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.
The speaker would prefer a national curriculum for all children up until college instead of allowing schools in different regions the freedom to decide on their own curricula. I agree insofar as some common core curriculum would serve useful purposes for any nation. At the same time, however, individual states and communities should have some freedom to augment any such curriculum as they see fit; otherwise, a nations educational system might defeat its own purposes in the long tenn.
A national core curriculum would be beneficial to a nation in a number of respects. First of all, by providing all children with fundamental skills and knowledge, a common core curriculum would help ensure that our children grow up to become reasonably informed, productive members of society. In addition, a common core curriculum would provide a predictable foundation upon which college administrators and faculty could more easily build curricula and select course materials for freshmen that are neither below nor above their level of educational experience. Finally, a core curriculum would ensure that all school-children are taught core values upon which any democratic society depends to thrive, and even survive--values such as tolerance of others with different viewpoints, and respect for others.
However, a common curriculum that is also an exdusive one would pose certain problems, which might outweigh the benefits, noted above. First of all, on what basis would certain course work be included or excluded, and who would be the final decision- maker? In all likelihood these decisions would be in the hands of federal legislators and regulators, who are likely to have their own quirky notions of what should and should not be taught to children--notions that may or may not reflect those of most communities, schools, or parents. Besides, government officials are notoriously susceptible to influence-peddling by lobbyists who do not have the best interests of societys children in mind.
Secondly, an official, federally sanctioned curriculum would facilitate the dissemination of propaganda and other dogma which because of its biased and one-sided nature undermines the very purpose of true education: to enlighten. I can easily foresee the banning of certain text books, programs, and websites which provide information and perspectives that the government might wish to suppress--as some sort of threat to its authority and power. Although this scenario might seem far-fetched, these sorts of concerns are being raised already at the state level.
Thirdly, the inflexible nature of a uniform national curriculum would preclude the inclusion of programs, courses, and materials that are primarily of regional or local significance. For example, California requires children at certain grade levels to learn about the history of particular ethnic groups who make up the states diverse population. A national curriculum might not allow for this feature, and Californias youngsters would be worse off as a result of their ignorance about the traditions, values, and cultural contributions of all the people whose citizenship they share.
Finally, it seems to me that imposing a uniform national curriculum would serve to undermine the authority of parents over their own children, to even a greater extent than uniform state laws currently do. Admittedly, laws requiring parents to ensure that their children receive an education that meets certain minimum standards are well-justified, for the reasons mentioned earlier. However, when such standards are imposed by the state rather than at the community level parents are left with far less power to participate meaningfully in the decision-making process. This problem would only be exacerbated were these decisions left exclusively to federal regulators.
In the final analysis, homogenization of elementary and secondary education would amount to a double-edged sword. While it would serve as an insurance policy against a future populated with illiterates and ignoramuses, at the same time it might serve to obliterate cultural diversity and tradition. The optimal federal approach, in my view, is a balanced one that imposes a basic curriculum yet leaves the rest up to each state--or better yet, to each community.
雅思口语范文:A Car or Vehicle
雅思口语素材:好句推荐-生命的舞者
雅思口语天天练:谐趣十足的女性称呼
雅思口语Part 3中易被忽视的三个细节
盘点雅思口语学习的三个阶段
雅思口语高分句型第十二期
如何利用听中练习提高雅思口语水平
雅思口语高分句型第十一期
雅思口语分类词汇:教育类词汇
雅思口语范文:A skill you recently learned
盘点雅思口语Part 1中最难的十题
雅思口语第三部分最易被忽视的三个细节
雅思口语高分句型第二期
雅思口语高分句型第五期
如何有效地提高雅思口语水平?
雅思口语分类词汇:电影类词汇
雅思口语高分句型第四期
雅思口语Part 2中易被忽视的两个细节
雅思口语高分句型第六期
自己练习雅思口语的有效方法
雅思口语考试中需要熟知的高分句型
雅思口语高分句型第九期
雅思口语素材:名人名言-爱因斯坦名言
雅思口语高分句型第一期
浅析三大英语从句在雅思口语中的作用
雅思口语素材:名人名言-霍普金斯
盘点雅思口语Part 3中最难的十题
雅思口语高分句型第七期
雅思口语考试需要特别注意的6点
雅思口语素材:名人名言-奥巴马致辞
| 不限 |
| 英语教案 |
| 英语课件 |
| 英语试题 |
| 不限 |
| 不限 |
| 上册 |
| 下册 |
| 不限 |