While some people argued that high school students should be pushed to criticise their teachers in an attempt to enhance the quality of education, others suppose that this change would undermine classroom discipline. Although this practice can offer certain benefits, I believe it would do more harm than good and significantly affect traditional customs.
Admittedly, criticising the teaching staff can be beneficial in two ways. First and foremost, it would sharpen their critical thinking and argumentative skills by allowing students the right to stand up and defend their arguments instead of being corrected by those whom everybody thínks always make true decisions. Without these skills, still-growing high school students lose the capability to give a speech and be responsible with their opinions. For example, many schools in Viet Nam nowadays provide their students with an energetic environment to debate and discuss, along with a large number of debating clubs, which contributes significantly to their development. Furthermore, each lesson might be more enhanced than ever due to the fact that everybody would lend a hand in the lesson by pointing out the teacher’s mistakes and monotonous teaching styles. As a result, it may make lessons that used to be passive and boring appear to be more creative and competitive.
However, these advantages may be outweighed by adverse effects. To begin with, if students had not been controlled strictly, everything would have been out of control. Imagine each student is allowed to challenge and criticise the teacher’s speech even if it is the silliest argument; every class would be chaotic and disorganized. This may lead to a breakdown in relationships between students and teachers, maybe even conflict in extreme cases. For example, a student who criticises their teacher about marking publicly in class could result in annoyance among both teachers and the student’ classmates, making the atmosphere more intense, which would lessen the efficiency of the class. Additionally, traditional practices could be indirectly affected by this development, especially in asian countries, which always set the teacher above ordinary people.
In conclusion, although providing the freedom for students by unlimited adjusting exposure and the advancement in critical thinking, I would argue that harmful effects are more worthy to be considered. By that governments should strike a balance between debating and traditional customs.