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."
Pro's (against back to basic)
Cost More Money
Ruin Importance of art and other creative courses
Restrict curriculum
Con's(back to basic)
Cheaper for school
more time to concentrate on the basic
Improve the basic skills
I disagree with proponents that curriculum should concentrate only on reading, writing and mathematics skills. Even though the "Back to Basics" movement is cheaper for schools and helps them to reduce their budgets, but schools have to invest more money on inventive programs in order for students to be more creative. This movement generates more time for student to spend on basic skills, because of eliminating other subjects from their schedule, but it ruins the importance of art and other resourceful courses in students' agenda. It may improve just the basic learning skills of students, but for sure restricts curriculum in educational systems.
Some followers think that the "Back to Basics" movement is easier on school budgets and saves millions of dollars for tax payers. They believe schools can use this money for other educational purposes, which would benefit students in the future. In my opinion spending less money on extra curriculums would actually cost more money for taxpayers, because they have to pay more money in the future for the students after they graduate from school. For example, students that don't take extra curriculums cannot compete with other students with more creativity in their curriculum in the job market. The job market is very challenging and hires artistic people however; graduates with more inventiveness have more chance to survive. Unemployed graduates burden to the welfare of the state, resulting in taxpayers paying more taxes to support these individuals, rather than paying for extra curriculums which can help them to compete in the job market.
Proponents also believe that this movement provides more time for students to concentrate on the basics, which makes students more prepare for their future. They think that reading, writing and mathematics are enough knowledge for students to survive in our society. I believe that this basic knowledge are not enough to survive in this society, even though students have more time, but they do not have anything else to do except reading, writing and math studies, and if they do not participate in extra curriculum activities they lose their interest to make difference in this world. This movement ruins the importance of art and other creative courses which are proved by successful artists, who use extra curriculum at school in order to bloom their talents. If schools do not offer extra curriculums classes students cannot recognize their strength, and become confuse in this puzzling society. For instance, famous artists with great creativity like Beyoncé started her singing when school offered singing class, so she found out about her talent. To ruin the creativity of students is as simple as not offering extra curriculums classes , so students can go back to the time since has long passed, and not recognize their own strong point.
Fans of this movement also believe , it helps improve basic skills of students, which these skills are the fundamental of all majors in school. In my view, these skills are essential for students but just focusing on those skills and not knowing about other subjects and options makes curriculum restricted. Students need freedom of thought to be successful in this world, but these restrictions make them narrow minded and it ruins their imagination. Restricted curriculum violate freedom of thought of any individual at school, so students do not get any chance to present themselves based on their creativity. For illustration, students with restricted curriculum when they graduate from school, less likely to get the job in industries that need creativity to be successful. Curriculums with limited options are unexciting for students and cannot motivate them to compete in this challenging society.
Finally I think this movement attempt to take back our educational systems to years before, which does not respect the freedom of the individual thoughts. This movement even cost more money for school but it worth to invest, because is more beneficial for students in job market and education systems and better for state budget. It ruins the importance of art and creativity of students, and makes students confuse in order to understand their strong points. Restricted curriculum is another problem this movement creates which, effect students and overall society.
Pro's (against back to basic)
Cost More Money
Ruin Importance of art and other creative courses
Restrict curriculum
Con's(back to basic)
Cheaper for school
more time to concentrate on the basic
Improve the basic skills
I disagree with proponents that curriculum should concentrate only on reading, writing and mathematics skills. Even though the "Back to Basics" movement is cheaper for schools and helps them to reduce their budgets, but schools have to invest more money on inventive programs in order for students to be more creative. This movement generates more time for student to spend on basic skills, because of eliminating other subjects from their schedule, but it ruins the importance of art and other resourceful courses in students' agenda. It may improve just the basic learning skills of students, but for sure restricts curriculum in educational systems.
Some followers think that the "Back to Basics" movement is easier on school budgets and saves millions of dollars for tax payers. They believe schools can use this money for other educational purposes, which would benefit students in the future. In my opinion spending less money on extra curriculums would actually cost more money for taxpayers, because they have to pay more money in the future for the students after they graduate from school. For example, students that don't take extra curriculums cannot compete with other students with more creativity in their curriculum in the job market. The job market is very challenging and hires artistic people however; graduates with more inventiveness have more chance to survive. Unemployed graduates burden to the welfare of the state, resulting in taxpayers paying more taxes to support these individuals, rather than paying for extra curriculums which can help them to compete in the job market.
Proponents also believe that this movement provides more time for students to concentrate on the basics, which makes students more prepare for their future. They think that reading, writing and mathematics are enough knowledge for students to survive in our society. I believe that this basic knowledge are not enough to survive in this society, even though students have more time, but they do not have anything else to do except reading, writing and math studies, and if they do not participate in extra curriculum activities they lose their interest to make difference in this world. This movement ruins the importance of art and other creative courses which are proved by successful artists, who use extra curriculum at school in order to bloom their talents. If schools do not offer extra curriculums classes students cannot recognize their strength, and become confuse in this puzzling society. For instance, famous artists with great creativity like Beyoncé started her singing when school offered singing class, so she found out about her talent. To ruin the creativity of students is as simple as not offering extra curriculums classes , so students can go back to the time since has long passed, and not recognize their own strong point.
Fans of this movement also believe , it helps improve basic skills of students, which these skills are the fundamental of all majors in school. In my view, these skills are essential for students but just focusing on those skills and not knowing about other subjects and options makes curriculum restricted. Students need freedom of thought to be successful in this world, but these restrictions make them narrow minded and it ruins their imagination. Restricted curriculum violate freedom of thought of any individual at school, so students do not get any chance to present themselves based on their creativity. For illustration, students with restricted curriculum when they graduate from school, less likely to get the job in industries that need creativity to be successful. Curriculums with limited options are unexciting for students and cannot motivate them to compete in this challenging society.
Finally I think this movement attempt to take back our educational systems to years before, which does not respect the freedom of the individual thoughts. This movement even cost more money for school but it worth to invest, because is more beneficial for students in job market and education systems and better for state budget. It ruins the importance of art and creativity of students, and makes students confuse in order to understand their strong points. Restricted curriculum is another problem this movement creates which, effect students and overall society.