It is more important for school children to learn about their local history than world history. Do you agree or disagree?

There is a school of thought that young students should learn about the past of their own agrarian

first

rather than the international past. I completely agree with

this

opinion. The most compelling argument for putting the local past above international one in school is that it would be easier for pupils to learn. They have been unconsciously familiar with and strongly connected to the language and culture of their own provincial during early childhood, which help sets a solid foundation to learn national

history

. Memorizing historical names typify that, in which students would find it easier to remember the terms they can already write down and pronounce more than doing the same with what's coming from other languages. Another more pragmatic reason for prioritizing local past is that it is usually easier to teach. Generally,

history

educators are more knowledgeable about the past of their own country than other civilizations.

In addition

, materials and facilities for teaching local

history

are often more available than for foreign ones.

Therefore

, it would be difficult to reverse the condition to put more weight on the

history

of the world.

Finally

, global

history

should not be learnt by young scholars because of its complexity. Most learners at early ages are not capable of connecting different historical events on the world stage, which could only be accomplished by those who are more grown-up. As many pedagogical studies have suggested, only students from secondary levels should learn main events throughout human

history

related to their country. In conclusion, I absolutely believe that

history

lessons delivered at school should be more about the past of the nation than that of the world.