Hei Zhang! :D
Below are some corrections. Perhaps you can retype the essay to get more familiar with some of them. If you have any questions feel free to ask them. Good luck!
When it refers comes to the fierce controversy about the school or parents ,which who should take responsibilities to teach children how to be good members of society is still a question.(Who should take responsibility in teaching children has been a controversial issue for a long time now.) Some people deem that it is parents who should be the ones cultivating their children because parents(/they) are the direct supervisors of their children, whose performance represents the education approach of their parents.[I get what you mean, but it's hard to agree with you. You are talking about an exception from the rule; in most cases children are not a mirror of their parents when it comes to learning.] (In contract*, some) On the contrary,/ On the other hand, others, maybe some busy parents,(/many busy parents) argue that it is definitely the obligation
that of the school should to pay more attention on to the developingsocial skills of students, because they have are being paid for it. In this essay,_I'll(/ I will) discuss both of the points of view s. For public, It is common to think that the relationship and communication between parents and children is essential to the children becoming who they are will be in the future (who will they be/what will they be like in the future? specify). We have known so many examples that the of children with a promising future dropping out from of school due to lack of attention from their parents. Parents who act as children's their childrens' first teacher in their life lives gave their children them a profound effect on the children's whole life(/provide them with a solid moral foundation and support). Education from received at home is (absolutely) would be the vital one to the development of children.
However, most of us(when you say "most of us" you include yourself in this group) think school,_should be the one
which making the students become more comprehensive after ten or more years or even longer of study. Specifically, not only should the school teach students about the knowledge of books, but also teach them some social skills in term of moral, polite and regulations(/but also help them develop a better sense of moral righteousness). The all-around development is so important that promise students have a bright future (?). Take me for example s,_ living in the university make me didn't have give me enough chances to learn something from my parents,_ while but my university just supplies me with good opportunities to make myself(/to help me) become more competent. [This is not such a good example, if you were to ask me. You're already (or at least you're almost) a grown-up as a college student. You have theoretically already learned the things parents should teach you. While on topic, there is a clear difference between the education school provides and the one your parents bring you up with. First of all, most parents are of conservative nature and tend to use the same methods their parents used on them. A teacher on the other hand should be the one who stimulates you to think for yourself. And by doing so you will inevitably escape the parental supremacy. My point is, one education does not compensate for the other.]
All in all, both
the school and the family should take the responsibility to make the children learn how to act perfectly in the society(/in bringing children up to become valuable members of a society). Cooperation is a must for the development of children.(/In this case, cooperation is key.)
*- contract (noun) = understanding, agreement (enforceable by law)
*- contrary (noun/adj./adv.) = opposite in nature or character; diametrically or mutually opposed: contrary to fact; contrary propositions.
*- on the contrary (idiom) = in opposition to what has been stated, from another point of view