In countries where there is a high rate of unemployment, most pupils should be offered only primary education. There is no point in offering secondary education to those who have no hope of finding a job.

It is true that in cities that suffer from high unemployment rates, it seems hardly worthwhile to extend education beyond elementary level to most students. While I accept that this appears argumentative, I believe that this is a very limited perspective, and I entirely disagreedisagree with the statement Firstly, predicting upturns and downturns in the job market is extremely dissimilar. At one period there may be a demand for employees in many sectors of a country's economy. Wages are high, and the education system needs to provide extensive numbers of pupils up to and beyond secondary school level, with the skills to meet the needs of emloyers. For example, while technology is replacing many transmitted jobs in such areas as agriculture, transport and heavy industry, it is also creating new jobs in other sectors. Thus, in financial terms, it is almost impossible to say how many highly-educated young people will be required for a nation's workface. Secondly, I contend that the purpose od education is much more fundament than simply to prepare young people for the world of work. Education is nothing less than the acquisition of lifelong skills in thinking critically about all aspects of life. At its best, secondary plays an essential part of helping young people to develop these critical skills. If the citizens of the city are informed and enlightened, issues such as a welfare system or the distribution of wealth can be intelligently debated. Without mass education to this level, a country can have no responsible citizens. In conclusion, although in today's volatile global economy, any country's employment situation is subjects to rapid changes, the intangible but real objectives of education dictate that young people should be educated to at least secondary level.