The Early Bird Gets the Bad Grade

In the New York Times article “The early bird gets the bad grade,” Nancy Kalish argues that high school day should start later. She effectively builds her argument by using concrete, real-world examples as well as logical analysis.

Nancy kicks off her article by writing “It’s Monday morning, and you’re having trouble waking up your teenagers.” By drawing her reader with this example, the author challenges the audience a time when they have to get up early and force their teenagers to climb off their bed. Leading readers into a line of argumentation by reciting real life examples is a wise way for it talks directly to their emotions. Through the sentence “You’re not alone.”, Nancy claims that more than one or even the majority of the readers of this article surely have once or still been a victim of getting up early to waking their teenagers to attend their first class on time. Furthermore, Nancy mentions “many of them stayed up too late the night before”, which means many high schoolers have to get up early, no matter how late they stay up the night before. By this point, no one would ignore the challenge that many teenagers in America are facing.

Nancy’s argument is also furthered by her use of logical analysis to persuade the readers that starting school early does cause many bad effects on the high schoolers. According to her, first class of the morning is often nothing, but a waste ‘The result is that the first class of the morning is often a waste, with as many as 28 percent of students falling asleep, according to a National Sleep Foundation poll. Some are so sleepy they don’t even show up, contributing to failure and dropout rates.’ By using statistics, Nancy provides a baseline of sorts to establish the ideal solutions in the next paragraph ‘stop focusing on testing and instead support changing the hours of the school day, starting it later for teenagers and ending it later for all children.’. She opens up to readers the evidence that starting school later is a wise decision. In the 5th paragaph, Nancy then lists a number of different schools in different states to argue that the change in the starting hour lead to a rise in grades and a decrease in behavioral problems and dropout rates. ‘In 2002, high schools in Jessamine County in Kentucky pushed back the first bell to 8:40 a.m., from 7:30 a.m. Attendance immediately went up, as did scores on standardized tests, which have continued to rise each year. Districts in Virginia and Connecticut have achieved similar success. In Minneapolis and Edina, Minn., which instituted high school start times of 8:40 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. respectively in 1997, students’ grades rose slightly and lateness, behavioral problems and dropout rates decreased.’ This furthers her line of argumentation because it shows how few changes are being taken to benefit the students as well as the future of the nation. And the advantage does not just stop at that. School ends later means the students were on the same basic schedule as those in elementary and middle school, which in turn benefits the parents and the students to a great deal ‘Of course, when school starts later, it has to end later. But instead of viewing this as a liability, we should see it as an opportunity to extend the day even further until 5 p.m. or later, not just for high school students but for those in elementary and middle school as well. It would help working parents if their children were on the same basic schedule.’ These descriptive details of the pros that the parents and their teenage children will enjoy serve to generate compassion and applaud from readers. By doing this, Nancy develops her argument, adding gutthral power to the idea that that starting school later indeed is doing good for a country as a whole.

Writing this article, Nancy argues that starting school early effects high schoolers badly and a little change in the school schedule does a wonder to the children, their parents, and even the whole country. She successfully builds this claim by making use of evidences and appeal to logic.