Issue Topic:
A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college rather than allow schools in different parts of the nation to determine which academic courses to offer.".
__________
There's one claim that a nation should unify the curriculum for all students until they enter universities. However, same curriculum in all schools, from elementary institutions to high schools, in fact, is an irrational decision since it is an impairment and obstruction to education innovation, an opportunity deprivation of students and troubles to government.
Different institutions can contain diversified education direction, with the goal from average education to elite education, that all of them contribute to the further progress of academy and occupation. This is also an important result of education innovation that gave choices to students whose talent, maybe higher or lower than average young people, is not suitable for ordinary education. Imaging that if governors unified the curriculum, all educational institutions must follow all the courses in a same way, it would bring consequences that the some young people do not want to come across. Take occupation-oriented school as an example, such as STEM schools, in which most students aim at directly step into their job without consuming more budget, time and energy on next stage of education, so offering them ordinary courses set is no doubt contravene their original intention that focus on effective and specific learning. Thus, they cannot get the most needed technical abilities to meet their further career but to be the victims of this education policy that is only with prevailing curriculum. This scenario is not real for now, albeit, it would be the reality if forcefully intervene the natural development of education, which all of us do not mean to see.
Besides, curriculum unification would bring a series of troubles for governors. The most significant issue is to choose course in this curriculum, and be deeper, who can decide the principle to reserve or cancel a class, and whether this principle can satisfy the value of the whole public. For the question, the most possible answer is that government, the policy maker, possesses the right and then gathers a group of people to help them make this curriculum. It brings another complex and controversial argument, whose will the education should reflect. If government can compel all students study the same courses, does it implies that education should satisfy the tendency of current running party. From my aspect, most of us, the ordinary civilians, can not totally consent the value that aim of education serves for policy maker rather than free will of students and education institutions. Furthermore, four years or eight year later, will the policy be altered or continued? It is a common sense that growth of a generation of students takes more than a decade. Hence, reassurance of such a vital education policy can be last during an uninterrupted period of time is considerable factor to governors due to parties alternating is relatively more frequent in most democratic countries. Problems above are potential and critical challenges that would bother government as consequences of pushing policy of same curriculum to the nation.
To sum up, admittedly some benefits can be brought with the same curriculum, but the deeper and undesirable results would also come with this policy, and disadvantages overweight advantages, therefore it should be considered more discreetly before final decision is made.
___________________
I am not a native speaker, maybe there're a lot of mistakes in this essay. So any kind of comment will be appreciated.
A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college rather than allow schools in different parts of the nation to determine which academic courses to offer.".
__________
There's one claim that a nation should unify the curriculum for all students until they enter universities. However, same curriculum in all schools, from elementary institutions to high schools, in fact, is an irrational decision since it is an impairment and obstruction to education innovation, an opportunity deprivation of students and troubles to government.
Different institutions can contain diversified education direction, with the goal from average education to elite education, that all of them contribute to the further progress of academy and occupation. This is also an important result of education innovation that gave choices to students whose talent, maybe higher or lower than average young people, is not suitable for ordinary education. Imaging that if governors unified the curriculum, all educational institutions must follow all the courses in a same way, it would bring consequences that the some young people do not want to come across. Take occupation-oriented school as an example, such as STEM schools, in which most students aim at directly step into their job without consuming more budget, time and energy on next stage of education, so offering them ordinary courses set is no doubt contravene their original intention that focus on effective and specific learning. Thus, they cannot get the most needed technical abilities to meet their further career but to be the victims of this education policy that is only with prevailing curriculum. This scenario is not real for now, albeit, it would be the reality if forcefully intervene the natural development of education, which all of us do not mean to see.
Besides, curriculum unification would bring a series of troubles for governors. The most significant issue is to choose course in this curriculum, and be deeper, who can decide the principle to reserve or cancel a class, and whether this principle can satisfy the value of the whole public. For the question, the most possible answer is that government, the policy maker, possesses the right and then gathers a group of people to help them make this curriculum. It brings another complex and controversial argument, whose will the education should reflect. If government can compel all students study the same courses, does it implies that education should satisfy the tendency of current running party. From my aspect, most of us, the ordinary civilians, can not totally consent the value that aim of education serves for policy maker rather than free will of students and education institutions. Furthermore, four years or eight year later, will the policy be altered or continued? It is a common sense that growth of a generation of students takes more than a decade. Hence, reassurance of such a vital education policy can be last during an uninterrupted period of time is considerable factor to governors due to parties alternating is relatively more frequent in most democratic countries. Problems above are potential and critical challenges that would bother government as consequences of pushing policy of same curriculum to the nation.
To sum up, admittedly some benefits can be brought with the same curriculum, but the deeper and undesirable results would also come with this policy, and disadvantages overweight advantages, therefore it should be considered more discreetly before final decision is made.
___________________
I am not a native speaker, maybe there're a lot of mistakes in this essay. So any kind of comment will be appreciated.
