The question of whether taking children to school belongs to parents or the government’s duty has sparked a considerable debate. I am of the opinion that it depends on the circumstances of each family.
Granted many underprivileged children truly necessitate subsidies from the government. In some rural and remote areas, or places suffering from natural disasters annually, parents and their children do not even have sufficient financial resources and the time to travel long distances, potentially depriving children’s opportunities to come to school. For example, in central VietNam, countless households are damaged by typhoons, leading to such children losing acquaintances, houses, or food, which hinder their dream of going to school. This, as a result, requires an amount of vehicle and food aids from the government to meet children’s rights, reducing the burden on their parents.
However, I am firmly convinced that it is more convenient for ordinary children to be transported to school by their parents. This is particularly because most parents are not limited by far geographical distances with their children, paving the way for them to take children to school faster and more cost-effective, which in turn ensure children’s academic success and happiness. In addition, the governments are incapable of transporting the whole children in their countries to school. Prioritizing all the time and finance to children transportations often undermines their abilities for other fields such as politics or tourism, eventually deteriorating economic growth of such countries.
In conclusion, while it is undeniable that the government should support disadvantaged children in terms of transportation to school, I maintain that all children are taken to school with help of the government, negatively affecting other activities; therefore belonging to parents’ duty offers more convenience.