A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how those examples shape your position.
Write your response here.
This response response will discuss the extent to which to the belief that a nation should have a standardized school curriculum for first and second level education is problematic. In doing so, it will focus on two key arguments which will be buttressed by specific examples which demonstrate why such a move would be disadvantageous. Firstly, the standardising of formative education is problematic owing to the variety of learning styles, academic strengths and career objectives second level students possess. Secondly, the ability of individual school districts, cachements and zones to tailor their students learning outcomes, within reason is critical to student success.
Individuals in first and second level education are unique and dynamic, experience significant change in their concept of self, and their personal values. their educational environments, be it at school or elsewhere needs to recognise and faciliate this, so that school goers may engage in meaningful personal development and exploration of their own interests, talents and abilities. The requirement of all students studying the same national curriculum amounts to a blatant rejection of this hard fought societal truth. There are a number of specific circumstances in which adopting this would damage educational attainment and achievement. implicit within this regulatory prescription is the belief that by one metric of evaluation student success can be graphed, and that by one courseload student curiousity can be satiated. Neither is true. One who masters art and music perceives reality altogether differently than another who specialises in science and math. The implementation of the aforementioned recommendation would see society essentially make a value judgement on the benefits to be gained from one particular tranch of academics over another. This is an unnecessary step into zero-sum rationales. They are not, nor need they be mutually exclusive. Further, the same national curriculum regardless of personal ambition and interest excludes the possibility of building an innovative and tailored educational experience. This is particularly disadvantageous, because very often the style of thinking with which one engages in philosophy, history or the Arts generally can profoundly assist in the study of all sciences-and vice versa. This national recommendation can hinder growth in both. However the damage this recommendation can pose to national educational standards can be limited by further expounded of what exactl such a national curriculum will contain, and how wide or narrow it will be.
In modern, multicultural societies, the ability of different states, counties and cantons to tailor their curricula is critical, as the demographic, political and historical composition of these areas may deviate strongly from the national norm. For instance, an area with a history of horrific secterian or racial violence, such as Belfast or Rural Alabama, may need to provide greater detail in history relating to these topics than a national curriculum may allow. The ability of individual educational units or cachements to develop a sub-national curriculum to meet the needs of societal prosperity is crucial. The implementation of a national curriculum particularly damages this, as what may feature across the national level may be illfitting to individual districts. There are a number of specific circumstances in which the implementation of a national curriculum governing education until college is deeply problematic. For example, Catalonia in Spain, in order to placate restive and violent spasms of succession will afford particular focus to their regional heritage, language and culture. The implementation of a national curriculum would almost certainly not allow for the teaching of regional languages nationally, given their small utility outside of Catalonia. Despite this, the idea of a national curriculum regulating education until college can be made more suitable to conditions such as the above if there is further exploration of particular national goals in terms of education which themselves could encompass particular regional issues such as historical racism, secterianism, or successionist histories.
This response has outlined why the belief that a nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum is problematic, owing to two key reasons. Firstly, that people in first and second level education have varied and often individualised learning styles and objects and secondly, that the orderly functioning and prosperity of a nation often hinges on individual regions being able to tailor their curricula to meet certain pressing societal needs such as coming to terms with problematic historical influences and events. While keeping this in mind, this response has outlined how such a belief can be made more palatable through greater exploration of its impacts.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 6, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: response
This response response will discuss the extent to which to the...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 156, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Their
...ept of self, and their personal values. their educational environments, be it at scho...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 644, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Implicit
...educational attainment and achievement. implicit within this regulatory prescription is ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1707, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...commendation can hinder growth in both. However the damage this recommendation can pose...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, while, for example, for instance, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.5258426966 149% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 29.0 12.4196629213 234% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 35.0 14.8657303371 235% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 33.0505617978 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 98.0 58.6224719101 167% => OK
Nominalization: 32.0 12.9106741573 248% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 4197.0 2235.4752809 188% => OK
No of words: 740.0 442.535393258 167% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.67162162162 5.05705443957 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.21564387372 4.55969084622 114% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.17131356534 2.79657885939 113% => OK
Unique words: 347.0 215.323595506 161% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.468918918919 0.4932671777 95% => OK
syllable_count: 1345.5 704.065955056 191% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 11.0 4.99550561798 220% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 20.2370786517 143% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 75.57508413 60.3974514979 125% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.724137931 118.986275619 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5172413793 23.4991977007 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.51724137931 5.21951772744 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 5.13820224719 272% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.245752397058 0.243740707755 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0758693918545 0.0831039109588 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0732939023245 0.0758088955206 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.170527837316 0.150359130593 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0130074865783 0.0667264976115 19% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.0 14.1392134831 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.18 48.8420337079 60% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.92365168539 164% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.1743820225 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.9 12.1639044944 131% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.49 8.38706741573 113% => OK
difficult_words: 216.0 100.480337079 215% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 11.8971910112 130% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.7820224719 136% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.