The family has a great influence on children's development, but the influence from outside the home plays a bigger part in children's life.
Many people believe that the youngster's growth is being impacted by the external environments rather than their family. I disagree with this view, because I consider that both above factors have their distinctive merits and should each play an integral in the life of children.
On the one hand, I would argue that the outer environments have certain effects on children. From an knowledge perspective, the children are learnt from teachers in the school, who have responsibilities to communicate the basic science lessons, which foster the development of children's brain. Futhermore, the extracurrilar activities enable teenagers to increase their soft skills as well as relationships. For example, the holiday camp which is annually held in summers creates more opportunities for children to make new friends. In addition, competition activities make it easer than ever for them to improve their presentation capability via debate contests, the finesse via cooking matches, the health via sport matches.
On the other hand, I believe that the parently influences are equally essential to offspring's improvement. Firstly, parents' upbringing have large role in sharping their children's character and behavior. For instance, a child who is being loved and taught about selflessness would tend to become an altruist. Secondly, the home traditions would contribute to children's aptitudes which are positive impact on their intelligence. A good example for this is the family where the father is a chess veteran. This ideal background could creates favorable conditions for his descendant to study and develop chess skill from an early age.
In conclusion, it seem to me that the family and social are equally important elements in development of children, and I disagree that the home's impact is outweighed by the effect from surrouding enironment.
Do you agree or disagree?
Many people believe that the youngster's growth is being impacted by the external environments rather than their family. I disagree with this view, because I consider that both above factors have their distinctive merits and should each play an integral in the life of children.
On the one hand, I would argue that the outer environments have certain effects on children. From an knowledge perspective, the children are learnt from teachers in the school, who have responsibilities to communicate the basic science lessons, which foster the development of children's brain. Futhermore, the extracurrilar activities enable teenagers to increase their soft skills as well as relationships. For example, the holiday camp which is annually held in summers creates more opportunities for children to make new friends. In addition, competition activities make it easer than ever for them to improve their presentation capability via debate contests, the finesse via cooking matches, the health via sport matches.
On the other hand, I believe that the parently influences are equally essential to offspring's improvement. Firstly, parents' upbringing have large role in sharping their children's character and behavior. For instance, a child who is being loved and taught about selflessness would tend to become an altruist. Secondly, the home traditions would contribute to children's aptitudes which are positive impact on their intelligence. A good example for this is the family where the father is a chess veteran. This ideal background could creates favorable conditions for his descendant to study and develop chess skill from an early age.
In conclusion, it seem to me that the family and social are equally important elements in development of children, and I disagree that the home's impact is outweighed by the effect from surrouding enironment.
