Answer:
Well, the previous answers leave me unsatisfied, so here goes. I am particularly disappointed at those who say it could never happen—other nations do it.
First, the pros and cons change as the level of education changes. One set of conditions applies to preschool, an entirely different one to doctoral studies. So we need to break things down.
A standard curriculum would benefit students who are highly mobile. It’s not unusual for a student in this century to attend a half-dozen schools while working on one credential. Anyone who’s changed schools—even if it’s not in the middle of a school year—will witness that it’s disconcerting because you’ll be ahead in some subjects—therefore bored—and behind in others—therefore befuddled. So it benefits a transient student.
The downside would be a loss of any diversity or specialization.
Is there a way to balance those costs and rewards? I think so. If I were Grand Poobah of US education, I’d drop the local controldelusion and institute a national system. Then I’d institute an age- and ability-appropriate curriculum, as follows.
Three modes of instruction at all levels: one for special-needs students, which would use the proven methods of that specialization; one for the top 15% or so, which would be salf-paced and more self-directed; the remainder of students in traditional classes with direct instruction. Mastery learning across the board.
Then I’d address the curriculum at various levels. In the earliest grades, I’d standardize, I’d focus on language skills (why d’ya think they call it grammar school?), math, foreign language, visual arts and Orff style music and physical activity. Include some simple science and history.
As the student moves into higher grades, the curriculum gets more diverse. In the upper elementary grades we’d get to algebra, we’d increase science and social studies, music would become more of an elective, physical education would become more disciplined.
Entering secondary school, curriculum becomes more specialized. We get magnet schools for arts, sciences, sports. We maintain core subjects, but in the later grades we’d begin to address those developing adult capacities for critical thinking, inquiry, creativity, and ethics.
Higher education would have a standardized general education curriculum, so that all students would still build competency in composition,, communication, -math, lab science, social sciences, humanities and arts—and with less of the scattershot cafeteria of gen ed classes that universities have adopted. Yes, let’s nestle a diversity requirement in that part of the curriculum—and let’s consider reducing the number of gen ed credits and focusing more on the major and electives. Curriculum in the major should be entirely up to the individual academic departments to exploit the strengths of individual faculty.
At the graduate level, curriculum should not be standardized at all.
