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?

These days, many people argue that in countries with the high unemployment rates, primary school students who are deemed as unemployable in the future should not be offered secondary education. From my perspective, I completely disagree with this point of view for several reasons. First of all, it is undeniable that the prediction of upturns and downturns of job market is difficult. At one period there may be a demand for workers in many sectors of a country’s economy. Therefore, education system needs to prepare large numbers of students up to and beyond secondary school level to meet the needs of employers. For example, while technology is replacing many traditional jobs in such areas as agriculture and transport, it is also creating a variety of job opportunities in other sectors. As a result, it is impossible to say how many highly-educated young people will be required for the nation’s workforce. In addition, secondary education plays a significant role in building soft skills for young people. For instance, at secondary school level, students are required to work on group assignments or presentations, which they need to coordinate ideas and manage team. This, consequently, would help them get insights to team spirits and develop collaboration and communication skills. In this way, students who are considered as no hope of finding a job when at primary school can have better chances of getting employed. In conclusion, for all reasons mentioned above, I wholly disagree with the view that it is unnecessary for government to offer secondary education for primary school pupils who will not have good prospects to find a job in the future.
What to do next:
Try other services:

All the services are free for Premium users