SHOULD THE CURRICULUM BE STANDARDIZED FOR ALL?

Should the curriculum be standardized for all?

Should the curriculum be standardized for all?

Arguments

Fore: Mortimer J. Adler, from “The Paideia Proposal: Rediscovering the Essence of Education,” American, School Board Journal

Against: John Holt, from Escape from Childhood

Issue Summary

YES: Philosopher Mortimer J. Adler contends that democracy is best served by a public school system that establishes uniform curricular objectives for all students.

NO: Educator John I-loft argues that an imposed curriculum damages the individual and usurps a basic human right to select one's own path of development.

Discussion

Standardized Testing places immense stress on students and teachers. Both know that the outcome of these tests will in fact affect their future. For teachers, the students' outcome will determine if they keep their job. For students, their outcome will determine if they will enter the next grade, and if they will ever be in an honors class. Now, even if this is a short point, it is obviously a valid statement. Example can be shown through analogies. If one's job was on the line, stress levels would be rising. The same is with important classes and a teacher's job if they are lacking the necessary tenure. Stress is even placed on administrators as test scores rate their schools, and low ratings lower funds.

Both sides made legitimate arguments. Alder's Paideia Proposal and Quintessential Element are looking for the curriculum to have a basic level of schooling that is high in quality, general and liberal. He sets forth three kinds of learning and three kinds of instruction that need to be put into place due to the schools that now fail to 'cultivate proficiency' and currently have a multi-track system where the learning objectives are not the same for all. On the other side of the spectrum, Holt ...