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.
雅思写作范文:control of violence in media
雅思写作高分观点:younger generation know best
雅思写作高分观点:广告对社会的利与弊
雅思作文范文:是否应投资博物馆等事业
雅思写作范文:幸福的定义
雅思写作范文:不同人群学习的原因
雅思写作高分观点:电视在现代社会的角色
雅思写作范文集锦(网络版-3)
雅思写作8分范文:提高道理安全须用重典
雅思写作范文:电视报道犯罪和灾害
雅思写作范文:先天VS后天
雅思写作高分观点:死刑能震慑犯罪吗?
雅思写作范文:游客是否需要入乡随俗?
雅思写作范文:国家间差异消失的优缺点
雅思写作中的两种逻辑关系讲解
雅思写作范文集锦(网络版-1)
雅思写作范文:境外旅游的利弊
雅思写作范文:Environmental Protection
雅思写作思路分析:计算机能代替图书馆吗?
雅思写作7分范文:传统艺术是否应受被政府资助
雅思写作范文:Studying Abroad
雅思写作9分范文:关于大学教育
雅思写作范文:求职信(G类)
G类雅思大作文练习题目:议论文(下)
雅思写作范文集锦(网络版-6)
雅思写作高分观点:学生只应学书本知识?
雅思写作范文:Journalism
雅思写作范文集锦(网络版-2)
雅思写作范文:Punishments to criminals
雅思写作范文:富人帮助求人
不限 |
英语教案 |
英语课件 |
英语试题 |
不限 |
不限 |
上册 |
下册 |
不限 |