A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.
Nations should steer away from highly decentralized education systems and curriculum as it can result in inconsistent standards of education and inequality between students from wealthy neighborhoods and students from economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. These challenges are then compounded when most college entry admissions are dictated by nation-wide, standardized tests.
One of the primary reasons why a nation should have a standard curriculum, let alone a centralized education system, is equitable funding for schools. When nations, such as the United States, allow resources - in this case district income taxes - to dictate the level and rigor of a curriculum, then it results in significant inequality and disproportionate levels of education in the student population. Wealthy neighborhoods usually have the resources to invest in more rigorous and college-prep curriculums, whereas neighborhoods with socio-economic challenges are unable to afford rigorous programs - not because they cannot design them, but because they cannot afford teachers who can implement them. Better curriculums require better teachers and higher pay.
Decentralized curriculum systems pose a barrier to college entry because of student preparation, but also because it is inconsistent with national, college admission requirements. In the United States, although K-12 education is decentralized, the college admission process is centralized. This inconsistency usually results in students form wealthy schools being better prepared for the SAT/ACT, or other standardized tests used for college admissions.
There are benefits to a decentralized education system and curriculum as it can serve as a check to political influence. However, particularly in the United States, that is a result of a larger issue not necessarily linked to education, and the rigor or standard of a curriculum should not have to adapt to that. In the end, it is students from all backgrounds, who gain to lose from this inequality.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-29 | AlmeeC. | 58 | view |
| 2020-01-29 | lekuleku | 62 | view |
| 2020-01-23 | nikhil40507 | 50 | view |
| 2020-01-18 | greuela001 | 50 | view |
| 2020-01-18 | vineel | 58 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 401, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... who gain to lose from this inequality.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, so, then, whereas, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.5258426966 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.3162921348 53% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 33.0505617978 45% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 58.6224719101 60% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1728.0 2235.4752809 77% => OK
No of words: 293.0 442.535393258 66% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.8976109215 5.05705443957 117% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13729897018 4.55969084622 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.38164537981 2.79657885939 121% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 215.323595506 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.563139931741 0.4932671777 114% => OK
syllable_count: 540.9 704.065955056 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 20.2370786517 59% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 70.9300809875 60.3974514979 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.0 118.986275619 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.4166666667 23.4991977007 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.16666666667 5.21951772744 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.83258426966 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.165939186969 0.243740707755 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0598935909617 0.0831039109588 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0353295691131 0.0758088955206 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100951404581 0.150359130593 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0362620101637 0.0667264976115 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.6 14.1392134831 132% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.2 48.8420337079 62% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 7.92365168539 164% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.1743820225 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.24 12.1639044944 142% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.11 8.38706741573 121% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 100.480337079 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 11.8971910112 134% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.