Why aren't school curriculums the same for the whole country?

Question

Why not make it the same so the kids in the inner cities are getting the same teaching as the kids in the wealthy suburbs? I know there are funding differences but why not have the same textbooks for all the classes in the whole USA?
If we are afraid that this would leave an opening for government propaganda there is already so much in the textbooks that is wrong. Why not get the leading historians together to make one set of history textbooks for the whole USA?

Answer 1

About 15 years ago, each of the professional organizations related to teaching put out National Standards, like the International Reading Association and National Council for Teachers of English agreed on 10 Language Arts National Standards, etc. Unfortunately, interest in a national curriculum has fizzled in the air of divided politicism. Some folks believe only creationism should be taught, other more liberal states believe in other theories.

You also have another thing at odds with this whole idea -- standards and objectives have some realtion, but not a lot, to what gets learned. There are still umpteen ways to teach. In that, in a traditional class, a teacher makes use of a variety of methods during each lesson to be able to reach all his/her kids. So, coming from that traditional concept of "don't try to tell me how to do it" arises the fact that objectoves and standards, be they local or national, really don't play into it much except to keep the teacher focused on the end goal. Nationalizing a curriculum won't have much use there.

We already have an almost national curriculum. With Texas, NY, and CA buying the most textbooks, textbook manufacturers tailor their work to those large markets. Smaller markets then purchase these texts ... and thus have to choose which state's beliefs to uphold based on the content of the texts. It's a step, but not really far on the journey.

Answer 2

Like our political system, our education system is designed around the concept that local control is better. This assumes that communications are poor and that different regions have different needs (education in a rural area needs different teaching that an urban region).

I generally agree that we should standardize the education system, not only for the reason you state, but also because our population is so mobile and it will make it better for the kids. However, I am also concerned that a centralized control will also give those with backward views on education an opportunity to make dangerous changes. Imagine if the current administration had had national control over our schools, Intelligent Design (a.k.a. creationism according to the Christian bible) would be taught in place of real science (they already have done this with Sex Ed).

Answer 3

The curriculum is the same state wide. I'd like to keep it that way. The federal government does more harm than good regarding education (in my humble teacherish opinion). Our state standards are based on the national ones, so in that respect everyone has the same curriculum. Besides, to assume that the needs of one state are the same as the needs of another is just wrong. Our job as teachers is to prepare students for the real world- and in some communities, the real world means something different.

Answer 4

I am going to support "Wundt's" answer. I was going to give a more wordy answer, but that response truly reflects what I view as the real reasons for different curricula.

The main reasons, as I see them, for different school curricula, are political and cultural: Political because local communities want control and local needs must be reflected; Cultural, because different areas of the country have different value systems. These values impact on what can be taught in any school system, and the methods used.

Answer 5

cuz I'm the first wife of the prez and he said so