SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT ALL YOUNG PEOPLE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO STAY IN FULL-TIME EDUCATION UNTIL AT LEAST THE AGE OF 18.
It is believed that full-time education should be compulsory for youngsters until they are 18 years old. While I agree that this policy holds great promises, I do not think all young people should study full-time.
On the one hand, access to full-time education would be of great benefits for children who are under 18 years old. Firstly, full-time education enables students to get an all-round pool of knowledge and skills through a wide range of subjects such as mathematics, science, history and so on which provide students sufficient preparation for future employment. What is more, attending school the whole time prevents youngsters from undesirable materials on the internet. In contrast, children tend to develop violent behaviour due to excessive exposure to violent acts through internet or online games, thereby leading to crime commitment. Therefore, involvement in full-time education would reduce their time wasted on these stuff and lessen social problems.
On the other hand, I believe that not all teenagers should be required to study full-time. First, it is not advisable for children with inborn talents to take full-time education. This is because these children should attend a more suitable training course to nurture their ability rather than learn academic subjects. A boy who is excellent at playing soccer, for instance, should be trained as a professional football player instead of learning academic knowledge until the age of 18. Besides, students whose academic performance is too poor should not access full-time education. Instead, they should be encouraged to leave school and enroll in vocational training programmes to earn their living and support their family.
In conclusion, although I agree that 18-year education system would provide basic knowledge for a child's development, I believe that it is not advisable for all young people.
TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE?
It is believed that full-time education should be compulsory for youngsters until they are 18 years old. While I agree that this policy holds great promises, I do not think all young people should study full-time.
On the one hand, access to full-time education would be of great benefits for children who are under 18 years old. Firstly, full-time education enables students to get an all-round pool of knowledge and skills through a wide range of subjects such as mathematics, science, history and so on which provide students sufficient preparation for future employment. What is more, attending school the whole time prevents youngsters from undesirable materials on the internet. In contrast, children tend to develop violent behaviour due to excessive exposure to violent acts through internet or online games, thereby leading to crime commitment. Therefore, involvement in full-time education would reduce their time wasted on these stuff and lessen social problems.
On the other hand, I believe that not all teenagers should be required to study full-time. First, it is not advisable for children with inborn talents to take full-time education. This is because these children should attend a more suitable training course to nurture their ability rather than learn academic subjects. A boy who is excellent at playing soccer, for instance, should be trained as a professional football player instead of learning academic knowledge until the age of 18. Besides, students whose academic performance is too poor should not access full-time education. Instead, they should be encouraged to leave school and enroll in vocational training programmes to earn their living and support their family.
In conclusion, although I agree that 18-year education system would provide basic knowledge for a child's development, I believe that it is not advisable for all young people.
