It is true that education for youngsters is a controversial issue in many countries. The debate focuses on the necessity of offering full time teaching for students before reaching the age of majority. While I accept some benefits this trend offers, I do not consider that students should study full-time.
On the one hand, there are a variety of reasons why children who are less than 18 years old should study full-time at school. Firstly, full-time education allows young people broaden their own knowledge about different fields through a wide range of subjects such as math, literature or history. As a result, basic knowledge will help a group of student fulfils essential skills which will serve in the future and give them countless opportunities to solve the complex problems in daily life. Secondly, teenagers have more tendency to develop violent behaviour because they witness frequently violent act through the internet or games. Therefore, young children will more likely to turn into crimes, causing the damaging effect on the society so studying full-time may reduce their time wasted on these doings and also lessen the burden for the society.
On the other hand, I disagree that teenagers should be required to study full-time. One reason is that the incredible pressure of studying at school accounts for a great deal of how teenagers's spend their time so they easily suffer from stress and depression. For example, children in many developed countries like Korean or Japan become mentally disordered or have the nervous breakdown because they have to complete a large number of assignments. Another important factor is that adolescents should be encouraged to watch some kinds of TV shows which not only relax under pressure on homework but also develop their practical skills. This can bring positive impact on studying at school.
In conclusion, it seems to me that young learners should balance their timetable by taking part in outdoor activities rather than studying day by day.
It is true that education for youngsters is a controversial issue in
many
countries. The debate focuses on the necessity of offering full time teaching for students
before
reaching the age of majority. While I accept
some
benefits this trend offers, I do not consider that students should study full-time.
On the one hand, there are a variety of reasons why children who are less than 18 years
old
should study full-time at school.
Firstly
, full-time education
allows
young
people
broaden their
own
knowledge about
different
fields through a wide range of subjects such as math, literature or history.
As a result
, basic knowledge will
help
a group of student
fulfils
essential
skills
which will serve in the future and give them countless opportunities to solve the complex problems in daily life.
Secondly
,
teenagers
have more tendency to develop violent
behaviour
because
they witness
frequently
violent act through the internet or games.
Therefore
, young children will more likely to turn into crimes, causing the damaging effect on the society
so
studying
full-time may
reduce
their time wasted on these doings and
also
lessen the burden for the society.
On the other hand
, I disagree that
teenagers
should
be required
to study full-time. One reason is that the incredible pressure of
studying
at school accounts for a great deal of how
teenagers's
spend their time
so
they
easily
suffer from
stress
and depression.
For example
, children in
many
developed countries
like Korean or Japan become mentally disordered or have the nervous breakdown
because
they
have to
complete
a large number of
assignments. Another
important
factor is that adolescents should
be encouraged
to
watch
some
kinds of TV
shows
which not
only
relax under pressure on homework
but
also
develop their practical
skills
. This can bring
positive
impact on
studying
at school.
In conclusion
, it seems to me that young learners should balance their timetable by taking part in outdoor activities
rather
than
studying
day by day.