Met qua troi luon ma ta oi

Many feel that overly rigorous subjects such as mathematics and philosophy should not be mandatory for children. In my opinion, though there is a risk students will struggle to cope, teachers should be able to adapt the subject matter. One reason these subjects should not be mandatory is they are often too abstract for young children. Numbers themselves are abstract. This is why many children are unable to tell time as it is essentially a metaphorical division of a circle into a clock. Teachers who place too much emphasis on abstract numbers and ideas in their lessons will find that students may become bored because they are unable to grasp the concepts. Philosophy could also become tedious and inefficient if the students lack the cognitive ability to apply general rules and ethical considerations to everyday life. This capacity to recognize and apply abstractions typically develops later in adolescence. However, these subjects can be made accessible for children. The key is the approach of teachers and choice of materials. Math, for example, does not need to begin with complex, abstract equations but could instead involve real world scenarios and simple logic. Numbers could be introduced later as children tend to be confused by less grounded concepts. Similarly, philosophy can be approached from a number of mediums, including through stories. Many children’s stories and fables feature curious protagonists and interesting morals. Instead of explicitly instructing children through academic jargon, they can engage with the same questions about life and its origins more directly through the journey of characters in a story. In conclusion, despite the risks of theory-heavy subjects for young learners, schools should embrace the challenge and seek less explicit teaching methodologies. This will help form the basis of a well-rounded education.