"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 posi

National institutions which set curriculums for schools and arrange books or lessons for students who are studying in the school should pay attention meticulously to provide a curriculum which can include national priorities and local values at the same time. Some countries require all of the students to study same national curriculum all around the country, in contrast, some other countries that are more democratic will let schools set themselves curriculum rather than a comprehensive curriculum. But in my personal view which one is the option that national organizations of educations should provide for students is the second one, therefore I disagree with the statement proposed in the question.

Someone may argue that, political instruction of country will encounter with bedlam and will become chaotic because each school will have its specific curriculum without considering a comprehensive purpose which all schools should pursue, but the fact is that in country that each province has its own culture and its own history, people are seeking ways to maintain their values and it is absolutely conspicuous that having a region-specific curriculum for students would work very well to maintain harmonious region. In order to explain my point, I have to example some countries like Iran which have a national curriculum for students and all students regardless their region’s ethics, culture, history and geographical characteristics should study lessons that aren’t confirming their values. Iran has 25 provinces that people are talking in at least 25 different languages and accent, hence cultures of a city is different to its adjacent cities and as a result, they won’t have the same culture or same history. People of these cities in order to maintain their values need to study some lessons in their own language.

In some aspects having a national curriculum is good like teaching students in the same manner that will cause some kind of easiness for students who want to travel to other cities and study in other schools outside their own city, but by weighing cons and pros of these kinds of programs it will become apparent that national organizations of educations should provide some general lessons for the whole country, courses like Chemistry, Mathematics or Physics but in specific courses which are region-specific, national organizations of educations should provide specific courses at the same time with the same lesson that students in the whole country are studying. As an example, course of literature or history should be divided to two parts; one part must have general aspects of culture of country and one part should be specific for the region, otherwise students won’t like their courses and by the passage of time voices of them will rise to a point that they will want to change the whole system of education.

These kinds of programs which aren’t uniform in all parts of the country and have specific considerations shouldn’t halt before entering college and in whole years of education, all of the educational institutions should provide region-specific courses, due to the fact that by this way they can increase students’ enthusiasm to pursue their education. This will be the true notion of the democratic system of education in the country and by opposing these kinds of programs; national curriculums will lose their strength in what extent that no student will be likely to continue education.

Therefore, I disagree with the statement and I believe that having a same national curriculum won’t be reasonable and won’t work for all parts of the country.