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 your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting yo

Education is obviously imperative for the future of a society, so as the optimal educational curriculum so that potential of each individual is fully developed. Many countries like India, all students are required to study the same national curriculum until entering college. The above policy favors the idea of national curriculum for all its student before colleges, however, in my opinion, this policy is not exceptional case of a coin with to sides - pros and cons for the education of a nation.

I would like to start with the two most easily seen benefits of national curriculum. Firstly, a national curriculum would ensure that the efficient assessment of study quality gained in high school or lower is possible and straight forward through fair exams tested on the knowledge taught in all schools. If every schools or cluster of schools in different regions requires student to gain different knowledge, it will be very pricey and time-consuming, or even impossible, to do any necessary valuation of teach and study quality because the need of different papers for different curriculums and cross comparison between results from various schools or regions. Secondly, a national curriculum which a variety of courses from different fields and similar relative importance would make sure all students after high school are equipped with certain level of essential basis knowledge so that a student is potentially able to choose and do well in any major in colleges.

However, same curriculum for all students also means taking away a lot of freedom from student, who may be force to study the advances concepts in the courses in which they have never been interested and at the age that they may think that they have old enough to decide which course to study. A student determined to be an scientist, for instance, might want to focus, in his or her last two years of high school, on the science an not waste time, as that student might see it, on poetry and history so that they can prepare better for their colleges entrance exam which always examined their knowledge on relevant subjects but not all. Why should a government organization deny such students the right to prepare for their future potential field at the age that they are encourage to choose the path themselves? Could one not even argue that introducing some degree of specialization in the final few years of high school would have benefits for colleges (who might have better prepared student) and society generally?

Rather than adapt a rigid national curriculum for all student at high school, the curriculum should have some flexibility to give student freedom to choose some modules they would like to focus or interest as electives beside the mandatory courses , especially the last two years in high school. Many developed countries in the world like American and Singapore have been apply this scheme and so far it have been proved to be highly successfully.

In conclusion, requiring all students of a nation to study the same national curriculum until they enter college are beneficial in term of easy assessment of teaching and studying quality and consistency in knowledge gained after high school. However, this scheme would take away student freedom to focus on their interested subjects and precious time to prepare for their colleges. Therefore, a curriculum consisting of general subjects that similar to all students together with some optional modules which student can choose from as electives should be a better way to overcome above problems.