SK> subject matter, dont' they use this same argument even NOW, TODAY, that
 SK> they have done all that is required and met the letter of the
 SK> specifications? How would adopting a National Curriculum differ?
 SK> As Chuck Beams has written, advocates of a National Curriculum hope that
 SK> for one thing, kids in third grade (for example) who move and are forced
 SK> to change, say, from Virginia schools to Texas schools, would find
 SK> themselves working on approximately the same material, instead of
I would hope that a national curriculum raise the standards and am certainly 
not against the idea of minimum standards. Lets assign school 1 the honor of 
having met the national standard and just passed the criteria. School 2 has 
proven itself capable of far exceeding the standard and through what ever 
means has been able to deliver an education that in reality is a year ahead 
of school 1. The situation would probably result in a student transfering 
between the two schools to be out of phase. would you place a cap on the high 
end of the curriculum or would you dumb down school 2 to make 2=1 ? I'd 
predict that the National curriculum would be based on the lowest 
expectations not the highest. 
Better some way of making it financially possible for all schools to be the 
best they can be :-) If the national specification set out a standard so high 
that every school could be measured against the accepted very best curriculum 
and that best was just past attainable it might work. Just a thought ;-) How 
does the National Curriculum change the way things will work when we see how 
things really work in today's schools? 
--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
---------------