>Now, I've missed a little of this discussion, so maybe I'm way off here,
  >but I do take it that a National Curriculum only covers what should be
  >taught in each grade - not when it should be taught in that grade? If
  >so, having a National Curriculum will not guarantee that a child who
  >moves does not miss the material.
In todays political climate a National Curriculum is not very likely in
the US IMO.  I don't believe it would make a real difference in over all
education within the US.  What we really need to do is raise our
standards for all students.  In many cases it seems we prefer the feel
good approach over the learn to earn approach.  Not to many children grow
into adults feel very good after they can not find employment due to
their lack of basic academic skills.  Tough questions and no easy
solutions.  You make some very valid points in your post.  Centralizing
education would be a nightmare if you tried to keep all students at the
same level through school as we know it.
We have seen several post here on other countries education systems. I
don't recall one on Canada.  Anyone care to give an overview of the
Canadian system ?  Or did I just miss it ?
___
 X QMPro 1.53 X :ib+Pa)? + o^Xb Pv++f,u+ A^P
--- Maximus 2.02
---------------