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

A famous saying "our children are our future" is very true and therefore the emphasis of education of students is regarded as very important. Education is a means for future employment and creation of useful and civilized citizens. Parents would want to send their child to the best schools in order to obtain the best quality education. In order to ensure that there is similar standards in education, a standardized national curriculum for all students until they enter college is recommended. There are merits of such a recommendation, however, there are also negative aspects that would affect the quality of education. This essay will evaluate the advantages of such a recommendation.

Currently, there is no standardized cirriculum in the United States. Each school, private and public, in different states follow their own curriculums. This leads to a lot of variance between the quality of education. Private schools provide more extra-curriculars as well as more supplemental and higher difficulty level classes. On the other hand, public schools may discount on such programs and rely on the rudimentary lessons. Furthermore, the variance between public schools is wide. Public schools in different states have different educational boards, which dictate what goes into the curriculums. Therefore, with a standardized national curriculum, this difference in educational standards and quality would be less starked.

Despite the merits of having a standardized national curriculum, there is a disadvantage of having rigid curriculums that do not cater to all groups of students. The recommendation states that all of its students in the nation should undergo a national circulum, which includes fast-learners and slow- learners. For instance, a child with mild attention deficit disorder would not be able to follow a normal paced class as he or she would be very distracted or disinterested and thus would lose out in learning. There is a need for specialized programs for children who learn slower as more patience and attention is required. Likewise, there are children who are very gifted and would not find the standardized curriculum challenging and may lose interest.

Similarly, in order to cater for different learning paced students, it is disadvantageous that the recommendation states that the students should follow the same national curriculum until entering college. Some children are "late bloomers", that is they are slow learners at the beginning but able to learn at a relatively normal pace later in their teenage years. Having the same curriculum when they are younger, such as in elementary and middle school, would not cater to these Curriculums like the Scholarly Aptitude Test (SAT) in the United States, an entrance exam to measure the aptitude of a student is a good example of having a standardized curriculum in high school and also provides as a adequate method of accessing standards of students across the nation.

In conclusion, a national curriculum does provide benefits such as ensuring that education quality is equal across the nation, thus providing more equal chances between children in the nation. However, the disadvantages of not catering for different types of children, in terms of their learning ability would support my choice of not having such a curriculum.