Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
A Nation Should Require All Of Its Students To Study The Same National Curriculum Until They Enter College. - With Free Essay Review
"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."
National curriculum ensures a balance in the process of teaching and learning which includes the subjects taught, the knowledge skills and understanding required in each subject, standardization in each subject and in reporting the progress of a child. Some people are of the opinion that a nation requires its students to study the same curriculum in schools. Others, however, argue that every school has the right to choose their own curriculum. I agree with the former statement because of the following reasons.
First of all, National curriculum establishes a common educational front in all schools which allows state to state comparison. For example if a student from one state has to move to another state because of obvious reasons, it wouldn’t be a problem for him/her in getting admission depending on merit. In the absence of a national curriculum such students find it difficult in moving out of one state because of difference in the subjects taught and the methods adopted in assessing the progress of a student.
Secondly, with the introduction of a national curriculum the students will be exposed to greater variety of curriculum activities like practical works in various subjects, wide ranges of subjects, various methods of assessment and new approaches to learning like record keeping. For example introduction of various methods of assessment and record keeping help the teacher to see how well or badly the students are doing in their studies. Also the teachers can she see how the slow children are performing in the class.
Those against the national curriculum argue that it might put more pressure on teachers and children. Also the non-availability of trained teachers and decreased flexibility in planning the curriculum can be considered as the disadvantages. But by giving proper training to teaching staff and decreasing the work pressure on them as well as students such drawbacks can be curbed to some extent. However having a national curriculum helps to assess the students in a whole nation with the same yardstick, it helps in students moving from one state to another for study purposes, teachers can identify slower children and give more attention to them, and improve the grasping and thinking power of students with the help of practical works.
Therefore I believe that every nation should have a standardized curriculum for its students and I strongly support it.
Your first argument, which considers the circumstance in which a student moves from one school to another school, is a fairly common argument in response to this prompt. Usually, one argues that a national curriculum is advantageous to the student who must change schools because the student will have the same educational background as students at the new school, and so will not find the transition difficult from an educational point of view. The last sentence of your second paragraph implicitly makes this argument. It would be better, I think, to make the argument explicit. Instead of (or in addition to) pointing out the difficulty faced by students who change schools, explicitly state how and why having a national curriculum solves that problem. It might be worth noting, however, that it doesn't solve the problem entirely. Schools that share a curriculum do not necessarily share the same pedagogical approach.
Your second argument is not as compelling, if only because it does not go without saying that a national curriculum will offer a greater variety of subjects or activities than would any other curriculum. It's also not clear why you think a national curriculum would help teachers in the way you specify. One reason that this is not clear, of course, is that you don't explain the reasoning that supports your opinion.
Finally, your consider possible objections to a national curriculum. The argument here is also not clear. You don't explain, for example, why you think (or why others might think) a national curriculum might "put more pressure on teachers and children”; you also don't explain why "non-availability of trained teachres" might be more of a problem if there were a national curriculum than it would otherwise be. It is a good idea to consider possible objections to your position, but the objections need to be, or appear to be, reasonable, and so you need to explain why they are, or appear to be, reasonable.