It is a controversial issue as to whether teachers affect children's social development and high IQ, or, whether parents are responsible for youngsters' improvement in gathering knowledge and social advancement. From my perspective, I, holistically, believe that parents are involved in both of these developments instead of preceptors.
To begin with, children spend most of their early life in the care of parents. This is because most of the adolescents start their schooling from the age of four to seven so that this year is crucial for juveniles to develop the mental ability and to interact with society. For example, studies have shown that 90% of children's upbringing are dependent on their guardians who prefer to raise themselves with proper attention and care. Hence, whatever a child learns at an early age, its credit goes to the progenitor, because when he opens his eyes at first, he sees his parent first, not teachers.
Another argument is that children develop their skills in the range of socioeconomic culture. The factors of socioeconomic are hobbies, society and food habits of youngsters who get from their family. However, it is an integral part of the topic from where children belong to. The reason is that the more polished and educated the family would be, the more knowledgeable and friendly the attitude of that child would possess. The first influence of the factor is that parents, for instance, select better teachers and schools for gaining a comprehensive idea of how to live in community and gathering wisdom. Thus, for giving children a better position in society, nutrients in food items, and attitude towards hobby-related activities, guardians are, astronomically, responsible.
In conclusion, to be knowledgeable and societal relies on parents in lieu of teachers, so far as I am concerned. On the contrary, advocates believe that the school teachers are largely impacting on children's higher wisdom and the advancement in the community rather than parents.
It is a controversial issue
as to whether
teachers
affect children's social development and high IQ, or, whether
parents
are responsible for youngsters' improvement in gathering knowledge and social advancement. From my perspective, I,
holistically
, believe that
parents
are involved
in both of these developments
instead
of preceptors.
To
begin
with,
children
spend most of their early life in the care of
parents
. This is
because
most of the adolescents
start
their schooling from the age of four to seven
so
that this year is crucial for juveniles to develop the mental ability and to interact with society.
For example
, studies have shown that 90% of children's upbringing are dependent on their guardians who prefer to raise themselves with proper attention and care.
Hence
, whatever a child learns at an early age, its credit goes to the progenitor,
because
when he opens his eyes at
first
, he
sees
his
parent
first
, not teachers.
Another argument is that
children
develop their
skills
in the range of socioeconomic culture. The factors of socioeconomic are hobbies, society and food habits of youngsters who
get
from their family.
However
, it is an integral part of the topic from where
children
belong to. The reason is that the more polished and educated the family would be, the more knowledgeable and friendly the attitude of that child would possess. The
first
influence of the factor is that
parents
,
for instance
, select better
teachers
and schools for gaining a comprehensive
idea
of how to
live
in community and gathering wisdom.
Thus
, for giving
children
a better position in society, nutrients in food items, and attitude towards hobby-related activities, guardians are,
astronomically
, responsible.
In conclusion
, to be knowledgeable and societal relies on
parents
in lieu of
teachers
,
so
far as I
am concerned
.
On the contrary
, advocates believe that the school
teachers
are
largely
impacting on children's higher wisdom and the advancement in the community
rather
than
parents
.