Whether or not school children should be taught more about local or world history

It is more important for school children to learn about local history than world history.

In recent years, there has been a growing debate on whether school children should be taught more about local history or world history. While some argue that learning about local history is more important, others believe that studying world history is crucial. In my opinion, both types of history are important, but local history should be given more emphasis.

Firstly, local history helps children develop a sense of belonging and identity. Knowing about the history of their own community, city or country can help children understand their place in the world. It can also help them appreciate the culture and traditions of their own community. This knowledge can foster a sense of pride and respect for their heritage.

However, it cannot be denied that world history is equally important. For instance, studying world history can help children understand the interconnectedness of the world and the impact of global events on their own lives. It can also broaden their knowledge of different cultures and societies, promoting tolerance and respect for diversity.

Moreover, local history provides a unique perspective on global events. For example, learning about the local impact of major wars or events can help children understand the broader historical context. Additionally, studying local history can provide a more tangible and relatable way of learning about historical events.

In conclusion, while both local and world history are important, I believe that local history should be given more emphasis in school. It helps students develop a sense of identity and belonging and provides a unique perspective on global events. However, this does not mean that world history should be neglected, as it is equally important in promoting global understanding and cultural awareness.

This is an essay that will not receive passing score because the response format was not met by the writer. The writing instruction was in the "extent" format but you did not provide that type of response. You used a comparison format instead. This shows that you either:

1. Did not understand the instruction;
2. Disregarded the instruction provided.

Regardless of the reason, you have not provided the examiner with a reason to pass you in this test. You have shown an inability to follow English instructions. Your comprehension abilities will be judged as non-existent and therefore, you cannot be allowed to pass the test. Regardless of the way you responded and the number of words you typed, you have not met the primary requirements for passing the test.

I could be wrong here but i think the 2nd and 3rd body paragraph aren't supposed to be connected with the word "Moreover". The 3rd one should be placed next to the 1st body paragraph for it to make more sense.