> > 2010-07-05 16:53:25, '' 님이 쓰신 글입니다. ↓
■ Direction Read the question below. You have 30 minutes to plan, write, and revise your essay. Typically, an effective response will contain a minimum of 300 words. ■ Question Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Use specific reason and examples to support your answer | |
|
Topic : 교육공무원이 특정 정치적 조직에 가입하는 것이 바람직한가? | |
|
Adhere to the basic form of the educational policy
Recently, some teacher was dismissed on account of the fact that they had donated to political organizations. They strongly argued that the right of teacher also should be protected, It is right?
First, a current policy, prohibiting officer of the education from joining parties, is more rational because depending on willing choice itself of teacher can dangerous for soceity . And It is impossible that teacher follow the rule perfectly. Of course, this truth premised on the fact that teacher can effect students powerfully.
Second, education officers should be controled by not general laws but special laws. Because the role of officer is to educate young students who may be not perfect. It is very valuable job. For example, If officer got the membership from a specific party, in the long run, the right of express that belongs to the student would be infringed providing that joining the party itself can effect the student whether directly or not. As a result, the students will be dominated by prejudiced prospects, which means that both the freedom of thought and expression will be intruded. Because it is evident that expressing point of views always bases on thought and reasoning. By considering that point, the government should keep the existing education system.
Third, the right of expression in regard to education officer can be restricted on condition that the government ensure the security. In other words, It was prescribed on constitution that government is entitled to restrict the right to ensure national security but should not destroy essential right such as the right to pursue one's happiness. As we already have seen, South Korea is under the sensitive situation where North Korea may be able to invade the our nation. However, maintaining the original policy is not to violate constitution. Because it is just require the officer to be in neutral on public area, not private area.
In conclusion , there is no question that the government don't need to change current policy.
결론을 어떤 식으로 끝 마쳐야 할 지 모르겠어요.ㅠㅠ 결론의 내용구성을 어떻게 해야 하나요?
총체적으로 정리하는 것을 알겠는데 어떻게 정리해야할지 구체적으로 알려주세요ㅗㅠ
이제 처음단계라 많은 도움이 필요합니다. ㅠㅠㅠ | |
Recently, some teachers was were dismissed on account of the fact that they had donated to political organizations. They strongly argued that the right of the teachers also should be protected, It is right?
First, a the current policy, prohibiting officers of the education from joining parties, is more rational because depending on a willing choice itself of a teacher it can be dangerous for the society . And it is impossible that teachers follow the rule perfectly. Of course, this truth premised on the fact that teachers can effect students powerfully. (이 문단은 살짝 복잡한 감이 있네요~많은 단어를 쓰는 것 보다는 알아듣기 쉬운게 더 좋은 것 같아요~물론 둘다하면 최고구용~)
Second, education officers should be controled controlled by not general laws but special laws, because the role of officer is to educate young students who may be not perfect. It is a very valuable job. For example, if officers got have the membership from a specific party, in the long run, the right of to express that belongs to the student would be infringed providing that joining the party itself can affect the student whether directly or not. As a result, the students will be dominated by prejudiced prospects, which mean that both the freedom of thought and expression will be intruded. Because it is evident that expressing point of views always bases on thought and reasoning. By considering that point, the government should keep the existing education system.
Third, the right of expression in regards to education officers can be restricted on condition that the government ensures the security. In other words, it was prescribed on the constitution that the government is entitled to restrict the right to ensure national security but should not destroy essential right such as the right to pursue one's happiness. As we already have seen, South Korea is under the sensitive situation where North Korea may be able to invade the our nation. However, maintaining the original policy is not to violate the constitution. Because it is just requires the officer to be in neutral on and public area, not private area.
In conclusion, there is no question that the government doesn’t need to change the current policy.