there is a tonal shift to a more abrupt and brusque manner of speech, whilst maintaining the same rationality; stressed through tersely syntactic sentences. By outlining “Nor does crossing the Nullabor transform the rules of grammar” and “curriculum experts in Maths and Science know it”, the writer is able to fulfil a dual purpose. Readers are drawn to identify that the current education system lacks cohesion and unanimity, whilst also being alerted by the abruptness of the sentence structure. Buckle goes on to use a dose of anaphora; repeating the phrase “it makes no sense” at the beginning of each successive sentence, in order to encourage the audience to see the ineffectiveness and peculiarity of the current system. Thus, the writer upholds the ability to put the issue into perspective and therefore appeal to the masses and readers' sense of morality in order to win over their support. To conclude, Buckle weaves anaphora, juxtaposition and parallelism to end on a high note. The recurrent phrasing of “it does not mean...” serves to quell readers' suspicions and ultimately refute opposing arguments, whilst the comparison to the one-off phrase “it does mean...” demonstrates that Buckle's viewpoint is assured and considered. Within the same paragraph, Buckle also tends to use a parallel structure in his language; including the phrase “exactly the same” amidst the lack of proper conjunctions, in a bid to encourage readers to draw comparisons to the notion of 'difference'. Therefore, it can be seen that, as members of the general readership, Buckle's careful and mindful use of language enables him to strongly convey the ultimate need for a national curriculum.
In stark contrast to Buckle, the un-named writer of the additional opinion piece opts for a judgmental but terse tone to suggest that a national approach to education would not work in favour of individual students. However, it can be deduced that the writers do utilise similar literary elements; for instance, this writer uses brusquely syntactic sentences, similar to Buckle. By opening with the short statement “Education is not generic”, the writer is able to set their to-the-point attitude straight, whilst also simultaneously coercing readers to acknowledge that educational pedagogies must take into consideration, the unique abilities of each student. The effect of this stance is coupled with the antistrophes that the writer also includes in the opening paragraph; the recurrent use of the phrase “not the same” demonstrates that a “single curriculum” would not be able to cater for each child's different needs. Thus, the writer positions readers in such a way as to consider to that many factors must be taken into account for a curriculum strategy to be deemed successful, whilst readers are also inadvertently coerced to compare this writer's views with those of Buckle's. Positive imagery - “choice”, “diversity” and “a chance of real innovation” - is compared to negative imagery - “stagnation” and “a single mindset” - in the same sentence.
Stephen Buckle's opinion piece, written in response to the growing debate about the proposed national curriculum, is a plainspoken but credible piece of prose that strongly contends that Australian students would be benefited by plans that explicate and exude “Australian values”. The un-named writer's opinion piece, on the other hand, argues against Buckle's case and suggests that a single pedagogy for the nation would only have a debilitating effect on students, for it would lack difference and diversity. However, whilst a cartoon by Job does reinforce this latter view, readers are still able to grasp a definitive idea of the political spectrum as well as Mr Rudd's plans for a seemingly unified educational system.
