Some people believe that it is more important to teach children the literature of their own country than other countries. Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. v.6

It is sometimes argued that we should place more emphasis on teaching local history than foreign one. While it seems beneficial to teach local literature, I would argue that children should also be taught about the literature of other nations. To begin with, by learning local past, young students can better understand and appreciate the past where they were born. For example, since all the poems about the wars in [your country] are taught to the students, most of them are aware of how bloody the wars were and how important it is to stop the history from repeating itself. Without local story, I believe that few students would be interested in studying history. However, it seems to me that young students should also be taught about foreign works of novelists. The first reason is that the drama of their home country may be too boring, which makes learning extremely frustrating. For instance, students have to memorize many poems that are hardly relevant to their lives, and therefore most of them are reluctant to study this subject. Since the foreign article gives them a totally new learning experience, it could provide them with a motivation to study the subject. Additionally, the novel of other countries exposes students to a variety of different cultures, so studying it helps broaden their knowledge about other parts of the world. In conclusion, while I accept that students can benefit from learning local literature, I believe that foreign works should also be an important part of the curriculum.