I think we shouldn’t have to learn just two subjects in school. What school would decide to do that? Would that be the right decision for kids education? A school with just two subjects, interval and Lunch just feels like a preschool, like really? A billion reasons why I wouldn’t decided to do that if I was a person to make the decision.
Because of that we shouldn’t have just two subjects because when we grow up we might be learning things that could’ve been taught to us in intermediate. My reason also is we should all be able to show our progress that we have learnt in primary. We might love art, music, cooking or inventing and there are no subjects like that. I think we all should all be able to learn about what we love and what we need to learn about.
Research shows -
If we have time to teach *everything*, that would be wonderful. But if there is not enough time, then we should at least come up with a list of subjects, prioritised by value/usefulness, and decide based on that which subjects should be minimised or left out of the curriculum. As you can see the what I’ve found online is that someone is saying that we should be taught in school not everything but useful things.Something else I’ve found is that 1. Health/Human Biology - After 12 years, I think high school graduates should come out knowing almost as much as current doctors about the human body.
2. Business/Finance - After 12 years, everyone should come out of school with a clear idea of how to start a business, the laws and taxes involved, a solid understanding of finance, investment, stocks, etc. This shows that if there is a specific thing we want to be, that is what we should learn about.
For that reason this concludes the end of my Persuasive writing which tries to persuade teachers or principals to teach their schools more than just two plain old boring subject which we can’t learn everything.School is important which also makes the student’s education important to the staff and community.
