It is true that in countries which are suffering from high rates of unemployment, 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, the prediction of 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.
It is true that in
countries
which are suffering from high rates of unemployment, 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
, the prediction of 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
.