When you come across Abby Norman's article about Education Reform, the title "Nothing Means What You Think It Does," gives a sense you are about to read an informative piece regarding the subject, and where it currently stands. Being an article about such an academic matter, one would expect to read a logos and ethos heavy article. "What you think it does," suggests the author predicts the readers' knowledge on the matter, and is about to correct them with the actual facts and data around the issue. Norman, however, smartly enough, chooses to get her message through by use of pathos.

The fact that Norman gives emphasis on her work to pathos does not mean ethos and/or logos are inexistent or unimportant. On the contrary, the author starts off by establishing credit, her ethos, through the use of no other than logos. The author is off to a good start from the beginning. Not only is her title appealing, grasping at reader's curiosity as to what her solution to the "not knowing" about the education reform's real deal might be, she also gives an immediate response to the matter. "We learned that the hard way with No Child Left Behind." (Norman).

The use of these facts, not only in the very beginning of the article, but also throughout the entirety of the text are important because they back up any use of other rhetorical appeals by the author. Without the data to support her factual claims, her use of pathos would be unfounded, conjectural, and her appeal to the reader's "emotions" wouldn't even come near accomplishing her plea as effectively as it did.

It is important to point out that the "emotion" the author appeals to here, doesn't really have the traditional meaning. When hearing about pathos, it is normally assumed that the author is trying to make a point by making the reader's feel bad, feel sorry, or uncomfortable with a situation, and those emotions will prompt them to take action. However, the range of human emotion is quite large, as are the possibilities an author can take advantage of when employing pathos in their works.

Norman does not choose that route. The way she appeals to emotions is trough a discreet, yet compelling use of mockery, even a little bit of irony. Her first use of this rhetorical device, like her immediate answer to her title, also comes in the very beginning of the text. She says, "I mean, of course we don't want a child left behind! Why would we want a child left behind? Sign the bill! Stamp the approval! All kids succeed!" (Norman). The use of exclamation points clearly shows the tone of mockery the author employs, a criticism of how the listed steps (signing a bill, stamping the approval) is the road to be taken to get to the expected outcome (kids succeeding).

Again, her point is backed up with facts. She is not just merely saying she believes these steps won't make a difference. The Congress Act she is talking about, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), was abandoned and education experts moved to another program, Race to the Top (Norman). Norman, once again, makes use of sarcasms with this new piece of information: "Again, who doesn't want to be on top? Who wants their state, their kids, their neighborhood to be on a school that is losing? No one! Let's all Race to the Top." (Norman).

The fact that so many different attempts to reform the educational system (and make it better) failed, and apparently keep failing, shows what her title started suggesting in the first place. The "reform" is not what it is expected to be. If you read more about these projects and Acts, it is visible something needs to change in order for one of them to be successful. It feels like the idea behind the projects are basically the same, only the names are changing. In some cases, even, these "reforms" had a negative side to them. With NCLB, for example, looked to measure a school's quality by testing their students. Ultimately, because schools didn't want to "fail" or have their image tarnished with negative results, false positive results start showing up. "But it didn't really pan out that way. Instead it was more like, no school left unpunished. As the clock wound down to the point where ALL schools were supposedly passing ALL kids or else ALL would be failing." (Norman).

The author then talks about what seems to be the new tendency in educational "reform" after all the previous failed attempts. This new act pushes for "personalized learning" (Norman). Once again the use of pathos comes about with the same ironic tone. The author stands by her very first claim and alerts the reader that this, too, is not what we might expect, we do not know what personalized learning means, and whatever idea we might have of it is wrong.

The name already suggests it, personalized; it should mean each person learns in their own pace, they learn things that interests them, things towards which they feel affinity. Of course you can't choose what one child will learn and what they will not. Everybody needs to have at least a general sense of all things around them, you can't just not teach Science or Humanities to one child or the other because they don't like it. But the pace aspect of it makes sense. Some people are fast learners, others require special attention and more time to learn. You would expect the personalized education to take that into account. "That sounds awesome and that isn't personalized learning in education reform. Nope, not even close." (Norman).

The use of pathos in this text is quite different from the "make the reader feel sad" approach. It's actually funny and ironic to watch the author's attempt to get their message through.  The irony doesn't work alone, the fact that the author also addresses the audience directly, as if she is having a conversation with them, also adds to the richness of the use of the rhetorical device. As with comedy, Norman's rhetorical choice of ironizing a pressing matter might be risky and hurt her ethos with a select number of readers. What it appears to do is actually quite the opposite. The mockery actually ends up exhibiting how important and close to her the matter is. In a way, she's appealing to her own pathos with the choice of sarcasm, which brings to light just how important the matter is to her and how she has a personal hold in it.

