The School to Works Program in America

In report her bind An Avenue to High drillman Standards, Lynn Olson confronts the tempestuous side of the education dodge a recently added division of the curriculum. Olson claims that this new argument would hike up enhance the quality and possibleity of the educational system. The civilise to relieve oneselfs program was introduced in state and federal law in 1994 but its validity and utility is still being disputed over by various concerned parties.Being the senior editor of the subject field newspaper Education Week, Olson would take care to be well qualified to set up her readers with a persuasive and realistic analysis to an issue that is being commodious debated. Olsons oblige gives unrivalled the impression that this contrivance would be a highly salutary one to our high school savants. However, though Olsons clause deals with most of the issues relevant to this scheme, a few beas hurl not been cover by her. On the whole, it would seem that this scheme s hould be brought into trend as soon as possible as suggested by her.Olson has create verbally a very sound article in which she persuades her reader with the means of sound logic well substantiated with real life examples to further strengthen her claims. She acts use of a simple and well-organized diction to en sufficient her wide readership to understand the article. Also Olsons sources seem to be well founded and apply in a logical manner. Olson has written a convincing article because she substantiates her claims with real life examples of opposite school to work programs.She embarks on this passageway by giving the examples of a young high school student and that students positive(p) and enriching experience with the school to work program. In this particular graphic symbol, Olson writes that the school to work program helps this rudderless student to become her vocation in life and thus arrive a worth(predicate) contribution to society. She further adds that this s tudents experience is not an isolated one and that numerous students bring forth benefited from this program Olson similarly writes Studies suggest that school-to-work programs dissolve help address one of the greatest problems in education motivation.However, she writes that this program solves this problem and she substantiates this by giving the example of the 1994 evaluation of Pro-Tech, a Boston school- to work program. In this evaluation it was found that students who participated in these programs heady to take more rigorous math and physics courses than their peers. Thus, she proves that this scheme gives the students a clear indication ab step to the fore the direct link that exists between a good quality education and a good job.Therefore, these examples in her article change her to come through her readers with a logical and realistic argument that seems to make sense. However, by providing real life examples to prove her point, Olson is justified in writing that the school to work program provides a self-explanatory answer to the header Why do I have to learn this? Olson further strengthens her case by elaborating some valid reasons that make this program a beneficial one to the students. Olson writes that the school-to-work program engage students in active, hands-on-learning rather than teaching only from textbooks.She states that the primary aim of this program is to inculcate theoretical knowledge with practical knowledge, thus enabling the student to practice the theory learned in school in daily life. However, Olson does admit that there is still a slight confusion on whether this scheme actually encourages students to pursue higher(prenominal) degrees after they have graduated from high school. She counterbalances this by stating that it does help students who denominate to go to college on deciding which major they would sine qua non to pursue in college.Furthermore, she also writes that these schemes provide students with the added incentive of acquiring extra credit hours. Olson also pads her argument by stating that this program provides society with an educated and skilled work force urgently required by firms. The argument put forth by Phyllis Schlafly, in her article School to Work go away train, not get up, that these programs are the cause of economic compulsions of society and are not referable to educational upliftment is oversimplistic and lacks in logical coherency.Schlafly whitethorn have some subject matter in her theme that these programs would cause a person or wolf to be efficient in the performance of tasks by responding to discip banknote, instruction and tell practice. However, her entire article uses negative emotion to pursuade her readers to follow her line of thinking. Furthermore, her argument that this program will deprive a child of a sound education is countermanded by Olsons claim that this program will motivate students to get a better education.Also George Willetts t ale in his e-mail message that greater learning occurred where the practical was reorient with the academic. However, one of the legitimate swindlecomings of Olsons article is that it does not provide her readers with all the information relevant to this topic. Her article has used only the positive sources that strengthen her case but overlooks all negative aspects that could have been assessed and heady by her. Thus, as pointed out by Schlafly, one of the realistic drawbacks of the scheme is that it may be made a compulsory program with the students having no selection in the matter.In that case, the system would lose all the advantages of support students to learn and would just evolve into modern child slavery, where the student may be forced to work whether or not he or she may want to. Also, she has not looked into the fact that the students would not be able opt their own programs. It would be allotted to them based on their grades and other factors by an appointed body called The Workforce Development Board, which is a very disturbing thought, placing the very ideals of a democracy at risk.This is one of the realistic fears put forth in Schlaflys article. Also, as pointed out by Brian Faranell in his e-mail message that asking a neophyte in high school to declare his major is way to primordial. This too is a legitimate fear that Schlafly has not confronted in her article. Therefore, it is recommended that the school to work program be an optional program wherein the only requirement is motivated students. Thus, no student should be forced to enroll in this program, as this would be counterproductive to the childs welfare and make the very reason for its creation obsolete.Also, there should be sufficient choice in the different types of school to work programs, so as to enable students to choose among the various programs, so that they might be able to choose something that corresponds to their courses and which will help them in the future. Pre sently, there are certain countries that have already inculcated this scheme to their education system. Thus, it would be judicious to study their system for a period of time before going head ample into one of our own. This would help in looking at all the shortcomings in their system and avoid them in our own.However, we must keep in sound judgment that our basic society and education system may be different and that what works in those countries may not necessarily work in ours. It may also be a good idea to entry a convention of teachers and professors and other educators to use their ideas. It should be always remembered that they are an integral part of the system, and the government should always take their opinion into narration before enacting any bill. Thus, if all these shortfalls are removed the school to work program seems to be a viable addition to our educative system.Olson has covered none of these areas, in her article, which leads one to believe that she may no t have researched the topic well enough or else she may not want to provide any negative aspects to her argument. Though her not confronting these issues may make that these are really serious problems that have no real short term solutions. Hence, her argument might have actually been strengthened if she had confronted these areas and well-tried to provide some sort of solution to them. However, on the whole her article seems to be well written.She has based her ideas on sound logic, which enables her to provide a coherent and well-organized thesis. She has well developed and organized her use of sources and has analyzed them well. Therefore, it would seem that her article would merit a good reception from the public. Therefore, it would seem that Olson succeeds in her purpose of providing a strong argument for the implementation of this program. However, as verbalise earlier it would have been stronger if it had been comprehensive tackling the harder issues as well.