- UID
- 867119
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2013-3-14
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
Issue6 32:59 Shoulda nation require all of its students to study the same national curriculumuntil they enter college, as the speaker contends? I basically agree. However,there are certain drawbacks in adopting this recommendation. Tobegin with, it is undoubted that requiring a national curriculum has severalevident advantages. First, a national curriculum will largely guarantee a highlevel of education equity which is vital to the regional development. Secondly,a national curriculum means that local education institutions no longer need todevelop their own curriculum and therefore an immense amount of budget is savedfor better use such as equipment improvement or faculty salaries and so forth,which will further improve the overall teaching effects. As a result, tuitionfee will be reduced as well, rendering kids from poor families now own theequal opportunities to get educated and change their future, further strengthenthe education equity. Finally, national curriculum pave way for a national examinationto evaluate students’ academic performance and for higher education enrollment,which is hard to carried out when local education materials and forms variesfrom one place to another. Despitethe above advantages, the speaker’s ground is absolute without taking accountthe possible drawbacks inherent in nation curriculum. A national curriculum notonly paves way for standardized examination, but also precludes the localvibrancy in different regions where such cultural traditions amounts to aessential role in local community. A national curriculum may stifle theregional characteristics. Assuming a national curriculum is adopted now,although students from places with excellent regional culture crave for suchrelated systematic leaning to inherit local cultural essence, they must bedissuaded from doing so because such lessons will not put them in a moreadvantageous place in national competition whose only criteria is the nationalcurriculum and energy and time devoted to local culture learning will bedetracted from the time devoted to the national curriculum, rendering themdisadvantageous in national competition. As a result, local cultural heritagewill have fewer inheritors and hence deteriorate. Suchnational curriculum may also impede the development of a tolerant andopen-minded character of students due to less diversity in national scale. Whenthey come to higher educations, they will find their classmates owning theidentical education background as they do, which is not conducive to cultivatea broader horizon. After all, the essence of education is to provide studentswith an open and diverse platform consisting of various culture upon which studentscan see further and think bigger. A hidebound and rigid national curriculum mayimpede the very essence of education and hence the future of the country. Afterall, whether the advantages of a national curriculum will outweigh its drawbacksdepends on the extent of the cultural diversity displayed in a country. When itcomes to a developed country with relatively narrow geographic and ethnicalspectrum, it is undoubtedly that a national curriculum will serves well. Inconsidering countries with dramatic cultural diversity like Indonesia andMalaysia and so forth, it is unadvisable to apply a rigid national curriculumwhile some more flexible way may help to cultivate a more harmonious educationenvironment. The more culturally diverse a nation is, the less advantageous toadopt a national curriculum. Insum, although I concede that a national curriculum has so many obviousadvantages, the speaker too hastily generalize about all countries whileignoring so many exceptional countries where adopting a national curriculumwithout flexibility will definitely impede the local cultural development. Inthe final analysis, in order to make the advantages of a national curriculumoutweigh its deficient, we should determine more carefully on a case-by-casebasis, judging the cultural diversity the country features. |
|