Farr 1

Austin F. Mrs. Richards Education 1010 12/19/13 Popping Pocket Paper #4 Chapter nines issue was whether or not a national curriculum is something that America should strive for, or to shoot down. Theres always been talk of a national curriculum, but its become more prevalent past years when Barack Obama was voted into office. His educational reform speeches have been based around hiring teachers and creating a national curriculum. Japans and Germanys government control the nations curriculum, and their students continually test higher than ours. States rigor and standards vary from state to state, so some states have lower expectations while others have higher. In the case of families moving, they could relocate anywhere and know that their child is getting the exact same education in their new school as they did in their old establishment. I dont believe a national curriculum is needed. The founding fathers were intentionally trying to limit their power from interfering with the states, and they gave the power of education to the individual states. The tenth amendment gives states this power, because the founding fathers knew that we were going to be a large nation, and they could not foresee everything that this country would experience. This would make a national curriculum unconstitutional unless the tenth amendment was repealed which wouldnt happen, because it is part of the bill of rights and it gives other powers to states that the states dont want to lose. I dont believe a national curriculum is needed, but national standards would help. Reidy argues that, establishing a national curriculum in a country the size of Minnesota or even Texas is one thing, but accommodating the requirements of states from Maine to Hawaii and Alaska to Florida is not something a one size fits all curriculum can do. Having national standards for key subjects -- math, the sciences, English -- is one thing, but prescribing what should be taught about history or geography across the nation becomes a tricky business. Every state is unique, and has its own history. Its not pertinent for people in Alaska to learn about catholic missionaries in Arizona and New Mexico, and students in Florida dont care about whos been governor of Oregon. The geography of America changes from the coastline of California, to the Rocky Mountains, to the Great Plains, to the Appalachian Mountains, to the coast of Florida or Maryland, so while learning about geography is important, the states should focus more on the physical features of their states than that of others. Every person is unique; they dont want to all be the same. Valerie Strauss quotes A Critical Response to the Shanker Institute Manifesto and the U.S. Department of Educations Initiative to Develop a National Curriculum and National Assessments Based on National Standards in her article, The Counter-Manifesto Against a National Curriculum, by saying, A single set of curriculum guidelines, models, or frameworks cannot be justified at the high school level, given the diversity of interests, talents and pedagogical needs among adolescents. American schools should not be constrained in the diversity of the curricula they offer to students A one-size-fits-all model not only assumes that we already know the one best curriculum for all students; it assumes that one best way for all students exists. We see no

Farr 2

grounds for carving that assumption in stone. This states that there is no one right way in a persons education. Because everyone has different wants and needs, you cant possibly have one set path that everyone is ok with. The fact of life is that people dont like being controlled once theyve learned how to make choices. America was founded on agency, so a national curriculum would go against the basic doctrine our founding fathers laid. I suggest standards in place of curriculum because math, the sciences, and language arts dont vary from county to county. A national standard would create a rigor that would challenge students to achieve their best, or at least an acceptable GPA. Its like a high school sports team; the school is the national government, and the coach is the individual state or school. The high school sets an acceptable standard that the student-athlete must achieve in order to play in their sport. They could, for example, pick a GPA of 2.0 or higher with only one failing grade. The coach could take it one step further and make the GPA b a 2.5 or higher with no failing grades. This is the coachs choice, and it cannot be lower then what the school has set in order for the student-athlete to participate in the events. A national curriculum is not a bad idea, but it wont fit America. Were a country of immigrants which denotes that we have diversity, thus a national curriculum doesnt work. Our differences are what make us unique, and theres a huge attempt to take this away. The election of Obama has started adding force to the rolling ball, and political unrest between the two parties. You can have national standards in classes like math, language, and the sciences, but it should only affect what is taught, because the material is the same throughout, and what constitutes a passing grade.

Farr 3

Works Cited

Reidy, Michael. "National Curriculum or National Standards?." Articles:. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Dec. 2013. <http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/national_curriculum_or_national_standards.html>. Strauss, Valerie. "The Counter-Manifesto against a national curriculum." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 11 May 2011. Web. 20 Dec. 2013. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/the-counter-manifesto-against-anational-curriculum/2011/05/10/AF31MflG_blog.html>.