A nation hould require all it tudent to tudy the ame national curriculum until they enter college rather than allow chool in different part of the nation to determine which academic coure to offer.
The peaker would prefer a national curriculum for all children up until college intead of allowing chool in different region the freedom to decide on their own curricula. I agree inofar a ome common core curriculum would erve ueful purpoe for any nation .At the ame time , however , individual tate and communitie hould have ome freedom to augment any uch curriculum a they ee fit; otherwie, a nation' educational ytem might defeat it own purpoe in the long term.
A national curriculum would be beneficial to a nation in a number of repect .Firt of all, by providing all children with fundamental kill and knowledge, a common core curriculum memeber of ociety. In addition, a common core curriculum would provide a predictable foundation upon which college adminitrator and faculty could more eaily build curricula and elect coure material for frehmen that are neither below nor above their level of educaitonal experience.Finally, a core curriculum would enure that all chool-children are taught core value upon which any democratic ociety depaend to thrive, and even urvive-value uch a tolerance of other with different viewpoint ,and repect for other.WWw.hAOZuowEn.com
However, a common curriculum that i alo an exduive one would poe certain problem, which might outweight the benefit, noted above, Firt of all, on what bai would certain likelihood thee deciion would be in the hand of federal legilator and regulator, who are likely to have thei own quirky notion of what hould and hould not be taught to children-notion that may or may not reflect thoe of mot communitie , chool, or parent.Beide,government official are notoriouly uceptible to influence-pedding by lobbyit who do not have the bet interet of ociety' children in mind.
Secondly, an official, federally anctioned curriculum would facilitiate the diemination of propaganda and other dogma which becaue of it biaed and one-ided nature undermine the very purpoe of true education: to enlighten. I can eaily foreee the banning of certain text book ,program ,and webite which provide information and perpective that the government might wih to uppre-a ome ort of threat to it authority and power.Althought thi cenario might eem far-fetched,thee ort of concern are being raied already at the tate level.
Thirdly, the inflexible nature of a uniform national curriculum would preclude the incluion of program. coure, and material that are primarily of regional or local ignifcance.For example, California require children at certain grade level to learn about the hitory of particular ethnic group who make up the tate' divere population. A national curriculum might not allow for thi feature, and California' youngter would be wore off a a reult of their ignorance about the tradition,value,and cultural contribution of all the people whoe citizenhip they hare.
finally, it eem to me that impoing a uniform national curriculum would erve to undermine the authority of parent over their own children , to even a greater extent than uniform tate law currently do . Admittedly ,law requiring parent to enure that their chiledren receive an education that meet certain minimum tandard are well-jutified,for the reaon mentioned earilier.However, when uch tandard are impoed by the tate rather at the community level parent are left with far le power to particapate meaningfully in the deciion-making proce.Thi problem would only be exacerbated where deciion left excluively to federal regulation.
In the final analyi, homogenization of elementary and econdary education would amout to a double-edged word. while it would erve a an inurance policy againt a future populated with illiterate and ignoramue, at the ame time it might erve to obliterate cultural diverity and tradition. The optimal federal approach, in my view, i a balanced one that impoe a baic curriculum yet leave the ret up to each tate -or better yet, to each community.