issue3:A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college rather than allow schools in different parts of the nation to determine which academic courses to offer.

　　Should a nation require the same national curriculum for all children up until college while it doesn't allow schools in different states to have freedom to decide their own academic courses?The speaker claims so,but i agree with the assertion that a nation should permit schools in different areas to determine such curriculum as they see fit.In my view all schools should have the same courses which are called core curriculum because such courses are beneficial to any states.

　　Admittedly,a national core curriculum is needed for any individual states and communities.First of all,by providing students with fundamental skills and knowledge,a common core curriculum can be productive to ensure all children grow up to become reasonably informed members of society.In addtion,a common core curriculum would provide substantial foundation upon which college administrators and faculty could easily build curriculum and select course materals suitable for all freshmen that neither below nor above their level of educational experience.Finally, a core curriculum is essential for a democratic society because all school-children are taught core values upon which our society depends to thrive,even to survive.

　　Aside from the foregoing proviso,however, a core curriculum also poses certain problems which might outweigh the benefits,noted above.First of all,in what scope would a core curriculum be selected and on what basis would a certain course work be included or excluded.Undoubtably,these decisions would be in hands of federal legistators and regulators.so it is also important that who would be the final decision-makers?What's more,the federal legislators have their own notions of what should and should not be taught to children--notions that may not reflect those of most communities,schools or parents.

　　In fact,an officially and federally sanctioned curriculum would facilitate the dissemination of propagenda and other dogma because of its biased and one-sided nature,obviously which goes against the very purpose of true education:to enlighten.So if our nation ban schools from selecting the curriculum as they need,I can easily forsee the national education system would be condemned by the whole society. Although this scenario might seem far-fetched,these sorts of concerns are being raised already at the state level.

　　At the individual state level,they characterized by their paticular ethnic culture.So inflexible nature of a uniform national curriculum would preclude the inclusion of programs,courses and materials that are primarily of reginal or local significance.For supporting example,California requires students at certain levels to learn about the history of particular ethnic group who make up the state's diverse population which students in other states needn't learn.But a national curriculum might not allow for this feature and

　　California youngsters would be worse off as a result of their ignorant about their traditions,values.

　　In the final analysis,homogenization of elementary and secondary education would amount to a doubled--edeged sword.A core curriculum is needed in any country.At the same time,a nation should allow schools to select rest of the curriculums.Accordingly,on balance,national curriculums should include the core curriculums that all students should be taught and optional curriculums that it is up to each states.

　　==BY longo

　　Education, which is an important element of a society, is considered to be significant for a country to raise young people who will acquire various kinds of knowledge to develop their nation efficiently and rapidly. Therefore, what to teach to the students becomes a problem requiring serious and comprehensive consideration.

　　Some people believe all the students should study the same national curriculum until they enter college rather than allow schools in different parts of the nation to determine which academic courses to offer. But to my opinion, I think different parts of the nation could formulate their own curriculum for the students as soon as a child enters school.

　　On one hand, different parts have different advantages to teach the children, and to foster the students' interests. Say, in a city near a sea, teachers could bring the kids to see the turtles after a class about the habitude of turtles. Then before long, maybe one of the kids will get very interested in sea animals and become a biologist.

　　On the other, each part is different with another because of economic, political, religious variance, thus the government of each part could make the most appropriate curriculum aiming at their students. For instance, in a economically developed part, the schools are able to use more advanced apparatus(有复数吗)for teaching; while in a part which is not economically strong, it could use more natural resources. For gerenally the richness is always in inverse proportion(我想说"成反比"不知对不对)with enviromental maintainness.

　　The last, it is too late to cultivate different kinds of interets for the students after they enter college, because most of their imagination is in their childhood. The more they learn, the more they think over, but the less they imagine.

　　In one word, it is beneficial to allow different parts of a nation to teach students according to different curriculum as soon as they enter school, which could make the student to become persons with various abilities for the country.

　　==BY gteryy