Hi Guys,
This is my first essay
Whether a nation should oblige its students to study a unified ciricculum until they reach the graduate from high schools is a double edged weapons. Whereas others believe that teaching a unified syllubus would stimulate and perserve national identity, I personally think in a world where globalization have become an imperative it is difficult to oblige students to a certain system of teaching. This does not imply a neccissity of eradicating the national curriculum, instead parents should have the free will to enroll their children in a national or an internation systems.
At a point of nation's lives, this might have seemed to be an optimum act to unify the people's of the country for example directly after a revolution or a war. However, my obliging people to learn a specific syllubus, the government will be dictating the children, rather than teaching them how to think, not what to think.
The benefits of having a multiple cirricula schools does not stop here. However, the political benefits as a result of having foreign teachers in countries, and the international cooperation it entails would save the nations political wars and stimulate peace. To illustrate, consider the case where the American Diploma system is taught in a country. The American teachers would be demanded to teach at this school, inorder to benefit from their native expertise, which would also mean higher remmitances to the United States of America (USA). USA would then want to avoid any politicl conflicts with this country because this would mean a reduction in the remmitances and thus the national income of the US. Therefore, having the option to enroll in international systems would have its own political gains.
Moreover, this gives the students the opportunities to be acquinted to other international systems, which increases their chances in getting accepted at a high ranking college, if the colleges in the home countries are of a more inferior quality than the average world's colleges. If a student only is allowed to study the national cirriculum, he may find hard time equating his degree with other accredited degrees, which might dissuade him/her from pursuing his undergraduate or graduate studies.
Of course people would argue that a single cirriculum would stimulate integrity and indeed this might be true. however, in a world where choices are infinite, it would seem rather demotivating to lock a child into a one way of education, especially that children's capabalities differ and a child who may seem to excel in an American system might be disadvantaged by the British one, or vice versa. If a student is then obliged to study the british cirricula, he or she may spend their lifetime as a mediocre student which would discourage them and may impair their personality seriously.
As a conclusion, although having a subject or two that is unified might be sufficient for achieving unity and certain basic principles in the society, having more than one cirricula, and allowing the students to enroll to them has its educational, motivational as well as its political benefits. The best solution varies as a function of political, social, economic and historical dimensions. However, in most cases having a couple of unified syllubii would be sufficient to achieve the advantages of both.
I am still a beginner and would appreciate your comments.
Thank u alot
TOEFL listening lectures: What does the professor imply about Leonardo da Vinci?