Read the essay critically, consider its writing technique, and d

Read the essay critically, consider its writing technique, and discuss the following questions in groups of three or four.（文章详见教材P45页Essay 2）
How does Jennings argue for the claim in general? Is the argumentation effective and convincing?
【正确答案】：He starts the argument by reporting how diverse groups of American citizens described the basic mission of public education and how they consistently agreed that American public education needed to fulfill two main purposes: to prepare students for further education and employment and to prepare them to be good citizens. By so doing, he gives the issue background. Then, he claims that the second purpose is being sadly neglected amid the emphasis on the first. To support the claim, he explains what students can learn from civic education to ascertain why it is important to promote it in public schools. Then he provides evidence to show that “civic learning has been increasingly pushed aside”, including authoritative assessments (e.g., according to CCE) and detailed reports of changes in the curriculum and courses on civic education in different parts of the country from the past to present. After that, he argues that the schools are not placing a high value on civic learning even though fostering citizenship has been endorsed by the public as a basic purpose of American public education, assessments also document the need for civic education and the teaching material is available. The reason is that the schools’ goal has been strengthening the nation’s economic competitiveness by improving math, science, and language arts education and the need to provide children with civic learning is accordingly overshadowed. Finally, he states the fact that most of the politicians and elected officials “stand by silently as civic education is downgraded” though they are among those who understand the importance of civic education more than anyone. To conclude, he asserts that “students need to be taught what it means to make a democracy work”. If not, “we imperil the very existence of our democratic society.”
The argumentation is effective and convincing.