Some school have intention to replace sport and art is a subject with which is considered more practical to kid education. Agree or disagree???
The regulation of replacing sport and art is a subject of debate. Some people think that intention has positive effect to kid education while others people claim that children development will be put at risk because of this. I strongly disagree with the former intention for the following reasons.
Firstly, in educationally, children who playing sport can prevail their talent. For example, no sooner my sister learn badminton and won in the tournament her school than she was invited to join national team. Beside, it is believed children learn art can develop their imagination . picasso is the most example, as a result of learning painting in the school, he was become a famous artist. However, waste many time into learn sport and art , children are not enough time learn other subject, unable focus their main duty, and as a result, their worsing academic performance. Moreover, while replacing sport and art , teacher have more time to teach others subject closer.
The second, in economically , governerment will save alot of money and can be used invest to others industrial, teacher have time to relax after hard work. Futhermore , the income of teacher who teach sport and art can reduce, their life put at risk, followed by a went up of unemployment rate.
Equally importaint, playing sport is benificial for children health. According social, 70% children who do not play sport could be obesity, autism, communication problems and many other diseases. Although, children can have accident while they play sport.
In brift, i strongly disagree with this idea because learn sport and art bring many advantage on the children develop. Nevertheless, we should be careful in teaching to avoid the accident.