"A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they entercollege rather than allow schools in different parts of the nation to determine which academiccourses to offer."

The speaker would prefer a national curriculum for all children up until college instead of
allowing schools in different regions the freedom to decide on their own curricula. I agree
insofar as some common core curriculum would serve useful purposes for any nation. At the
same time, however, individual states and communities should have some freedom to
augment any such curriculum as they see fit; otherwise, a nation's educational system might
defeat its own purposes in the long tenn.

A national core curriculum would be beneficial to a nation in a number of respects. First of all,
by providing all children with fundamental skills and knowledge, a common core curriculum
would help ensure that our children grow up to become reasonably informed, productive
members of society. In addition, a common core curriculum would provide a predictable
foundation upon which college administrators and faculty could more easily build curricula and
select course materials for freshmen that are neither below nor above their level of educational
experience. Finally, a core curriculum would ensure that all school-children are taught core
values upon which any democratic society depends to thrive, and even survive--values such
as tolerance of others with different viewpoints, and respect for others.

However, a common curriculum that is also an exdusive one would pose certain problems,
which might outweigh the benefits, noted above. First of all, on what basis would certain
course work be included or excluded, and who would be the final decision- maker? In all
likelihood these decisions would be in the hands of federal legislators and regulators, who are
likely to have their own quirky notions of what should and should not be taught to
children--notions that may or may not reflect those of most communities, schools, or parents.
Besides, government officials are notoriously susceptible to influence-peddling by lobbyists
who do not have the best interests of society's children in mind.

Secondly, an official, federally sanctioned curriculum would facilitate the dissemination of
propaganda and other dogma which because of its biased and one-sided nature undermines
the very purpose of true education: to enlighten. I can easily foresee the banning of certain text
books, programs, and websites which provide information and perspectives that the
government might wish to suppress--as some sort of threat to its authority and power.
Although this scenario might seem far-fetched, these sorts of concerns are being raised
already at the state level.

Thirdly, the inflexible nature of a uniform national curriculum would preclude the inclusion of
programs, courses, and materials that are primarily of regional or local significance. For
example, California requires children at certain grade levels to learn about the history of
particular ethnic groups who make up the state's diverse population. A national curriculum
might not allow for this feature, and California's youngsters would be worse off as a result of
their ignorance about the traditions, values, and cultural contributions of all the people whose
citizenship they share.

Finally, it seems to me that imposing a uniform national curriculum would serve to
undermine the authority of parents over their own children, to even a greater extent than
uniform state laws currently do. Admittedly, laws requiring parents to ensure that their children
receive an education that meets certain minimum standards are well-justified, for the reasons
mentioned earlier. However, when such standards are imposed by the state rather than at the
community level parents are left with far less power to participate meaningfully in the
decision-making process. This problem would only be exacerbated were these decisions left
exclusively to federal regulators.

In the final analysis, homogenization of elementary and secondary education would amount
to a double-edged sword. While it would serve as an insurance policy against a future
populated with illiterates and ignoramuses, at the same time it might serve to obliterate cultural
diversity and tradition. The optimal federal approach, in my view, is a balanced one that
imposes a basic curriculum yet leaves the rest up to each state--or better yet, to each
community.