The issue of child growth, especially in their living surroundings has drawn public attention, with one view stating that the countryside is a more suitable place for them than the city. However, I have an opposing view.
From education perspective, urban schools own advanced facilities which are regarded as one of the most significant factors to elementary education. Compared with rural classrooms, urban ones are equipped with multimedia, such as projectors, computers, etc., helping pupils acquire knowledge vividly and effectively. Besides, other facilities, including music rooms and libraries provide extra-course knowledge to those who have keen interest in these. On the contrary, those especially from remote areas have less access to related knowledge, preventing them from future success.
In addition, children in cities have more opportunities to visit museums and art galleries, widening their horizons and enriching social knowledge. National History Museum can offer an overview of the whole country, which means that children can learn abundant knowledge about this. Besides, artists’ paintings hanging in art galleries stimulate children’s imagination and interest in painting. In contrast, lack of social resources becomes a barrier to rural children’s development.
Granted, the benefits from the natural environment in countryside could not be denied. Unlike cities, there is less air, water or noise pollution in countryside. However, joint efforts are being made by both citizens and authorities to improve urban living environment, which narrows the gap between the two areas.
In conclusion, although children can live in the natural environment in countryside, high-qualified teaching facilities and rich social resources both guide them into future success.
