Some people think it is important for all children to learn history in school. Others believe that other subjects are more relevant to children's lives today. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

In contemporary society, learning history is an issue 1that is being hotly debatedthat being heated debated. Opinions are divided between those who believe that learning history is necessary for each student at school and those who maintain that many other subjects are more useful for children in their lives. While there is some value in each perspective, I suppose that the 2former is more convincingformer more convincing.

To begin with, this position is grounded in both sound reasoning and practical considerations. One of the strongest arguments in its favour is that studying history provides each 3childchildren with an effective approach to learn how their nation’s 4history unfoldedrevolution looked like in the past. This reasoning carries considerable weight because understanding their countries’ evolutions promotes their identity, the sense of 5belongingbelongings and 6pridegratification, thereby strengthening the case for this position. A growing body of evidence supports the idea that there were already more than 760% of high school students60% high school students in China chose history as one of the subjects in GaoKao examination in 2026, 8whereas this figure was onlyinstead of this number was only 30% in 2020. A further consideration that warrants closer examination is that history can explain many issues and paradoxes of historical events especially the relationship issues between countries. The logic underpinning this point is that children can realise why 9social media has become so importantthe social media can be such important or why we use renewable energy 10through large investmentsthrough number of investments every single year instead of using fossil resources directly. Moreover, 11students can even realisestudents even can realise why abortion is legal in some countries but 12others are notsome others not. Only by considering these two factors together can we fully grasp the strength of this argument.

Although this view is convincing, the other side also has strengths. One possible criticism is that some students are not interested in history at all and many other subjects can be chosen by them to enhance their capacities, a concern that stems from the fact that without interests, children 13can hardly concentratewould be hardly concentrate on classes, and it is more efficient for them to spend time on other subjects which they like or are good at. But when we look closer, a basic flaw in this argument becomes clear: each person should be clear about their 14ancestral rootsancestry track. This is because history is not just a simple subject, it is closely related to 15national culture and spiritthe culture and spirits, which can shape people’s personalities and 16identitiesidentites. This problem is especially clear when we consider that a few 17highlyhigh intelligent criminals with higher educational experience can be 18talented in various areastalent at this or that aspects, but they still do not have enough 19moral responsibility, leading them to commit crimesresponsibilities which caused final crimes. Given this weakness, the other view, though reasonable, is not strong enough to settle the issue.

In conclusion, although this issue remains a matter of debate, only if schools can arrange these subjects reasonably, the position that history is necessary for each child to learn in school stands out as the more balanced and practical one.