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.
细数当下小幸福:三个方法重拾对生活的热情
国内英语资讯:Senior CPC official calls for more outstanding literary, artistic works
瑞士获评2013年最佳出生地
中国未来的顶级模特从T台转向网络
对中国的雇主来说 求职者“外表”很重要
《一九四二》:冯小刚的成与败
应征入伍:大学生的新出路?
培养女孩为富翁的保镖
英国NHS体系遭批 被指抛弃老年人
英国九成中年女性掌管家庭财政大权
教育孩子最好的方法
沙特推女性电子追踪系统 离境与否尽在掌握
化妆也显瘦:7个让你看起来很瘦的化妆小窍门
研究:老板更爱雇佣自己喜欢的员工
《生活大爆炸》穿衣经之女人的衣橱
婚外情扯出网络隐私安全
姚明给中国篮球开药方
研究发现:女人更爱偷瞄女人
英国大学反驳教育不公论
英国一中学说谎不受罚 称锻炼交流能力
国际素食日:吃素的十大好处
中东男子热衷胡须移植
中国房地产开发商进军美国楼市
鸟叔《江南Style》超比伯YouTube登顶
原因何在?诺贝尔科学奖,国人无法言说的痛
国内英语资讯:U.S. should immediately cancel Taiwan arms sales plan: spokesperson
新版中国护照内页中国地图引越南抗议
英国女子检查背痛时得知怀孕 6小时后诞下女婴
有爱短片:1000张照片记录妻子的怀孕历程
贝克汉姆完美告别美国大联盟 携三子温情谢幕
不限 |
英语教案 |
英语课件 |
英语试题 |
不限 |
不限 |
上册 |
下册 |
不限 |