Hi, I have taken other's sample essay for my reference and wrote mine. Please give me feedback. Thanks. (My another question is how many words you think CBEST essay should have. 350-400 is okay?)
A recent movement in education has been called "Back to Basics." Its proponents argue that the curriculum should concentrate only on reading, writing and mathematics skills and completely ignore such courses as sociology, art appreciation, and drama. Imagine that you are a school principal faced with the task of making policy for your school. Present your argument(s) either for or against "Back to Basics."
If I am a school principal, I will not agree that "Back to Basics" policy. Though it enables students to focus on basic skills like reading, writing and mathematics, as an educator view, they are not enough for preparing students to face future careers or future society. It also limits schools' curriculum, which may not help students to develop their diverse interests.
Some advocates believe that "Back to Basics" is a favor of students to recognize the importance of basic skills. However, the kind of traditional education thought often makes the curriculum restricted and teachers' instructions will become dull, inflexible. For those students who have high expectation of art or drama classes, "Back to Basics" will eliminate the opportunities of cultivating their multiple interests. For example, a student who is good at dancing and has gifts of drama. If there is no classes for her to learn deeply, she may not discover her inner ability and will not desire to be a dancer or actress in the future. Thus, schools are supposed to raise more students equipped with various abilities, not just the basic ones.
Additionally, parents who value children's interests will cost more to send them to learn outside-school classes. In order to meet children's needs, parents spend more money to help children attain the abilities or knowledge which should be taught in schools. For kids' future careers, basic skills cannot satisfy employers' hiring requirements. The phenomenon can lead more cost to taxpayers. For instance, there are tremendous businesses like movie industries seeking for designers and artists. If students only learn basic skills and lack in aesthetic ability, they cannot take the job. The worse thing is people need to pay more tax to help provide the classes for the unemployed to gain the ability.
Proponents of the movement think the policy can provide equality to evaluate students. But, from my perspective, the conventional education approach emphasize high test scores and grades cannot measure students' true abilities with a completed image. Students who have prior exposure to materials usually have good scores. But, we cannot prove that students who have lower scores of tests have less understanding of basic knowledge or deem them as less potential.
Consequently, I think the movement will not be beneficial to educational progress. It restricts schools' curriculum, makes it monotonous and students' creativity and artistic abilities will be ignored. Parents and taxpayers will spend more assisting the young adults to cultivate their interests and useful ability.