public schooling is cause for considerable concern,” which is extremely general, but for the most part sums up how general and all-over-the-place the article actually is (Bosenberg). She does indeed recognize the reasons for concern in the article, but she fails to address why it deserves considerable concern now. The issue being discussed has been tossed around since the late seventies, and is just re-surfacing in the media lately. Why should one be concerned now, if not in the past? I feel like this article could have been written twenty years ago, without the current citations, and gained just as much attention. Yes, this means the claim stands the test of time, but is the author just fishing for hot-button issues? In the second article, Iacono’s claim is that, “The evidence [provided in his article] clearly demonstrates that school choice programs are desirable and ought to be pursued on a larger scale” (Iacono). He assumes that these types of school systems are “desirable” without any evidence to back it up. The evidence he points to is evidence of school-choice viability, which does not demonstrate his point. He also says school-choice “ought to be pursued on a larger scale” which implies internationality, but he only provides evidence based on US school systems. In contrast, Bosenberg’s claim is very general and fits her argument well; whereas Iacono’s claim is very clear, yet doesn’t really suite his argument.
The opposition in an article regarding a social problem can usually be deduced without stating it exactly as they are discussed frequently in politics and the media. It is beneficial to the reader to hear opposing arguments from each side, but there are not always two clear sides to every problem. In her article, Bosenberg does not clearly state the opposition, but explains the advocating of privatization in the education field as attributed to, “Two distinct yet mutually accommodating discourses (among others) that advance the right-wing agenda for education are neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism.” She is putting blame on political groups for the emergence of education in the marketplace. Then she considers the issue a “right-wing agenda,” which puts the blame more on the side of conservativism. In Iacono’s article, he gets right to the opposition by quoting pro-public school advocates United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) who say, “Public education is under attack. Corporate-backed behemoths like Walmart and Gap are pouring millions into manufacturing a new pro-corporate education reform consensus in city halls, and on our campuses.… Their goal? To privatize our public education system, turning over a major public good into private hands — in the process, demonizing teachers and their unions.” This was quoted from an interesting source; however, this may not add credibility to his argument because it is a borderline conspiracy theory. On the other hand, this was an excellent quote to attack because it is in direct opposition to his overall claim. He retorts the USAS argument with, “This ‘pro-corporate education reform’ refers to school choice, a system in which the government finances a family’s choice of education through vouchers (or tax credits) rather than having a family’s only affordable option be to send their children to their assigned public school” (Iacono). He does an excellent job here by rewording the opposition, and then explaining it in favor of his argument. Iacono did a better job at illustrating and debating an oppositional argument than Bosenberg, but Bosenberg did a better job at choosing a credible source.
The common ground between the arguments is especially important to note because it shows the author is not completely one-sided. The claim Bosenberg makes in her article, in itself, implies a common ground by saying, “The privatization of public schooling is cause for considerable concern” (Bosenberg). The author is implying that even though privatization is already coming to fruition, we should address the problems as they come. Bosenberg also gives a statement to show that privatization could potentially yield reform that would benefit us by admitting, “this dismal scenario offers opportunities to develop transformative educational relationships. Parents, students, teachers, and researchers can organize around issues of concern such as school privatization, and work together to improve schooling.” This quote is important to note because there are obviously two sides to this argument, especially if one knows a libertarian. At the end of the quote, however, the author urges all those orbiting the education field to “organize around” privatization to improve schooling. This implies the author’s belief that the rally against privatization should start from within the school system. There is not enough in the common ground to urge the reader to take a second look at the positive side of privatization. There is no common ground in Iacono’s article. In comparison, Bosenberg’s article seems slightly more credible because she mentions some common ground.
To make a point really concrete, the author must list good evidence, or else he or she would just be stating his or her own opinions. When analyzing evidence for a political issue, some people more readily consider economic arguments of cost/benefit outcomes, while others tend to judge it ethically. First, Bosenberg provides evidence for the so called neo-conservatist “right-wing agenda,” when she connects it to the voucher system. Voucher programs have been implemented in several other places and are stepping stones towards privatization. She mentions vouchers had, “resulted in a program in which most (70 percent) of the school choices available were religious schools” (Bosenberg). This provides great evidence for the argument because, per the author, “Neo-conservatism exerts ideological hegemony by shaping the discourse of schooling and influencing curriculum content.” This basically means conservatives have been trying to implement more religion in schools, and inevitably into society, by means of their influence. One should, however, note that her statement about the voucher program was regarding the Milwaukee school system, and fails to mention how much momentum this conservative agenda has gained. She goes on to talk about a situation that spanned several years where the state tried to privatize education and found that, “the state’s takeover of Philadelphia’s schools and the involvement of Edison Schools Inc. with the district reveal strong public sentiment against such moves,” Bosenberg includes evidence as she relates this story to her argument. One piece of this evidence states, “’data reveals that in nearly 90 percent of Edison schools—61 out of 69 schools-for which results are available, students perform substantially below standard levels set by the state compared to other students in the state”’ (qtd. In Bosenberg). This is a strong sounding piece of evidence, although upon closer review, there could be some more clarification in the numbers as to why those were the only schools available and how many potential numbers there could have been, if the state had really taken over. This last bit of evidence regarding Philadelphia’s school system also proves the author’s other point that, “Neo-liberals are primarily concerned about exercising their rights in a “free market” economy,” because they successfully passed legislation in the state to commercialize the entire school district (Bosenberg). On the other hand, Iacono clearly list only three reasons why school-choice should trump public school systems. One reason the author mentions is, “School choice reduces racial segregation and benefits the poor” (Iacono). In his evidence for this claim, he quotes Greg Forster, a senior fellow with the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, saying, “One finds no net effect on segregation from school choice. No empirical study has found that [school] choice increases racial segregation.” This mentions that school choice has no net effect of racial segregation, so how could the author claim that this reduces racial segregation? Iacono also suggests that school choice improves academic outcomes, but as evidence he provides, “attending private religious schools is associated with the highest level of academic achievement” (Iacono). This not only says that those attending private religious schools would achieve more than those in non-religious private schools, but also does not prove his claim that having a choice would improve academic outcomes. Overall, both authors could have chosen better evidence to prove their own point. It is also worth mentioning that, in some ways, the authors prove each other’s points.
Just after last year’s elections, the debate over privatization is a trending topic and is steadily gaining momentum. There is no clear winner, as both sides of the argument could offer positive economic and ethical points. Bosenberg did a very good job at articulating and discovering the roots of the issue, but she is very clearly against privatization of public schools. In her article, she seems biased on the issue because she does not list any disadvantages of public schooling, or list any positive attributes of privatization of schools. She offers decent evidence to illustrate her claim, but the evidence is only a micro sample on a macroscale issue. Iacono’s article has a more impactful message because it is very straightforward, intended for a general audience, and there are no dots to connect. In comparison, both were very informational, but Bosenberg’s was a bit more convoluted, and seems intended for a more specific audience; while Iacono’s was more general and had a clear progression of rhetoric between stances, but has some logical flaws in the evidence. Both articles seem a bit biased, but this is common in political arguments, as most of them are put out by interest groups attempting to get out the vote. It would take reading both articles to gather enough details on this debate to not be one-sided. Neither author sheds much light on the oppositional argument, and this limits their credibility.
Work Cited
Bosenberg, Ellen . "Privatizing Public Schools: Education in the Marketplace." Privatizing Public Schools. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Mar. 2017.
