The role of government in designing a core curriculum for students has aroused adverse criticism, with some people claim that teachers are more competent to do this. Personally, I believe that authorities are more preferable to elucidate a standard course book, which I will discuss the reasons.
To begin with, a potent core curriculum seems to include essential modules which effectively contribute to exceeding student`s academic achievements. This means that school syllabus would outstrip if it could serve pupil`s must-learn skills, according to their age, and intellectual abilities. This is when the government and policymakers come into play. While carrying out continuous surveys to probe the complexity and intelligibility of lesson contents, they assume responsibility to sufficiently determine such necessary modules incorporated in standard course books. Furthermore, it is widely acknowledged that all levels of education should have an equal curriculum in order to end sexual, age, and racial discriminations while transferring scientific materials. This may also encourage the sense of competitiveness and enthusiasm among students, leading to enhance their educational skills, and thus career progression and success later in life.
I do appreciate that some people think differently, saying that as teachers are constantly trying to update their contemporary methods of teaching, it appears sensible that they decide about subjects and modules. Nevertheless, this may impose the risk of partiality, as they consider some specific skills which have been well-trained. It means that without comprehensive course books which are adopted in faculties, we may run the risk of illiteracy in special disciplines. For instance, there are some examples of teachers who tend to focus mainly on mathematical subjects, and students eventually would not be well-educated in other fields such as language.
Given these arguments, it seems reasonable to conclude that government and pedagogical can design more effective modules and subjects, and benefits for all levels of students are enormous. This is provided that teachers employ updated methods to pass pupils the facts and details, without the risk of bias.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, if, may, nevertheless, so, thus, well, while, for instance, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 13.1623246493 84% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 10.4138276553 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 7.30460921844 219% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 32.0 24.0651302605 133% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 40.0 41.998997996 95% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.3376753507 72% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1908.0 1615.20841683 118% => OK
No of words: 330.0 315.596192385 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.78181818182 5.12529762239 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26214759535 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21389887917 2.80592935109 115% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 176.041082164 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.618181818182 0.561755894193 110% => OK
syllable_count: 593.1 506.74238477 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 5.43587174349 239% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 0.809619238477 618% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.4366987102 49.4020404114 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.285714286 106.682146367 128% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5714285714 20.7667163134 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.57142857143 7.06120827912 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.210890642133 0.244688304435 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0628515615196 0.084324248473 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0562896404753 0.0667982634062 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124992465031 0.151304729494 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0492481112385 0.056905535591 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.6 13.0946893788 134% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.21 50.2224549098 62% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.3001002004 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.54 12.4159519038 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.28 8.58950901804 120% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 78.4519038076 147% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 9.78957915832 133% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.