-> SK> Stating what students should learn, in a national curriculum, and
-> then SK> holding them accountable for it by testing them on it...I
-> just don't see SK> the booby traps there. Could you please elaborate
-> on it without the SK> analogies?
-> The trap is that many individuals will claim tha because the meet the
-> letter of the specification they have now done all that is required.
Hmm. But how does that not occur now? When someone completes a course
and gets a "C" or better grade on their report card, when someone gets a
degree be completing required courses (either at the high school or
university level) but really has a poor comprehension of the integrated
subject matter, dont' they use this same argument even NOW, TODAY, that
they have done all that is required and met the letter of the
specifications? How would adopting a National Curriculum differ?
As Chuck Beams has written, advocates of a National Curriculum hope that
for one thing, kids in third grade (for example) who move and are forced
to change, say, from Virginia schools to Texas schools, would find
themselves working on approximately the same material, instead of
finding themselves and entire year ahead or behind the class they are
transferring into. I simply cannot see where the down side to National
Curriculum is (that is not already present in our current system), and
see only where it could be helpful over what is in place today.
Sheila
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 10
---------------