ENG 1301
April 2, 2013
Introducing a Remedial Program That Actually Works- Rhetorical analysis Not every student in the United States achieves the mark required to enroll in a university; some of these students get points that only guarantee them a place in community colleges. Failing to achieve the university cut off point is not the only problem; these students are also poorly prepared for higher education. Both the students and the schools they attended previously are to blame for this poor preparation. However, this is not what worries college administrators and tutors. The major area of concern is how to use remediation as a way of preparing these students for higher education as well as ensuring that they graduate with high ranks just like their university colleagues. Remediation has been in use for quite a long time in the US education system, but the problem is it has not been achieving the desired results. How, then, should remediation be revolutionized so as to ensure that students adapt to the higher education systems and improve their performance? Carey Kevin, through his 2009 article titled Introducing a Remedial Program That Actually Works, shows how the remedial system in colleges can be changed to achieve better results. This article clearly lays down the guidelines, using real life examples, for adopting a new approach to remedial programs in higher education institutions. The author has been successful in passing across his ideas regarding the issue of remedial programs. To begin with, Carey acknowledges that the responsibility of liberalizing the remedial system in colleges lies in the hands of college administrators and tutors. It is also the government’s responsibility to offer the necessary funding to facilitate these programs. By giving the example of Cleveland State Community College, Carey shows college administrators that it is quite easy to implement a revolutionized remedial program for all subjects. Technology has been cited as a major facilitating factor in adopting a new approach to remedial programs whereby information technology allows for the flexibility of such programs. This flexibility allows students to attend remedial programs at a convenient time for them and work at their pace. In other words, the author has succeeded to show higher education institutions’ administrators that remedial programs can be personalized. Personalization means that the programs have an individual focus as opposed to a group focus where students study together and at the pace of the majority. Moreover, by showing the success of individualized remedial programs, Carey convincingly shows the government that it is highly beneficial to increase their funding for such programs. In fact, these new programs are in long run cheaper as compared to the older ones where students dropped out before completing thus wasting government resources. Carey goes further to urge other institutions to adopt the liberalized remedial system which is cheaper than the old system (2). This means that underfunding should not be an excuse for not adopting the new remedial system. Generally, Carey has managed to connect with his audience by providing real life cases of using a new approach to remedial programs. Carey has also used a writing style that is easily understandable to his audience. The paper is well organized and the language is easy to comprehend. In other words, the article catches the attention of the audience. In fact, when reading this paper, the audience is curious to know what the paper presents in the next paragraph or page. The author presents his ideas in a systematic manner. For example, he begins by