A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.

The issue of whether a nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college is a contentious one. While each side has its strengths and weaknesses, I believe that students should follow the same curriculum till they enter college, because the same curriculum would be effective in maintaining standards of education all over the nation. Furthermore, having the same curriculum would mitigate the discrepancies of grading the students before they enter college, and it would be easy to add and mandate syllabus that can teach national history and environmental awareness which are very essential for the betterment of society.

First, having the same curriculum all over the nation will be effective in maintaining the standards of education. In rural areas where the awareness of education is low or where people give less importance to education, it is beneficial to follow the national curriculum. For example, if there is a local city which does not have teachers who are not capable of creating and following a curriculum of their own, a standard national level curriculum can decrease their burden. Furthermore, having a single curriculum will make it easy to maintain higher standards of education all over the nation because every topic can be scrutinised and maintained by the brightest minds across the country. Therefore, it will be more beneficial to follow the same curriculum across the nation.

Second, there would be no discrepancies or imbalances while comparing students across the places if they follow the same curriculum. For example, it is unethical to compare two students from different backgrounds of education given their dissimilarities. As students compete across the country for national wide colleges, evaluating them is very difficult if they don’t follow the same curriculum. Therefore, following a single national curriculum can bring all the students onto a single platform where they can be evaluated effectively and impartially.

Third, I think a single curriculum is easy to add and mandate syllabus that can teach national history and environmental awareness which are very essential for the betterment of society. I believe adding these topics to the curriculum would be more effective in teaching students right from their young age. The life of a person who knows about environment and national history will be different from someone who does not have this knowledge. For example, a student can learn from the past by studying history, and knowledge of environmental can help him to move forward in life without hindering the environment. Therefore, I believe this knowledge has a significant impact on the society. Hence, having a single curriculum can ease up the hassle of adding and mandating the essential syllabus.

Language is the way a person thinks, and it is hazardous to neglect the mother tongue. Some may argue that a national curriculum can suppress the local languages. This point is flawed because having a national level curriculum is not related to the suppression of local languages. As the national curriculum only mandates science and arts curriculum, local languages can be mandated at the respective state level. Furthermore, the student can take advantage of both the worlds by studying arts and science from the national curriculum and local languages which are mandated by the state.

In conclusion, effective maintenance of standards can be achieved, students can be compared without any impartiality and can easily add and mandate syllabus of national importance and environmental awareness. For these reasons, students should follow the same national curriculum until they enter college.