The speaker would prefer a national curriculum for all children up until college instead of
allowing schools in different regions the freedom to decide on their own curricula. I agree
insofar as some common core curriculum would serve useful purposes for any nation. At the same
time, however, individual states and communities should have some freedom to augment any such
curriculum as they see fit; otherwise, a nation's educational system might defeat its own
purposes in the long term.
A national core curriculum would be beneficial to a nation in a number of respects. First of all,
by providing all children with fundamental skills and knowledge, a common core curriculum would
help ensure that our children grow up to become reasonably informed, productive members of society.
In addition, a common core curriculum would provide a predictable foundation upon which college
administrators and faculty could more easily build curricula and select course materials for
freshmen that are neither below nor above their level of educational experience. Finally, a core
curriculum would ensure that all schoolchildren are taught core values upon which any democratic
society depends to thrive, and even survive--values such as tolerance of others with different
viewpoints, and respect for others.
However, a common curriculum that is also an exclusive one would pose certain problems, which
might outweigh the benefits, noted above.
First of all, on what basis would certain course work be included or excluded, and who would be
the final decision-maker? In all likelihood these decisions would be in the hands of federal
legislators and regulators, who are likely to have their own quirky notions of what should and
should not be taught to children--notions that may or may not reflect those of most communities,
schools, or parents. Besides, government officials are notoriously susceptible to
influence--peddling by lobbyists who do not have the best interests of society's children in
mind.
Secondly, an official, federally sanctioned curriculum would facilitate the dissemination of
propaganda and other dogma which because of its biased and one-sided nature undermines the very
purpose of true education: to enlighten. I can easily foresee the banning of certain text books,
programs, and websites which provide information and perspectives that the government might wish
to suppress--as some sort of threat to its authority and power. Although this scenario might seem
far-fetched, these sorts of concerns are being raised already at the state level.
Thirdly, the inflexible nature of a uniform national curriculum would preclude the inclusion of
programs, courses, and materials that are primarily of regional or local significance. For example,
California requires children at certain grade levels to learn about the history of particular
ethnic groups who make up the state's diverse population. A national curriculum might not allow
for this feature, and California's youngsters would be worse off as a result of their ignorance
about the traditions, values, and cultural contributions of all the people whose citizenship they
share.
Finally, it seems to me that imposing a uniform national curriculum would serve to undermine the
authority of parents over their own children, to even a greater extent than uniform state laws
currently do. Admittedly, laws requiring parents to ensure that their children receive an
education that meets certain minimum standards are well justified, for the reasons mentioned
earlier. However, when such standards are imposed by the state rather than at the community
level, parents are left with far less power to participate meaningfully in the decision-making
process. This problem would only be exacerbated were these decisions left exclusively to federal
regulators.
In the final analysis, homogenization of elementary and secondary education would amount to a
double-edged sword. While it would serve as an insurance policy against a future populated with
illiterates and ignoramuses, at the same time it might serve to obliterate cultural diversity and
tradition. The optimal federal approach, in my view, is a balanced one that imposes a basic
curriculum yet leaves the rest up to each state--or better yet, to each community.