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 claims that curricula in Elementary and Secondary schools should be the same on national level. I think this complex issue needs a deeper analysis in order to be able to stand behind a certain position. In my opinion, it is difficult to say that the nation should be exclusive in this matter, however I could neither claim that every community should be entirely free to choose what the educational content will be. I would most likely agree that the education before college should be based on a basic curriculum that is the same for every community, however some liberties should be given to each state in order to incite the development of diversity and open-mindedness.

Firstly it is important to consider who is the decision-maker in choosing what will be thought in schools. The answer to this question is evident - the ones who decide about curricula are the federal legislators. They are certainly not professionals in the fields of pedagogy and education. Therefore they are more likely to impose a curriculum that is in accordance with their own notions of what should be thought in schools.

Secondly, if the curriculum was uniform the essential goal of education - and that is to enlighten - would be put into question. By imposing absolute and unchangeable solutions for the course material in high schools we are primarily led by the principles that are not in accordance with the postulates of education - those principles are related to propaganda and dogma. This type of education could easily lead to banning any sort of material or information that the government would prefer to suppress.

The final reason why I think a homogeneous curriculum in high schools has negative consequences is because this way only the knowledge relevant to national interest is promoted. Instead, children should be given the opportunity to learn about the things that consider their community particularly. A good example would be California where children are at some point supposed to learn about the cultural diversities in their community. Moreover, this liberty gives space for pupils to be thought about the specificity of the community they belong to and therefore learn how to cherish their own local tradition and culture.

However, we should not undermine the importance of a basic curriculum that should be equal for everyone. For instance if the children weren't given equal education they would't have equal chances of getting to their desired universities. Similarly, if all pupils had the same level the university administrators would have known how to meet the needs of freshmen and that way to adapt the academic content offered to them.

In conclusion, I would like to underline once again the importance of considering both sides of this issue. In other words, I believe that some basic curriculum approved by professionals should exist and should definitely be equal for all pupils, but it shouldn't be absolute and constraining. Every community should be able to offer to their students the opportunity to learn about the typical local traditions or historical and cultural specificities of the community they belong to. Thus I fundamentally disagree with the speaker.