A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college rather than allow schools in different parts of the nation to determine which academic courses to offer.

Throughout the history of education, there has always been debate about whether schools should offer various kinds of courses rather than provide a uniform curriculum. A lot of people nowadays believe that by learning an inclusive curriculum, children can receive a specialized and personalized, thus better education. Since the uniform curriculum has its own virtue, however, I agree with the claim with reservations.

Since national curriculum are required by the national organization, it is highly likely that learning these courses will provide students with a basic structure of knowledge and therefore give them the foundation of their university education and future career. By receiving this uniform education, students who are verified can be easily admitted to society. Consider an examination held by Chinese education affairs, labeled “Gaokao”, i.e., college entrance exam. That exam, consisting of 9 subjects in total, provides the easiest way of being admitted to their dream university, no matter where they were born and how much they have. Since studying the national curriculum provides students with a fair and just way to their future, it is an effective way for students to accomplish their achievement. Hence, it is reasonable to agree with the claim.

Some people will reckon that learning the national curriculum does not preserve children’s inherent characteristics. In their opinion, children’s talent should be excavated simply by providing them with extra-curriculum courses. This statement seems right in China until lots of parents are rushing to send their three-year-old to those art and language courses and hoping their children will beat others. Children are deprived of their childhood time by attending those art classes which have little effect on discovering their ingenious talents. So the existence of various courses does little to elicit children’s interest but even intensifies their competition. Consequently, blindly attending extra-curriculum courses is highly likely to be deleterious to children. For this reason, I agree with the claim.

One of the merits of offering extra-curriculum courses is that it does provide a feasible way for those children who have a unique talent and do not succumb to obligatory curriculum. If our society does not provide such opportunities, a lot of talented boys and girls will be buried. For example, a member of my band at school is very interested in playing percussion as well as good at it. He told us that he could not find a teacher until his family moved to another place. After learning drums with his teacher, his skills had thoroughly improved. Thus, a professional teacher is essential for talented children who are willing to make obvious progress.

In conclusion, the virtue of extra-curriculum courses still exists. However, based on the prerequisites of our society and the aspiration of higher education and better jobs, the claim that the curriculum should be national organized and uniform is clearly supported.