▶ Your Answer :
The claim regarding national curriculum reflects a benevolent intention to provide every student with a well education and universities with objective GPA score. I agree that it is effective and beneficial for them to have these opportunities. However, this claim is most prescient in the case of students and universities that do not prepare a schedule for education in school. Teaching same curriculum is easy for teachers, but it would be able to reduce their educational abilities and change the value of the school. National curriculum can give equal opportunities to students who can not afford to pay the money for their study. It is very important for them to participate in same classes and learn same subjects, because getting good grades in high school is only tool to go to high-valued universities. Furthermore, universities would effectively be able to evaluate an achievement of high school students. Without same curriculum, the university can not equally grades their undergraduate applicants. Unified one curriculum can circumvent teacher’s teaching capability and creativity. Teaching the subjects included in national curriculum is quiet boring and mundane, therefore teachers would not have self-esteem and satisfaction about their job. Also, the function of the school is different from the private institute. Without identification among them, there is no value for establishment of the school, which have diversity educational purpose such as teaching polite and physical activities, etc. The above argument shows that national curriculum is effective way as a part of the educational system in the country, but supplements also needed. The debate over the education system is an old one. However, the multitiered approach to education may help us find that debate’s resolution. |