Schlafly’s Opinion on School to Work Programs

On September 4, 1997, Phyllis Schlafly wrote an phrase titled School-to-Work Will Train, Not Educate. The article discusses the cons of the enlighten-to-work computer programme and that presents that it is portrayed as a cradle to the grave. The article says that the school-to-work program pass on train and non educate. Schlafly is the president of the eagle Forum, a organization that stands for the fundamental accountability of parents to guide the nurture of their own children, thinks that school-to-work is a direct threat to the individual student, his or her privacy, his or her goals and his or her acquisition of an grooming that can help him reach them.Schlaflys opinion defective and leave behind non pass in immediatelys society. In Schlaflys criticism, she states that the school-to-work program deemphasizes or eliminates academic work and substitutes mandated vocational prep to better come the workforce. She also says that kinda of the focus being on develo ping the child, the focus is on developing a labor force. Schlafly thinks that school-to-work is train rather wherefore education. In contrast to Schlafly, Olson says that school-to-work give students desire which will help students because students in todays society are non motivated enough.Surveys prove that students describe education as boring. Schlafly believes that the STW law stating that vocational education starts at the earliest possible time is defame. The reason is that she believes that elementary or warmness school children do non receipt what career they neediness to fulfill. The last academic degree in Schlaflys article is she states that stupendous businesses take for school-to-work because they think that vocational courses in high school for illiterate or semi-illiterate students will train teen Americans to vie in the global economy with plenty in the third world will to work for 25 and 50 cents an hour.She is basically saying that big(p) b usinesses are livelihood school-to-work because they want some showy labor. In conclusion to her article, Schlafly says that all those who value granting immunity must defeat and defund school-to-work. She thinks that school-to-work is oppressing the students from their freedom to obligate up ones mind and receive a good education. Schlaflys article says that Marc Tuckers course of break down for school-to-work is to train children in specific jobs to serve the workforce and the global economy rather of educate them so they can make their own life choices. She also says that it is designed on the German musical arrangement. Where did she get the judgment that school-to-work is based on the German system? She does non k forthwith what she is talking closely and the breeding she is spreading is in legitimate. She also states that the program is to train children tho she also does not give the option of instruct and educating together. Olson shows how study and educat ion goes together by presentation kids why they have to learn and by creating a desire to learn. Schlafly is absolutely wrong about training children. Beginning school-to-work at the earliest age possible does not mean that elementary and middle school students are going to choose their life-time career. Giving the children vocational training will give them an option in what they want to do in the future. Children will correspond if they like the field of training and study and decide whether or not they want to pursue that vocation in the future.In comparison to what Olson says, school-to-work activities can provide choices and opportunities for fresh people, many of whom are not now well served y our education system. Schlafly says that big businesses support school-to-work because it will provide them with cheap labor. Where did Schlafly get this information? Throughout the intact article there is no induction of justifying this idea. She also mentions that governors suppo rt the program because it gives them dominate of a pot of money for which they founding fathert have to account to the state legislature. This statement also lacks evidence and cannot be used to prove that the program is a failure.School-to-work is not for businesses or governors, but rather for the children themselves and their goals for their future. Like Olson says, school-to-work can encourage young people to pursue education and training beyond high school. Is Schlafly criticism valid at all? Absolutely not, she bases her information on nothing, such as the German system. Schlafly proved that school-to-work is training for a life-time career but this argument is wrong because training can also be compatible with education.Big businesses and governors may support school-to-work for cheap labor and for the money but there is no produce and make up if there was any proof not all businesses and governors would think that way. Until Schlafly gives some proof to her informati on and can prove that training and education are not compatible, she is not to be taken seriously. School-to-work is a rattling good idea and to agreement with Olson, through right school-to-work can be a powerful tool in the military campaign to achieve higher academic standards and a more educated citizenry.