For this week’s assignment, I chose an article about the Trump administration’s plan to shrink and restructure the Department of Education. What stood out to me right away is how much the entire debate relies on strategic language. Supporters frame the changes as reducing “heavy-handed federal intervention” and “right-sizing” the department, while critics argue the plan could weaken key programs, break accountability systems, or harm students. It reminded me of what we have discussed in class and how even political arguments depend on rhetorical framing just as much as factual details.
It also connects well with Shipka and Sirc because both of them push us to look at how meaning is constructed. From a Shipka perspective, the article is definitely not neutral. The writer decides which voices appear first, which quotes get the most space, and how the article moves between supportive statements and harsh criticism. All of those choices guide the reader’s interpretation of the policy. Sirc’s idea of composition as a curated collection of pieces also fits. The article assembles quotes, reactions, legal context, and political commentary almost like a collage, and the arrangement creates the overall tone of concern, conflict, and uncertainty.
I chose this article because education policy affects almost everyone, and it is striking how something so complex can be boiled down into simple political phrases. Reading it made me pay closer attention to how the story is being constructed, not just what the article says but how the presentation influences what we think about it.
Liminal Wordsmith 
Leave a comment