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 position

Already for years there are speculations about reforming the school system in a lot of countries including the United States. The leading example for all nations is of course Finland which consistently strands on the top spot in all global educational rankings, from math to grammar. They have a national curriculum that every student needs to follow until they enter college. Should other nations adopt this approach to education or isn't everything as bright as it seems? A scrutiny regarding this topic will be necessary to give a decent answer.

One the one hand, one can say that a national curriculum certainly has its plus sides. It provides a whole nation with the same knowledge, which creates a coherent pack of students with the same educational background. This makes it easier for colleges to adjust their classes, since they now exactly know with what previous knowledge students arrive. For the same reaon, this approach makes it easier to compare schools with each other. Having the same curriculum will make clear which schools offer a better education by comparing graduating and drop out percentages (although other factors influence these percentages as well). For students who need to transfer schools there is also a benefit. Instead of comparing all courses they had with the ones the new school offers, they will immediately fit in and be able to pick up exactly where they left. For comparing purposes, the national curriculum has without a doubt a benefit, ranging from cmparing individual students to whole schools.

On the other hand, a national curriculum may limit certain students in what they are able to achieve. By not offering the classes they would like to see, they might become demotivated and drop out of school. After all the point of education is to make students warm for studying, to trigger their interest in certain subjects. If a school fails to achieve this goal due to a forced national curriculum, that would be a pity. The student's willingness and eagerness to learn should come in the first place. However this is a valid argument, this approach suits more the one of a college or university, where a student can study what they want. With the necessary flexibility, a national curriculum might thus do the job for high school students.

What should not be forgotten is that a national curriculum alone will not get countries to the same international standards as Finland. However it may help, the true heart of education lies with the teachers. If the teachers are good and can get their point across, students will benefit greatly. Therefore one should take a look how teachers are looking against this national curriculum. If they agree, they will give their heart and soul for this program, resulting in an overall better education. If they oppose the reform, their teaching will most certainly deteriorate, leaving us with a possibly better school system, but with less educational classes due to demoralised teachers. Therefore the implementation of such a reform of the educational system should be agreed upon by the teaching community before government requires it.

In sum we can say that a national curriculum certainly has its benefits, enabling us to easily compare students and schools with each other. However there should be some flexibility in the program leaving the possibility to make minor adjustments to suit the learning interests of the student so as to keep him/her interested in learning. But after all the big question is if the teaching community agrees with the proposal, because they will determine the level of classes. A national curriculum will therefore be a succcess if the teachers are standing behind this reformation of education.