In the image I chose the message is saying that the “No
Child Left Behind” act is not working. State testing scores have not improved
over the years and the reason behind this is the “No Child Left Behind” act.
The act was supposed to help students improve on their testing but it has shown
only a little improvement over the years. The image is very easy to understand
just by looking at it. The image shows the man struggling to see improvement
over the years and making it clear that the message behind the image is that
the act is failing. The author chose an image text instead of an alphabetic
text because since the issue does not need a lot of explaining it was easier to
use an image. Also, they used an image text to draw their audience in without
it taking much work to decipher the meaning behind what they were trying to
say. If they used an alphabetic text it is likely that people would just ignore
it since it would take too long to read it. I believe the author did a good job
of making the message clear while it being short and sweet.
The
author of the image is saying that the act is not working for all children. The
oppressive language of the image is that the act is not working for all
children. This oppressive language fits into the criteria of erasing
differences. The image is saying that it
is everyone, instead of it saying that the act is not working for some or most
children. I think that the author used this oppressive language to make the
issue seem worse by stating that all children are doing badly on testing. If
the author was to make the image using only some and most children instead of
all, getting their point across to people would not be so effective. I believe that
by the author using all, they helped get their view across to people more. Also,
by making the audience reconsider what the image is saying instead of thinking
about for a second and then forgetting it. I would say that the oppressive
language helped the author with the image; by erasing all differences it makes
the issue more dramatic and worse. If the author just used some or most it
would not seem so dramatic to the audience.
-Megan Grimes (401)
Megan, I thought the image you chose was exceptional, considering it doesn't spawn any major arguments (like it would if it were politically oriented). Yes, I chose a political image myself, but I had trouble finding one that wouldn't spark too much argument, and I applaud you for being able to find one. I agree with your point that using an image is more effective in this situation than alphabetic text would be. I also agree that the message of the image is easy to find, and that the message of the image is that the, "no child left behind," act is a failed act (whether one agrees with it or not, that is the message the author intends to present). I also agree that the image is much easier to understand because it is an image and not alphabetic text. I disagree, however, that the oppressive language erased differences. The gentleman to the audience’s right seems to be saying that he has discovered improvement by deeply analyzing the chart. I don’t see how that erases differences by saying that everyone doesn’t benefit from the act. Instead, I think the oppressive language is more saying that the gentleman analyzing the chart are trying to ignore any statistic that isn’t improved. Overall, I think you did a good job on your post though.
ReplyDelete