A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
What separates humans from animals is the distinct ability to pass on generations of knowledge to the next generation. The important process through which this is done is the education system. Right from learning to communicate, to articulate thoughts, to experiment everything is taught in schools. The authors point of view that a nation should standardize this process of knowledge sharing can in many ways prove harmful to our future generation.
Firstly standardization of curriculum would require states to include either irrelevant topics to their teaching or to exclude issues important to them. Any standardization would mostly be done on the majority requirement basis and not on the specific requirements of the students belonging to an area. In many poor countries the curriculum is widely different in the urban and rural areas and this is for reason. Students in the urban area are well to do and can afford going to college, they therefore are taught as per the requirements of an college for e.g. calculus, advanced physics etc. But the rural student's requirement from a school is different. They would rather learn and along with that learn skills like wielding, carpentering etc. Such skills would provide them an income and vocation if needed.
Secondly such standardization would leave no space for creative teaching. The focus will be on completing the set curriculum rather than going at a pace which suits the needs of the class. Also there would be no freedom for students to take up advanced studies in subjects they are more gifted with or to substitute subjects they find difficult with something more suited to their caliber. Educating is not merely passing on a set of facts to individuals, and the belief that if this process was standardized it would lead to better students is a fallacy.
Thirdly like the principle of demand and supply it is best to let the students decide on what their education should be like. If parents feel that their child shows a talent in sports they would want to enroll the child in a school which is not too rigorous on studies but focuses more on sports. Alternatively a child with potential in science the parents could opt for a school which gives importance to sciences and provides better exposure in that field.
In sum, to put a set a curriculum nationally amounts to an almost dictator like stance on education. While the notion behind it is to enforce the principle of equality for all, like no two peas in a pod are same, no two humans are the same. We all have different skills, abilities and brains. In order to utilize these qualities unique to each of us we would require unique curriculum. Though in the current scenario it is not possible the least we can do is to ensure that the authors dream of a national curriculum is not fulfilled.