It is more important to learn about local history than foreign history. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Wrire at least 250 words. v.2

People have different views about the teaching of national versus global history in schools. Personally, I support the idea that children should study first and foremost the historical events of their own counties. There are several reasons why the study of global events could necessary for school pupils. Firstly, these courses provide more knowledge of the world around us. This is largely beneficial, particularly for students who will be nurturing their travel or study overseas dream. At the same time, the students could also compare global events with national ones to better understand the meaning of them. For example, the relation between the First World War and Vietnam declares its independence from France. In my opinion, schools should focus on teaching national history. From an educational perspective, children enjoy learning about where they live and by studying the ideas, culture and history of their own countries they begin to develop a sense of identity. This is likely to benefit the teachers, who could teach in different ways depending upon the local source materials and design interesting tasks for students such as interviews with local people, especially with the elderly, presentations of slides and historical photographs, and the analysis of various local documents. Furthermore, it creates a connection between generations, meaning that grandparents or parents could talk easier with children by local historical stories. In conclusion, I would argue that it is undesirable for schools to cover aspects of foreign history, they would ground their pupils in the local culture instead.