Standardized Curricula: A Response

Brittany asked: "Do you think that one standardized curriculum should be enforced nationally?"

I do not think that ONE standardized national curriculum should be enforced. I do, however, feel that there is a dire need for standardized curricula to be instituted in the US.

Standardized curricula would do much for the educational attainment and advancement of American students. It would insure that all students are given equal opportunity to learn, and that students do not miss out on vital information and educational experiences due to the particular practices in a region. It would also (hopefully) insure that all students have a roughly equal base of knowledge and skills to build upon as they continue their education to the post-secondary level, and insure a wide range of educational experiences, as well as enabling the collection of meaningful data comparing educational attainment of students between states.

This does not imply that the entirety of a student's academic career through secondary school be mandated by the state. However, certain standards should apply, expecting a minimum level of competence in reading, writing, math, and science, with certain flexibility in the curriculum for students to explore interests, including deeper study into one field or more.

A useful example of this is the UK's education system. In the UK, a national curriculum is enforced from the ages of 5 to 16. During this time, students take a standard, state-mandated curriculum with a core of math, science, and English, as well as other subjects, including history, modern foreign language, art, and physical education, required at various levels. After age 16, students can opt for two additional years of secondary education, in which they are given flexibility in their course selections, and acts as an introduction to university-level work (passing those last two years of secondary school is the equivalent of a year of university-level study -- hence most UK undergraduate programs being 3 years rather than 4). As an alternative, students having completed their 11th year of schooling can go to vocational school to learn a trade. Despite its flaws, it gives all students a base of knowledge to build on.

To end with a question: Should students all be expected to take traditional "academic subjects" to age 18, or should we allow more flexibility for technical/vocational education?