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 your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting yo

The education of youth is one of the most important considerations for any country. The young students of today become the citizens of tomorrow. Thus the question of how to educate young people is a major educational and social question. Some argue that a nation should require all students to study the same national curriculum until college. This concept, however, is arguably rather restrictive, and should be advised against.

A possible argument for a common national curriculum required of all students often include making sure that all students are educated to similar standards. However, we see in the American education system today that this is already not the case even with a common curriculum implemented. While common educational achievements are a worthwhile goal, in many cases it is completely impractical. For example, in school districts in impoverished areas such as Detroit and Camden, students who are technically in fourth grade have the reading and math skills of first graders. While this reflects on separate failures in the educational system, such as funding, it also reflects on the failures of a school district too focused on national curricula. Students in already impoverished areas are rushed through difficult material by schools’ fears of not meeting standards. This rather creates both students that do not know what they ought to, and a failure of implementation of national curricula.

For many such students, national curricula may not be the answer to a better life. Many students have other talents that general curricula do not support, such as art. It is impossible to expect every student to have the same level of musical or visual artistry. However, such development in certain students would help them tremendously even if it does not adhere to a national curriculum. Perhaps one student does not need to learn much more than algebra to live a happy life, but would like more instruction in painting.

This idea of following one’s passions can apply to all students, in fact. If a student could only study one curriculum up until college, a student who is much more interested in science could be cheated out of science and math courses that they would have liked to take otherwise. A student interested in literature may not be able to study writing, composition, and english as much as they would like to. By being forced down a pattern of study, many students would be less inclined to pursue their interests, if not completely stopped due to coursework already put in place by curricula. Gifted students would not be able to fully develop their interests and gifts, and may end up frustrated and unmotivated by lack of support.

Understandably, the point of a national curriculum is to develop all the skills today’s youth will need before college. The point of education is similarly to develop today’s youth. However, just because the intents intersect does not mean the results do. National curricula are stifling. They limit the development of already lagging students by creating secondary effects of rushed learning, and limit the development of gifted students by limiting the ability for them to develop interests. While one may argue in the case of more fortunate gifted children, that they can develop these skills in college, this is arguably too late. Stifling learning systems would limit creativity, until it takes college for students to think outside the box again. Ultimately the point of education should be to give students skills they will use for a lifetime. Every student acquires these skills at different paces. And every student’s life will end up different in some way or another that a national curriculum cannot account for. We should, rather, focus on providing opportunities for each student to reach their individual goals.