The author argues that elementary school report cards should use the second person to directly address students in the feedback, since this technique is effective in the professional employment context, but the disparity in the maturity of the intended audiences weakens this analogy.

1. Questionable analogy • The research on effectiveness of second person feedback comes from the context of business performance reviews.

Businesses have learned that performance reviews are most effective when written in the second person rather than the third person--to you rather than about you. ​ ​If report cards are our earliest performance reviews, then let's shift our perspective to include students in their own feedback.

The author sets up the analogy that performance reviews are to adult professionals what report cards are to elementary school students. However there are relevant disanalogies that call into question this analogy. ​ ​Adult professionals likely have much more self-awareness and ability to analyze their own performance and behavior compared to young elementary school students. Adults also have higher reading comprehension levels and ability to contextualize feedback. Children in early grades are still developing cognitively and emotionally. They may interpret written feedback differently and lack the perspective of adult employees receiving performance assessments. ​ ​The author depends on this analogy argumentatively, and at no point acknowledges the relevant disanalogies. It would be stronger if the author would admit the analogy has wekanesses, and explain why she thinks some part of the analogy has merit nonetheless.

2. False dichotomy • The author presents the options as either writing report cards about students in third person, or writing them directly to students in second person.

Instead of writing about them, we educators should write to them.

But there could be other options, like writing separate reports for parents and students, or having students participate in writing their own reports in the first person. Presenting just two options constitutes a false dichotomy. The argument would be stronger if the author addressed these other possibilities, even if just to explain why the author believes they are not viable or preferable.

Additional Observations:

• The author cites various experts like professors and doctors to support her argument about using second person in report cards.

Dr. Rebecca Silverman, an associate professor at Stanford's Graduate School of Education and a mother of three, said, when they put in a lot of effort to learn something new or be able to do something that was initially hard for them." ​Dr. Meryl Lipton, a behavioral pediatric neurologist, commented, "Students as young as kindergartners would benefit from refocusing the audience of report cards.."Students as young as kindergartners would benefit from refocusing the audience of report cards. This creates important opportunities for self-growth and furthers communication between student and teacher."

These citations are appropriate because they do not simply assert the author's conclusion; rather, they provide a bit of the reasoning of these two experts, explaining why the direct feedback to the student may be beneficial. Because the author is not relying on their authoritativeness alone, these are not instances of the fallacy of appeal to authority.

• The author surveys teachers in her community about report card practices and shares some anecdotes about what they say.

As a former elementary school teacher, I turned to my community for their perspective on the matter. Most shared that they had never heard of reports being written to students, rather than about them.

Relying on limited anecdotal stories in the absence of robust evidence would be a fallacy if used to argue for the main conclusion of the article. But the application of these anecdotes is merely to establish that many teachers do not write report cards in the second person (or haven't even heard of doing so). Because the author's main conclusion does not rely on these anecdotes, this is not a material case of the fallacy of anecdotal reasoning.