A Proposal of the National Curriculum

A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. In the modern world we inhabit today, public education play a key role in the development of a nation’s economy and society. Thus it is no wonder that education reform is becoming a focus for all members of a nation. As a result, it has become a major point of contention. And one ofthe chief questions which are constantly discussed is whether governments should enforce a national curriculum on its educational institutions? The author of the subject claim argues that it should. While there might be some merits to this policy, I believe that the risks it involves are too great to warrant them. Thus, I disagree with the argument and will expound on the reasoning behind my position in the following essay.

First of all, implementing a unified national curriculum is bound to produce, even if indirectly, an inequitable state by unevenly advantaging some students over others. This inevitable consequence is the result of two unjustifiable assumptions embedded within the policy. First, it assumes that schools are equally capable of adopting a single national curriculum. This is an implausible scenario because schools. even within one country, vary greatly in many respects, such as: funding, qualifications of faculty, and quality of facilities. One only needs to examine how schools in African American neighborhoods vastly differ from those in White neighborhoods to see how this could be so. The ability of schools to adapt to a curriculum is a key factor in determining the quality of education which students receive.

This is because, even with all the recent numerous efforts exerted to shift the focus of education towards more progressive approaches (such as independent student research). conventional methods such as classroom lectures and exams are still the teaching stables for most, if not all, schools. Therefore, the quality of education provided by schools will depend on how effectively they implement such methods. And this will ultimately depend on well they are able to adapt to the curriculum they were provided. Hence. students of some schools will unfairly fare better than others simply because they were fortunate to study in schools more efficient with adopting the coerced national curriculum. However, if the choice of curriculum was decentralized and every school was allowed to select its own, each school would be able to adopt the curriculum fitting its own abilities and thus maximizing their effectiveness.

The second assumption is that of a homogenous student body. Even if it was postulated that all schools of a nation are identically capable at adopting the national curriculum. it is inconceivable that all students also will equally adapt to it. This is because students are not automatons. but individuals with different penchants for different academic subjects or learning styles. Thus, students whose academic passions are coincidentally more aligned with the national curriculum will learn more than those who are not. However, if schools were allowed more leeway to customize the curriculum to account for those individual differences, the odds that some students will receive a better education than others are reduced.

Furthermore. a fundamental question that the author leaves unanswered is: who are the constituents of the central body who will choose the national curriculum? Politicians? Education specialist? The student themselves through a democratic method? All of the mentioned are groups composed of people who are by definition liable to err. And when they do, the quality of education for all students would suffer, Duly, many of these students would not be accepted by creditable college programs. Accordingly, the students’ futures career prospects would also suffer since employers would not accept applicants with a shabby education. As a result, some ofthose students might end up becoming poor or homeless which would not only harm them but also their families. The damage could last for generations as this state of poverty is often passed on to their descendants.

This might also exacerbate social issues, as these individuals might resolve to crime to provide for themselves and their families. Furthermore, the lack of competent workers to run the country’s private sector would harm the national economy since a drop in profits means a drop in the amount of taxes collected from those companies. This is of course while assuming that the decision makers are wel|»meaning and that those were innocent unintentional mistakes. However, what if the nation was ruled by dictators who benefit from the increased ignorance in society? Leaving the education of a nation’s youth at the mercy of a central body to be corrupted and manipulated by those despots would be a grave mistake.

This is because such a policy would a preserve falsifies and misconceptions promulgated by those despots in the national curriculum. This would be done through graduates from such schools passing on these learnt fallacies to their children: and those would the same to their offspring, and so on and so forth. This would lock the nation in a cycle of ignorance that is difficult to break. As results. these nations would become more susceptible for tyrannical rule further perpetuating this malicious cycle. This is just because a centralization of education was allowed by the population. Agreat case in point is how the Nazis utilized the centralized German education system instituted by Bismarck to brainwash the German public and spread their fascist ideology. However, if the author’s recommendation was ignored and the choice of curriculum was decentralized, separate entities would be given the right to determine the curriculum for separate smaller groups of students.

Hence, the chances of national disasters caused by few decision makers in a centralized system would be significantly reduced. Finally, coercing an entire nation to accept a unified national curriculum is an infringement on individual liberty. Since education play a major role in shaping the beliefs and values of the educated, parents might rightly take issue with what their children are being inculcated with at their schools. A great real life example to illustrate this point is how Christian religious families in the United States understandably protest when the theory of evolution is being taught to their children in public schools. This is because these children, at least until they reach adulthood, are theirs not the government ’54 Hence, they alone should have the right to choose what version of the origin of humanity their children should believe in.

However, by discarding the author’s recommendation. a nation reduces the chances of governments infringing upon the rights of its citizens as parents would be more in control when it comes to what their children learn in schools. Besides, not only will they get the choice, they, not the government, also get the responsibility and blame if anything goes amissi In conclusion, nation should not require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. This is due to the many great risks involved with implementing such a policy as highlighted above.

And of course, suppression never leads to true ingenuity, which is what nations seek from their younger generations learning styles that the curriculum Therefore, if the subject policy was implemented, the pith of the school day, which is to be managed and facilitated by schools officials at every school respectively, will be determined by a centralized body primarily detached from the day to day challenges those school officials facet Therefore. embedded within the argument is it was proven that all since this policy demands that a unified national curriculum is to be taught in every school in a country, it indirectly purports that all students will fare equally students were exactly identical in every possible way imaginable. another unjustifiable assumption