Many people believe that more money should be allocated to teaching science than any other subject in order for a country to progress, to what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
It is argued that more fund should be directed to science education than any other material for country progression, I personally agree with this statement because science plays a crucial role in development and this trend would encourage more children to study science. This will be analysed briefly.
Firstly, science is the back bone of national progression. The more projects and research are achieved, the more development of a community. This can be seen clearly in advances of technology, such as, smart phones, wireless internet, discoveries of new medicine and developments of transportation. These advances supported by paying big amount of money in teaching science. Furthermore, it is clear in the case of the United States of America as being the most developed country all over the world, due to the huge investments in science education. Hence, the link between technological development and the budget of science education is obvious.
Secondly, if authorities allocate more financial resources to teach science ,this attracts children to science. By introducing scientific expirements, competitions and fairs, youngsters grow to be scientists in the foreseeable future. Because of availability of resources, schools could plan field trips to various labs and technology companies which promote science education. For this reason, educational experts advise to concentrate on learning science in early years school curriculum. Thus, these children will grow up with more intereist in it.
In conclusion, I believe that more money should be directed towards science education. As studying scientific materials is the precursor of progression
task 2 please evalute
Re: task 2 please evalute
Marwa1981 wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 12:09 pm Many people believe that more money should be allocated to teaching science than any other subject in order for a country to progress, to what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
It is argued that more funds should be directed to science education than any other subject for a country's progression. I personally agree with this statement because science plays a crucial role in development, and extra funding would encourage more children to study science. This will be analysed briefly.
Firstly, science is the back bone of national progression. The more projects and research carreid out, the more a community will develop. This can be seen clearly in advances of technology, such as smart phones, wireless internet, discoveries of new medicine and developments in transportation. These advances are supported by paying a large amount of money to further education in science. Furthermore, it is clear that the United States of America is the most developed country inthe world due to the huge investments in science education. Hence, the link between technological development and the budget of science education is obvious.
Secondly, if authorities allocate more financial resources to teach science, this will attract children to science. By introducing scientific expirements, competitions and fairs, youngsters will grow to be scientists in the foreseeable future. Because of the availability of resources, schools could plan field trips to various labs and technology companies which promote science education. For this reason, educational experts advise to concentrate on learning science from an early age. Thus, these children will grow up with more interest in it.
In conclusion, I believe that more money should be directed towards science education, as studying scientific materials is the precursor of progression.