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

Noted scientist Albert Einstein has famously said that every child is a genius. But, if we judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will spend its whole life thinking itself as stupid.
Every child, every individual is different, and thus, when it is said that a nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college, it is but natural for me to, in general, disagree, with this recommendation for the following three reasons.
To begin with, a curriculum includes all academic and non-academic activities experienced by a student in an educational institution. So far as the current trend goes, a curriculum is designed based on a multiple of considerations such as the academic needs of the student, their socio-cultural context, the reuirements of the local communitiy and the availibility of resources, to name a few. With this in mind, if we consider implementing a common curriculum nationwide, the local community requirements or the needs of children of a particular community are likely to be ignored in the case. For instance, perhaps children of a particular aboriginal community in central India require more time to learn the basics of English or Hindi language compared to children in other parts of the country, in which case, they will need more time with these subjects. However, such a flexible provision may not be possible in a common curriculum. Additionally, in a country as diverse as India, individuals in every region have a disparate mother-tongue, which is a meduim of instruction in many schools. In such a case, this recommendation will put most sudents, who learn in their native tongue in the early years, at a great disadvantage.
Secondly, a curriculum includes not only the academic and non-academic activities, but also the pedagogy of teaching-learning process. We know that there are three-types of learners - visual, auditory and kinesthetic and tutors usually tailor their content as per the requirements of the students in their classroom. In case of a common nationwide curriculum, these imrpovisations may not be possible. Again, there are a number of students, particularly who are differently abled, who require a very different approach - such as special teaching aids - for effective learning. In case if such children are also covered under the above recommendation, it is unlikely that a tutor will be able to do justice with them along with regular students in a regular classroom, and the differently able students are bound to suffer.
In defence of this recommendation, one may argue that all students need to have a common level of knowledge when they reach college. However, while one may grant it to be true, it is not necessary that they all gain that common level of knowledge using the same methodologies. They may use their own pace to learn things in their own ways - learning by doing or learning by observation or imitation, or howsoever it suits a child the best. Alternately, what may be done to ensure that all students starting the college are at the same level of understa, is adiministering some generalised tests (such as the GRE), that confirms that every student who is eligible for college has a basic level of knowledge required to pursue the courses.
Thus, in conclusion, the recommendation, in general seems to be flawed, primarily due to the individual differences among the students. Human being are not robots and schools are not factories, and thus, a one-size fits all approach is not suitable for the teaching-learning process at the school-level.