There is quite a great relationship between labor and learning. One has to pass through learning before they can move ahead to the job market. At times it seems difficult to get into the job market right from school. This is because life on a full-time job is totally different from the one led at school. However, there can be some pointers that can make the transition a little smoother. In this article, I will focus on the tensions that are there on the different views on the importance of going to school as well as the different factors universities should consider in their kind of education and what they should note before introducing learning schemes.
In the olden day, children learned all they needed to know about work at home. This is what was, then, referred to as informal education. Parents passed the skills they had in different kinds of work to their children. That shows that learning the skills was optional, and they had to volunteer. However, there were a few private schools and churches that taught such skills (Benson & Lyons, 2010). Some people advocated for public learning even though they had several issues with them. The best thing about public learning is that it aided in straightening the morals of the learners and as well introduced religion to them (the youngsters). The children’s parents looked at the bigger picture of economic growth. They knew th...
at by teaching their children how to work and gain new skills, they would be creating a generation ready to develop the economy of their region. There are those who had the perception that for the regions close to each other to sail on the same economic boat, they had to join a particular commercial activity like their neighboring communities to ensure that they were not left behind. They also felt that they had to be in a particular race to improve their social status.
As much as formal education is important, informal education was considered very important. Even before the European contribution in learning, it was important to engage in the family kind of education that was viewed as an aid in building culture and traditions. It played a major a role in enhancing physical and survival ways. Later on, parents would then send their children to mission education and industrial kind of training. In the industrial schools, youths were prepared to provide manual labor in industries and organizations. it was, however, just for primary application of manual labor and not professional for purposes.
In the late 19th century churches and families were known to be the main supporters for the children to learn. Many schools were public and this is because they received funding from the public. However, in some areas, there were issues in the schools because of difference in ethnicity and social classes. In mid-19th century the government took over the powers to control and make rules for the schools. The impact of the community and the parents in the school management and contribution was weakened by the state. The state
determined what was supposed to be learned by the students. However, school promoters tried to make the student see the political orders as natural by not only developing literacy but also producing students who would support the economic structures (Lyons, 2008, p.19).
Even though the students might have felt liberated by the new knowledge they had, the schools had achieved its aim of helping them have self-control. This is because the schools were seen as crucial instruments of coming up with new ideologies and that’s why the curriculum and the structure in the governing were necessary. In this case, the dominant group was involved in coming up with the social policies. They affected the growth of public schools, and this changed the governance and the curriculum even though they were not just established to make the learners suitable for employment.
In the early 20th century there were debates to challenge the traditional way of schooling. They considered changing the curriculum which would help in the change and maintain a stable condition. Some looked more into instilling traditional values arguing that the traditional schools advocated for competition while others didn’t go for the idea. Others said that cooperation was more helpful and this way it would lead to mini-democracy where the teacher would take the interest of the students while others were different. This went as far as some philosophers saying the traditional way was useless since it required a more practical way to meet the basic human needs. Hands-on skills such as carpentry and cookery were some of the activities they arguably wanted to have included. According to them they wanted education based on experience and made the society more democratic giving students more freedom and remain relevant by having self-direction in learning.
Education philosophies are known to depend on the historical periods, and this makes the progressivism more child-centered. However, the neoconservatives blame the progressivism for the morality ills in the education system now. Despite the criticism, the child-centered way has advanced to focusing on preparing students for the work and emphasizing on the necessary skills. To some critics, the way children are prepared for the work is hidden. This calls for a curriculum to guide the teachers. curriculum is important since it entails rules and regulations to help students cope with interruptions and delays. The teachers convey values to the pupils, and this method is known to promote social control in the school and society. In the mid-20th century, the schools had the motive of producing students who meet the needs of the workplace.
Towards the end of the century, there were arguments that were meant to change the neo-conservative. This was set to bring a more relevant curriculum to the economic needs that are present and the reform movement looked more into testing and giving charters to schools. There was also neoliberal around the same time that wanted to reduce the government involvement having an emphasis on the market solutions on public service. This resulted in lesser funding from the government due to the privatization of most of the public services. This made the cost be met by the