National Curriculum - An Issue Essay
[Source: ETS PowerPrep Practice Test]
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 you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position
---
As education has risen to prominence as the deciding factor in social mobility, differences in the instructions received have been frequently pointed as taking a larger share of the responsibility for the inequities in society. Given this background, the suggestion of a national curriculum is an appealing remedy. While the stated aim would be to simplify the education system, designing such a curriculum to meet the myriad set of objectives that a national education system would set out to achieve is a herculean undertaking on its own. Given the enormity of the task, it is worth considering what even the goals of such a system would be, and whether a national curriculum would be the best way to achieve those goals.
In the current scenario, most education below college level is administered at the local level. College admissions, especially to centralized government institutions and internationally reputed private ones, are a matter of intense competition between applicants from around the country and in some cases the world. With that in mind, one of the unstated goals of primary education is to level out the differences that might arise from regional, cultural or societal causes. Standardized testing can be seen as a manifestation of this goal, with the SATs and the GREs of the world setting up the minimum threshold that primary education ought to teach a pupil to cross.
From this level downwards, however, primary education is largely controlled, to various degrees by state and local education boards. Since some of these states and regions are large enough to match entire nations, looking at their experiences can be a useful proxy to estimate how a national system would work. The wonder of civilization is that in any large enough area, cultural differences are bound to arise given the diversity of human experience. We can see these underpinnings in the frequent news stories coming out of local and state news boards where proposed changes to curriculum cause furore among a section of the public, capturing political debate. It would not be a stretch to that any attempt at formulating a national curriculum would be fraught with controversy, as we are bound to step on, or even sidestep entire cultures and identities in the process.
A case could be made for a national curriculum, if we were to turn this very argument around. A shared curriculum would certainly help establish a national identity, bringing disparate regional sensibilities together. Indeed, it would make assimilation at the college level smoother, when many students would meet at national institutes as they set out to build their careers. However, carry this take a little further and things start getting murky. Tyrannical regimes have long strived to control education as a pathway to indoctrination, and a national curriculum is possibly one of the most potent tools in their arsenal. Governments in erstwhile communist nations like China are notorious for their stranglehold on the education system, where any diversity of views is flushed out in fear of going against the interests of the government or the ruling class.
In conclusion, while there is certainly promise to the idea of a national curriculum acting as a bridge between regions and classes and building a national identity, it can as easily devolve into a subject of authoritarian control and the subjugation of minority cultures. Any rewards one might hope to reap from such a system pale in comparison to the risks it poses to the fragile harmony of a nation.












