Most countries in the Western world have developed public school-systems that provide very similar or identical curricula within their borders to all students. Though this incurs some advantages on both the teahers and the students, the problems that arise from such a practice far outweigh the positives. Thus, nations should not enforce a homogenous, identical program of study on all of its students and teachers.
While school curricula should be monitored by the national government (for instance, its ministry of education), the minutiae of the study programs should not be enforced. Rather, governments should offer general guidelines and a wide area of topics in each field from which a teacher can choose, in accordance with the community. There would be several advantages of adopting such a system. Firstly, such protean and adaptable programs would account for cultural, regional, and community-based diversity. This would be especially true for subjects in the social sciences and the humanities. For example, while it is important that students are familiar with the basic history of the nation in which they reside, it is equally important that students from different ethnic, cultural, and regional backgrounds be able to study their own histories. Subscribing a homogenous history program to the entire nation, and enforcing historical study as a monolithic experience across the board, would be inhibit that nation's diversity. The melting-pot ideal that ultimately seeks to create one national identity has long been found wanting by sociologists, anthropologists, and psychologists; it does not work. Rather, it would be more beneficial both to the individual students and to the country as a whole to embrace diversity. In the classroom, a homogenous school curricula would be inimical diversity.
Indeed, enabing diverse discourses and allowing for differences is also important on the individual level. Different students have different strengths and weaknesses, and forcing every child to follow the exact same program of study could be harmful to children's sense of accomplishment and their passion for learning. A unified, single program for all students seemingly creates equality, but it is important to consider the ways in which this equality is merely an illusion. People have different capabilities, proclivities, and interests, and once again--this diversity should be embraced rather than quelched. Every child deserves equal access to high-quality education; this point in no way contested by this argument. The easy solution is to create a uniform curricula, as it generates this false sense of equality. However, enabling both students, and, in fact, their teachers, some freedom in devising the study-programs would be highly beneficial. Both teachers and students would be more engaged in the material, resulting in better teachers and better students.
It is true that one of the main benefits incurred by uniform curricula is that students arrive to college with the same academic background. However, we should ask ourselves whether such uniformity is necessary, and if it is conducive to the development of both the students on a personal level, and as part of the fabric that make up a nation's society. The answer to both, is no. As mentioned above, accounting for individual diversity and the diversitt of different communities is imperative. It is for this reason that many companies look for workers that represent a wide range of perspectives and with a wide range of interests and knowledge. Uniformity is noxious, and leads to a stagnant economy and society. Enabling a more versatile curriculum would therefore have a positive impact on the nation as a whole. Though perhaps more complocated to devise, the benefits of versatility in schools would inevitably seep into the nation's society.
Therefore, it would be advisable to allow for leniency and variance in planning a school curricula, rather than enforcing a uniform curriculum in an entire nation. Such a practice would produce better students, and ultimately, a m
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1007, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'nations'' or 'nation's'?
Suggestion: nations'; nation's
...across the board, would be inhibit that nations diversity. The melting-pot ideal that u...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 636, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to equal'
Suggestion: to equal
...her than quelched. Every child deserves equal access to high-quality education; this ...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 766, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'curriculum'?
Suggestion: curriculum
...he easy solution is to create a uniform curricula, as it generates this false sense of eq...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 338, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'nations'' or 'nation's'?
Suggestion: nations'; nation's
...nd as part of the fabric that make up a nations society. The answer to both, is no. As ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 932, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'nations'' or 'nation's'?
Suggestion: nations'; nation's
... schools would inevitably seep into the nations society. Therefore, it would be advi...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 228, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...roduce better students, and ultimately, a m
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, look, so, therefore, thus, while, for example, for instance, in fact, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.5258426966 149% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.4196629213 161% => OK
Conjunction : 29.0 14.8657303371 195% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 33.0505617978 115% => OK
Preposition: 72.0 58.6224719101 123% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3448.0 2235.4752809 154% => OK
No of words: 634.0 442.535393258 143% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.43848580442 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.01790360848 4.55969084622 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02818742743 2.79657885939 108% => OK
Unique words: 308.0 215.323595506 143% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.485804416404 0.4932671777 98% => OK
syllable_count: 1088.1 704.065955056 155% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 12.0 1.77640449438 676% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 31.0 20.2370786517 153% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.131605051 60.3974514979 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.225806452 118.986275619 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4516129032 23.4991977007 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.87096774194 5.21951772744 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 19.0 10.2758426966 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.83258426966 186% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.214113100221 0.243740707755 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0570451630572 0.0831039109588 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0770412844876 0.0758088955206 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.129053479433 0.150359130593 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0441365228631 0.0667264976115 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.1392134831 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.8420337079 87% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.27 12.1639044944 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.29 8.38706741573 111% => OK
difficult_words: 187.0 100.480337079 186% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.