The speaker would prefer a national
for all children up until college
of
schools in different regions the freedom to decide on their own curricula. I agree
as some common
would serve useful purposes for any nation. At the
time,
, individual states and communities should have
any
as they see fit;
, a nation's educational system might
its own purposes in the long
.
A national
would be beneficial to a nation in a number of respects.
of all,
providing all children with
and knowledge, a common
help ensure that our children grow up to become reasonably informed, productive
of society.
, a common
would provide a predictable
upon which college administrators and faculty could more easily build curricula and
course materials for freshmen that are neither below nor above their level of
.
, a
would ensure that all
school-childrena young person attending school (up through senior high school)
are taught
upon which any democratic society depends to thrive, and even survive--values
tolerance of others with different viewpoints, and respect for others.
, a common
an
exdusivelarge in spatial extent or range or scope or quantity
one would pose certain problems,
might outweigh the benefits, noted above.
of all, on what basis would certain
work be included or excluded, and who would be the final decision- maker? In all
these decisions would be in the hands of federal legislators and regulators, who are
to have their own quirky notions of what should and should not be taught to
--notions that may or may not reflect those of most communities, schools, or parents.
, government officials are notoriously susceptible to influence-peddling by lobbyists
do not have the best interests of society's children in mind.
, an official, federally sanctioned
would facilitate the dissemination of
and other dogma which because of its biased and one-sided nature undermines
very purpose of true education: to enlighten. I can easily foresee the banning of certain text
, programs, and websites which provide information and perspectives that the
might wish to suppress--as some sort of threat to its authority and power.
scenario might seem far-fetched, these sorts of concerns are being raised
at the
level.
, the inflexible nature of a uniform national
would preclude the inclusion of
, courses, and materials that are primarily of regional or local significance. For
, California requires children at certain grade levels to learn about the history of
ethnic groups who make up the
's diverse population. A national
not allow for
feature, and California's youngsters would be worse off
of
ignorance about the traditions, values, and cultural contributions of all the people whose
they share.
5
, it seems to me that imposing a uniform national
would serve to
the authority of parents over their own children, to even a greater extent than
laws currently do. Admittedly, laws requiring parents to ensure that their children
an education that meets certain minimum standards are well-justified, for the reasons
earlier.
, when
standards are imposed by the
rather than at the
level parents are left with far less power to participate meaningfully in the
process.
problem would only be exacerbated were these decisions left
to federal regulators.
In the final analysis, homogenization of elementary and secondary education would amount
a double-edged sword. While it would serve as an insurance policy against a future
with illiterates and ignoramuses, at the same time it might serve to obliterate cultural
and tradition. The optimal federal approach, in my view, is a balanced one that
a basic
yet leaves the rest up to each
--or better yet, to each
.