In countries where there is high unemployment, most pupils should be offered only primary education. There is no point in offering secondary education to those who will have no hope of finding a job. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is true that in countries that suffer from high unemployment rates, it seems hardly worthwhile to offer education beyond primary level to most pupils. While I accept that this appears logical, I believe that this is a very narrow perspective, and I completely disagree with the statement. Firstly, predicting upturns and downturns in the job market is extremely difficult. At one period there may be a demand for workers in many sectors of a country’s economy. Wages are high, and the education system needs to prepare large numbers of students up to and beyond secondary school level, with the skills to meet the needs of employers. For example, while technology is replacing many traditional jobs in such areas as agriculture, transport and heavy industry, it is also creating new jobs in other sectors. Thus, in economic terms, it is almost impossible to say how many highly-educated young people will be required for a nation’s workforce. Secondly, I contend that the purpose of education is much more fundamental 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 education plays an essential part of helping young people to develop these critical skills. If the citizens of a country are informed and enlightened, problems 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 subject to rapid changes, the intangible but real objectives of education dictate that young people should be educated to at least secondary level.