After reading the article ‘What kind of illustration is this to put our children’ by Levy & A ; Davidson. published 23rd September in the Daily Mail I feel obliged to turn to my concerns to you. I believe the article has belittled adolescents and reflect them in a negative visible radiation to the populace.
The authors look down on misss have oning make-up stating they’re ‘caked with make-up’ and one miss is described by the authors as being ‘panda-eyed’ . How do the authors think that miss feels reading your article? It is unjust and hurtful. If a miss wants to have on a batch of makeup. why can’t she? She is simply experimenting. something all adolescents do. The same miss is besides picked out for inquiring a inquiry. is it truly so incorrect for her to seek and better her apprehension of the inquiry?
A really negative image of the school and its students is portrayed and a batch of state of affairss written about in the text are taken out of context ; a chief illustration of this is when it says that instructors call pupils scumbags. If you really watch the programme you can see that the students and instructor have a healthy joking relationship and he light heartedly calls them that as they leave the category. Talking from experience. I know that holding a instructor like that benefits larning because you enjoy lessons more knowing that you get on good with the instructor. I feel your authors have twisted this state of affairs to do it look as though there is an on-going conflict between pupils and instructors.
Another deceit is the instance of a miss called Carmelita. I feel that she is being used to pigeonhole all adolescents by your authors due to her confrontation with Deputy Mr Drew when he asks her to take her hoodie. Carmelita reacted really severely by stating the instructor to ‘f*** off’ . which I agree is an highly bad thing to make but the authors have no thought of what type of individual Carmelita is. they don’t know her background or state of affairs which could hold an account in to her behavior and merely because she reacts like that it does non intend that other pupils will. Besides. I am non excessively certain as to why she has been named and the ‘panda-eyed’ miss hasn’t ; how do the authors think Carmelita feels cognizing that she has been targeted by the article and used as a whipping boy?
When the authors talk about future episodes they touch on the topic of a student who goes into attention after his parents’ divorce. Given what has been antecedently been written it suggests that the kid will be yet another victim of your authors. They describe him as ‘going off the rails’ a statement that trivialises a serious incident and it shows a existent deficiency of understanding and regard for a kid who is obviously traveling through a difficult clip.
Your authors included a quotation mark from Nick Seaton. a spokesman from The Campaign for Real Education where he states that ‘this school being considered outstanding doesn’t say much for the rest’ . This is a wholly unviable point and he tries to endorse it by utilizing the fact that 67 % of pupils passed last twelvemonth with classs A*-C at GCSE. This wholly contradicts the point he is seeking to acquire across as that is a comparatively good base on balls rate and I feel he is being far excessively difficult on the students as they are taking the test at a point where a batch is altering in their lives and they do non necessitate the added force per unit area. I hope after reading this response your authors take into consideration the adolescents feelings and will promote them instead than set them down.