It’s more important for school children to learn about their local history than world history. To what extent do you agree or disagree？

Nowadays, there is a growing concern about whether educational institutions should be restricted to local

history

or teach global

history

additionally

. In my opinion, it is more beneficial for school children to cover

world

history

, since it will become more instrumental in their future. Exposing pupils to a broader

history

fosters the development of a broad worldview in them. Global

history

is certainly wealthier

in contrast

to the background of any particular place or country since it contains records of a wide range of global incidents, economic prosperity and crisis, climatic shifts, diplomatic arrangements and international wars.

Thus

, it allows children to develop a broader view of things happening around them and look

further

into the future.

For example

, by learning

world

economic

history

, students will be able to draw inferences between their local economy and the economic conditions of other countries.

Furthermore

, teaching global

history

encourages pupils to view and assess situations objectively. Most textbooks on global

history

are unbiased towards any country or nation and utilise neutral evaluation when presenting various incidents from the past.

This

is usually precisely the opposite of the local

history

materials, which frequently describe one specific country positively.

Therefore

,

world

history

also

helps build objective thinking abilities which is a crucial aspect of a successful individual. In a nutshell, both local and

world

history

subjects have a considerable role in exposing students to past events.

However

, I would argue that teaching global

history

has a more significant set of advantages and is more beneficial for children's future.