Education is an important part of childhood development that decides the individual and the nation's destiny. How do a nation ensures all its citizens has developed same skills during their school education? Some suggest that the answer is to have a common national curriculum until the students enter college. At the outset this sounds like a great idea as this allows all the students to have access to same education, to be measured against same standards and to allow same skill development. But there are quite a few things to consider before such a one size fits all approach can be taken.
Many nations are very diverse. The demographics can vary widely with people from different cultural, social and economic backgrounds. Their learning needs can be hugely varied too. So the education needs to be tailored to the needs of these groups and this is better done at a regional or at a state level. Also students with disabilities and special learning needs require a curriculum that is designed with their considerations in mind. A national curriculum that does not consider these will place a significant learning burden on these students and risk them being left behind.
Many states have courses to better position their students in a competitive environment or to serve the special cultural, linguistic needs of local population. These courses will be significantly difficult to include in a national curriculum. This brings us to the next very important topic and raises many questions. What will be the standard of the national curriculum? Will it be the best standard any state? This will require more training and need for more resources. Who will bear the monetary burden this places on the states which are already financially constrained? Another, perhaps a bad option is to lower the standard which effectively defeats the purpose of even having a national curriculum. Either way the standards go, this problem needs to be solved.
The issue of having common national curriculum implies a noble goal to provide equal learning opportunities for all students. But is common national curriculum the best way to achieve this? There are at least a few different approaches. A nation can provide a set of learning objectives and standards on which a student will be tested.
The states can use these guidelines and develop the curriculum that best suits the student's needs locally. This approach can use the best of both worlds - the national standard done with a local flavor. This also allows the states to compete with each other on their specific learning implementations there by allowing the best approach to evolve on its own. This best approach will then be adopted in other states creating more vibrancy.
A national curriculam is an audacious goal but it is filled with implementation challenges that will undermine its effect. The learning standard set nationally and implemented locally allows a viable alternative that can benefit students, educatioeveryone involved in the process.
Many nations are very diverse. The demographics can vary widely with people from different cultural, social and economic backgrounds. Their learning needs can be hugely varied too. So the education needs to be tailored to the needs of these groups and this is better done at a regional or at a state level. Also students with disabilities and special learning needs require a curriculum that is designed with their considerations in mind. A national curriculum that does not consider these will place a significant learning burden on these students and risk them being left behind.
Many states have courses to better position their students in a competitive environment or to serve the special cultural, linguistic needs of local population. These courses will be significantly difficult to include in a national curriculum. This brings us to the next very important topic and raises many questions. What will be the standard of the national curriculum? Will it be the best standard any state? This will require more training and need for more resources. Who will bear the monetary burden this places on the states which are already financially constrained? Another, perhaps a bad option is to lower the standard which effectively defeats the purpose of even having a national curriculum. Either way the standards go, this problem needs to be solved.
The issue of having common national curriculum implies a noble goal to provide equal learning opportunities for all students. But is common national curriculum the best way to achieve this? There are at least a few different approaches. A nation can provide a set of learning objectives and standards on which a student will be tested.
The states can use these guidelines and develop the curriculum that best suits the student's needs locally. This approach can use the best of both worlds - the national standard done with a local flavor. This also allows the states to compete with each other on their specific learning implementations there by allowing the best approach to evolve on its own. This best approach will then be adopted in other states creating more vibrancy.
A national curriculam is an audacious goal but it is filled with implementation challenges that will undermine its effect. The learning standard set nationally and implemented locally allows a viable alternative that can benefit students, educatioeveryone involved in the process.
