He explains how the lessons can be morphed into a fun, interactive experience for the student. This plays on recent theories of improving learning through morphing it into a form of education, as seen in video games created for learning purposes. He exemplifies this idea, until it cheapens the experience of learning. Stoll also explains how classroom interruptions cause by unwanted student interactions through the implementation of a prison-like atmosphere separating students from each other, "With n outside interruptions, lids' attention will be directed into the approved creative learning experiences, built into the software. Well compartmentalized, students will hardly ever see other...nearly ending classroom discipline problems." He also satirizes concerns about standardized testing. Many advocates of reform have expressed that standardized testing is the wrong way to rate a student's performance, stating that it does not truly cover curriculum. Stoll satirizes this by explaining that the curriculum of the cyberized classroom should be directed strictly towards what is tested in these standardized tests, "No reason to teach anything that's not on the ACT, PSAT, or SAT exams." The point-of-view in this piece is primarily subjective. Stoll does not use statistical information or any data from studies which would explain how this theory would be successful. Instead, he uses social assumptions to formulate a misguided attempt in

He does not use much aspects of ethos in his writing; he does not represent himself as an authority or expert in the field of education. Rather, he relies on using pathos to move his readers to action. He explores the frustration of parents with their child's grades and the failure of current educational systems, relying on emotion as the driving force. This is correlated with his lack of fundamental facts to back up his argument. This then adds to the sarcastic tone; it jeopardizes his whole argument because of the fact it is based solely on unproven theories and frustrated emotions. In fact, there is little actual support for his argument, supporting his satirical parody of the situation. He uses no concrete facts, no expert opinions, or proven examples. Rather, he uses simply his opinion of the situation and how to implement it.
This essay is a satirical parody of the current proposals for education reform. Stoll cheapens the existing conversation through showing it with no factual evidence. He also represents the extremist view of this conversation as more destructive than constructive. It offers the reader criticism of these theories without blatantly condemning them. Overall, this essay is a great representation of the workings of satire, and was an interesting exploration of how assumptions without factual backing result in weak arguments based solely on opinion and stereotypes.

References

Stoll, Clifford. "Cyberschool." Please enter publication info for the book which this was taken from here.