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

The author argues that nation should mandate all of its pupils to study national curriculum instead of allowing states or regions to design their own syllabus. A core curriculum would definitely help to serve some useful purposes, however states or schools must be allowed to augment the curriculum according to specific requirements of their region.

Certainly, having a national curriculum has its own advantages. Foremost, it will act as a leveler for all the public and private schools. Students will be equally and adequately prepared for the university entrance test such as SATs, ACTs, JEE, etc. This would ensure that schools who teach with a focus on entrance tests do not have an advantage over those oriented towards projects and exploration based learning. Beyond this, a national syllabus would be a guarantee that students entering colleges have same foundation level from where colleges can build upon to nurture them into respective professionals. Moreover, such a curriculum can be used to foster a feeling of national identity and unity among students. For example, a well-thought syllabus on humanities can disseminate certain national fundamental values such as fraternity, liberty, tolerance, etc. Similarly, reading national history will inculcate a sense of pride and patriotism among all students alike.

However, an inflexible curriculum has its own implications and limitations. Firstly, it doesn’t cater to the different abilities and interests of the students. In many countries, students who score low in school exams are given an opportunity to pursue occupational subjects, whereas high-scoring students can opt for advanced STEM courses. While this policy definitely serves the requirement of a diverse workforce, a rigid national syllabus would have no scope for it. Moreover, students with interests and aptitude for specific areas such as music, painting, etc. would either be deprived of such pursuits or will have to settle for a very basic course level as delineated by the national curriculum.

Furthermore, for a diverse country, implementation of the author’s recommendation will have further ramifications and limitations. While inclusion of national history in the curriculum is beneficial, it could be at the cost of regional history of states. Students can be deprived from studying topics on local culture, geography, weather, etc. Similarly, nationalizing the syllabus also entail a common language of instruction which is difficult to select in the absence of a national language - as in India. While English can still be used as a unifying language, getting hold of it would be extremely difficult at the initial level for students from non-English speaking families. Moreover, though a national curriculum can be used to inculcate core democratic values, it can also act as a tool for the ruling political party to peddle their agenda. Therefore, the very idea of a national curriculum, let alone implementation, may face fierce objection from rival and regional politicians and other stakeholders.

Finally, for big and developing countries such a policy invokes a hefty investment and substantial efforts. Building a national board would require that all the teachers, schools, and students are at a standard level. Therefore, hundreds of thousands of teachers ought to be trained so that they can transfer knowledge effectively. Similarly, an astronomical numbers of rural schools, lacking even benches and toilets, would need to be equipped with modern laboratories. Students who have never had access to a computer may be required to be trained in computer programming. Hence, many of those countries may either be unwilling or unable to implement the author’s proposition.

Yet, the advantages of a national curriculum can be reaped while averting drawbacks using some modifications. Firstly, only the high-school curriculum should be nationalized. This will ensure a lesser number of students and teachers requiring additional training and focus. Secondly, only specific subjects must have a uniform syllabus; states, and even schools, must have the autonomy and room to include electives. This will ensure that regional relevance is addressed in the curriculum. Lastly, the design of a national curriculum must be left to independent experts from different regions rather than bureaucrats or government advisors. This will serve to preserve a country’s socio-political diversity.

In conclusion, while a national curriculum ensures equal opportunities for all the students and fosters national integrity, a rigidly implemented policy would have deleterious effect on a country’s socio-political diversity and economy. Therefore, such a curriculum must have scope for addition of subjects at local level; be implemented only for high-schools and be designed by independent professionals.