Critique On School To Work Programs Essay
, Research Paper
A Critique of Phyllis Schlafly s
Opinion on School to Work Programs
On September 4, 1997, Phyllis Schlafly wrote an article titled School-to-Work Will Train, Not Educate. The article discusses the cons of the school-to-work plan and that states that it is portrayed as a cradle to the grave. The article says that the school-to-work plan will develop and non educate. Schlafly is the president of the Eagle Forum, a organisation that stands for the cardinal right of parents to steer the instruction of their ain kids, thinks that school-to-work is a direct menace to the single pupil, his or her privateness, his or her ends and his or her acquisition of an instruction that can assist him make them. Schlafly s sentiment incorrect and will non go through in today s society.
In Schlafly s unfavorable judgment, she states that the school-to-work plan deemphasizes or eliminates academic work and replacements mandated vocational preparation to better function the work force. She besides says that alternatively of the focal point being on developing the kid, the focal point is on developing a labour force. Schlafly thinks that school-to-work is developing instead so instruction. In contrast to Schlafly, Olson says that school-to-work give pupils motive which will assist pupils because pupils in today s society are non motivated plenty. Surveies prove that pupils describe instruction as drilling. Schlafly believes that the STW jurisprudence saying that vocational preparation starts at the earliest possible age is incorrect. The ground is that she believes that simple or in-between school kids do non cognize what calling they want to carry through. The last point in Schlafly s article is she states that large concerns support school-to-work because they think that vocational classs in high school for nonreader or semi-illiterate pupils will develop immature Americans to vie in the planetary economic system with people in the 3rd universe willing to work for 25 and 50 cents an hr. She is fundamentally stating that large concerns are back uping school-to-work because they want some inexpensive labour. In decision to her article, Schlafly says that all those who value freedom must get the better of and defund school-to-work. She thinks that school-to-work is suppressing the pupils from their freedom to larn and have a good instruction.
Schlafly s article says that Marc Tucker s program for school-to-work is to develop kids in specific occupations to function the work force and the planetary economic system alternatively of educate them so they can do their ain life picks. She besides says that it is designed on the German system.
Where did she acquire the thought that school-to-work is based on the German system? She does non cognize what she is speaking about and the information she is distributing is invalid. She besides states that the plan is to develop kids but she besides does non give the option of preparation and educating together. Olson shows how preparation and instruction goes together by demoing childs why they have to larn and by making a desire to larn. Schlafly is perfectly incorrect about developing kids.
Get downing school-to-work at the earliest age possible does non intend that simple and in-between school pupils are traveling to take their life-time calling. Giving the kids vocational preparation will give them an option in what they want to make in the hereafter. Children will see if they like the field of preparation and survey and make up one’s mind whether or non they want to prosecute that career in the hereafter. In comparing to what Olson says, school-to-work activities can supply picks and chances for immature people, many of whom are non now good served y our instruction system.
Schlafly says that large concerns support school-to-work because it will supply them with inexpensive labour. Where did Schlafly acquire this information? Throughout the whole article there is no cogent evidence of warranting this thought. She besides mentions that governors support the plan because it gives them control of a pot of money for which they don Ts have to account to the province legislative assembly. This statement besides lacks grounds and can non be used to turn out that the plan is a failure. School-to-work is non for concerns or governors, but instead for the kids themselves and their ends for their hereafter. Like Olson says, school-to-work can promote immature people to prosecute instruction and preparation beyond high school.
Is Schlafly unfavorable judgment valid at all? Absolutely non, she bases her information on nil, such as the German system. Schlafly proved that school-to-work is developing for a lifetime calling but this statement is incorrect because preparation can besides be compatible with instruction. Large concerns and governors may back up school-to-work for inexpensive labour and for the money but there is no cogent evidence and even if there was any cogent evidence non all concerns and governors would believe that manner. Until Schlafly gives some cogent evidence to her information and can turn out that preparation and instruction are non compatible, she is non to be taken earnestly. School-to-work is a really good thought and to understanding with Olson, done right school-to-work can be a powerful tool in the attempt to accomplish higher academic criterions and a more educated people.
34e
