issue3:A nation should require all its students to study the same national [b]curriculum until they enter college rather than allow schools in different [b]parts of the nation to determine which academic courses to offer. [b][b]----------------------------------------------------------------------- [b]Should a nation require the same national curriculum for all children up [b]until college while it doesn't allow schools in different states to have [b]freedom to decide their own academic courses?The speaker claims so,but i [b]agree with the assertion that a nation should permit schools in different [b]areas to determine such curriculum as they see fit.In my view all schools [b]should have the same courses which are called core curriculum because such [b]courses are beneficial to any states. [b]Admittedly,a national core curriculum is needed for any individual states [b]and communities.First of all,by providing students with fundamental skills [b]and knowledge,a common core curriculum can be productive to ensure all [b]children grow up to become reasonably informed members of society.In [b]addtion,a common core curriculum would provide substantial foundation upon [b]which college administrators and faculty could easily build curriculum and [b]select course materals suitable for all freshmen that neither below nor [b]above their level of educational experience.Finally, a core curriculum is [b]essential for a democratic society because all school-children are taught [b]core values upon which our society depends to thrive,even to survive. [b]Aside from the foregoing proviso,however, a core curriculum also poses [b]certain problems which might outweigh the benefits,noted above.First of [b]all,in what scope would a core curriculum be selected and on what basis [b]would a certain course work be included or excluded.Undoubtably,these [b]decisions would be in hands of federal legistators and regulators.so it is [b]also important that who would be the final decision-makers?What's more,the [b]federal legislators have their own notions of what should and should not be [b]taught to children--notions that may not reflect those of most [b]communities,schools or parents. [b]In fact,an officially and federally sanctioned curriculum would facilitate [b]the dissemination of propagenda and other dogma because of its biased and [b]one-sided nature,obviously which goes against the very purpose of true [b]education:to enlighten.So if our nation ban schools from selecting the [b]curriculum as they need,I can easily forsee the national education system [b]would be condemned by the whole society. Although this scenario might seem [b]far-fetched,these sorts of concerns are being raised already at the state [b]level. [b]At the individual state level,they characterized by their paticular ethnic [b]culture.So inflexible nature of a uniform national curriculum would [b]preclude the inclusion of programs,courses and materials that are primarily [b]of reginal or local significance.For supporting example,California requires [b]students at certain levels to learn about the history of particular ethnic [b]group who make up the state's diverse population which students in other [b]states needn't learn.But a national curriculum might not allow for this [b]feature and [b]California youngsters would be worse off as a result of their ignorant [b]about their traditions,values. [b]In the final analysis,homogenization of elementary and secondary education [b]would amount to a doubled--edeged sword.A core curriculum is needed in any [b]country.At the same time,a nation should allow schools to select rest of [b]the curriculums.Accordingly,on balance,national curriculums should include [b]the core curriculums that all students should be taught and optional [b]curriculums that it is up to each states. [b][b]==BY longo [b]----------------------- [b]Education, which is an important element of a society, is considered to be [b]significant for a country to raise young people who will acquire various [b]kinds of knowledge to develop their nation efficiently and rapidly. [b]Therefore, what to teach to the students becomes a problem requiring [b]serious and comprehensive consideration. [b][b]Some people believe all the students should study the same national [b]curriculum until they enter college rather than allow schools in different [b]parts of the nation to determine which academic courses to offer. But to my [b]opinion, I think different parts of the nation could formulate their own [b]curriculum for the students as soon as a child enters school. [b][b]On one hand, different parts have different advantages to teach the [b]children, and to foster the students' interests. Say, in a city near a sea, [b]teachers could bring the kids to see the turtles after a class about the [b]habitude of turtles. Then before long, maybe one of the kids will get very [b]interested in sea animals and become a biologist. [b][b]On the other, each part is different with another because of economic, [b]political, religious variance, thus the government of each part could make [b]the most appropriate curriculum aiming at their students. For instance, in [b]a economically developed part, the schools are able to use more advanced [b]apparatus(有复数吗）for teaching; while in a part which is not economically [b]strong, it could use more natural resources. For gerenally the richness is [b]always in inverse proportion(我想说‘成反比’不知对不对） with enviromental [b]maintainness. [b][b]The last, it is too late to cultivate different kinds of interets for the [b]students after they enter college, because most of their imagination is in [b]their childhood. The more they learn, the more they think over, but the [b]less they imagine. [b][b]In one word, it is beneficial to allow different parts of a nation to teach [b]students according to different curriculum as soon as they enter school, [b]which could make the student to become persons with various abilities for [b]the country.