A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.
The success of a nation directly correlates to the education of its people as education is the determining factor in many societial outcomes, like college success and socioeconomic status. Still, when considering the approach of a nation to the educational system, it is imperative to focus on the individuals it seeks to serve. A prescriptive K-12 curriculum which does not allow for nuancy and diversity will ultimately diservice a nation as a whole because it does not meet the needs of different learning needs or unique lived experiences, and usurps the power from local communities.
To begin, a nation is made up of a rich conglomerate of diverse people with unique learning needs. Forcing all students to study the same nation curriculum would ultimately be a disservice because this top-down approach could not account for all of the unique needs of its people. For example, students with learning disabilities should not be expected to learn at the same pace and level as other students with a higher ability. Instead, teachers, administrators, and local law makers should have the reserved right to decide how to best serve their communities through careful pedagogical practice and observations in the classroom. A nation that revokes the right of local governments to govern is il equipped to remain flexible when working with a population of diverse learners.
To continue, people across a nation have varying lived experiences which directly impact their ability to make connections with curriculum lessons. It is necessary to remain sensitive to differing cultures by reflecting lived experiences in the curriculum. A prescriptive national curriculum will not account for the varying interests and experiences of individual learners. For example, local urban communities have different ideals then urban communities within a nation and will therefore respond to the curriculum differently, often times at the expense of those who do not relate to the given lessons. Instead, promoting culturally-relevant curricula based on the rich histories and lived experiences of local communicities would best serve students across a nation.
To conclude, celebrating the uniqueness of local communities as opposed to forcing them to conform to federal government standards is the best fit leading to college. When teachers, administrators, and local law makers are able to critically evaluate and improve their own curriculum, students are at a greater advantage entering college. If individual student needs and unique lived experiences are diliberately forgotten, families in local communities will eventually become warrisome of the nation's education system instead of having faith in it. Ulitmately, it is the responsibility of local communities to prepare students for college success through student-centered curriculum.
| 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 5, column 243, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...top-down approach could not account for all of the unique needs of its people. For example...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 495, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'nations'' or 'nation's'?
Suggestion: nations'; nation's
...will eventually become warrisome of the nations education system instead of having fait...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, so, still, then, therefore, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.5258426966 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 33.0505617978 45% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 58.6224719101 114% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 12.9106741573 39% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2419.0 2235.4752809 108% => OK
No of words: 432.0 442.535393258 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.59953703704 5.05705443957 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55901411391 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.22062207501 2.79657885939 115% => OK
Unique words: 209.0 215.323595506 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.483796296296 0.4932671777 98% => OK
syllable_count: 781.2 704.065955056 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => 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: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.1050753502 60.3974514979 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.294117647 118.986275619 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.4117647059 23.4991977007 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.52941176471 5.21951772744 48% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.294583533735 0.243740707755 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0984471288863 0.0831039109588 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0586946479635 0.0758088955206 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.181513902304 0.150359130593 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0432503892423 0.0667264976115 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.7 14.1392134831 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.18 48.8420337079 60% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.92365168539 164% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.1743820225 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.5 12.1639044944 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.26 8.38706741573 110% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 100.480337079 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 11.8971910112 134% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.7820224719 136% => 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.