Should the Curriculum Be Standardized for All?

Should the Curriculum Be Standardized for All?

                In the United States today, there has been heated debate over the curriculum for students. More specifically, should there be a so called “One size fits all” curriculum for every student. Two educators propose very different viewpoints on this topic. Mortimer Adler, a former philosophy professor at the University of Chicago, believes yes, curriculum should be standardized and creates a form of democracy in the public school system. On the other hand, John Holt, an educator and critic of public schools, says by making curriculum standard for all students, it can actually damage the individual and take away the basic human right to choose one’s own path in life. Both Adler and Holt present strong arguments and facts to support the reasons for their beliefs.

        First, let’s look at the yes side. Adler was a proponent of the standardized curriculum and believes that the purpose of schooling is to teach every student the basics/essentials. He believed that basic schooling should consist of 12 years of education on the basics with no electives except a foreign language. The foreign language choices consisted of: French, German, Italian, Spanish, Russian, and Chinese. I couldn't help but notice the direct correlation between Adler’s vision of schooling compared to the vision of E.D. Hirsch, the father of essentialism. Both Adler and Hirsch believe essentialism is the way of education and place emphasis on teaching the basics. Furthermore, Adler proposed that the common curriculum should consist of three columns. The first column consists of: Language, Literature, Fine Arts, Mathematics, Science, and History. The second column includes developing intellectual skills such as: reading and writing. The third column is devoted to understanding ideas and values such as books and human artistry. Through this “Back to the basics” curriculum, Adler felt that this stimulated different forms of learning for the students. Some opponents of this way of educating might say that every student is not equal and may come from different socioeconomic statuses (SES) and it may be unfair for students of different learning capacities. However, Adler takes this notion into account and creates the Paideia Proposal, which states that these students of different SES and different learning capacities could overcome this barrier by some form of preschool preparation. He proposes that all students must go to preschool for at least a year, and for the students that are not at the same level, they can stay for up to two or even three years to catch up to the other students. Adler credits this Paideia Proposal as an essential to leveling the playing field for all students. Adler makes great points that the basics are essential for every students and the common curriculum is the way for all students and educators.

        Contrary to the yes point of view, we have the no side. Much like progressivism, John Dewey’s idea of child centered learning, Holt believes the student has the human right to learn what interests them, and focuses less on traditional subject matter. The Student’s interest and personal growth are some of the most important factors of Holt’s beliefs. Holt’s feeling towards Adler’s vision was one of concern, stating, “If we take from someone his right to decide what he will be curious about , we destroy their freedom of thought.” Adler makes a compelling point if you think about it. Adults decide what the students does on a daily basis, and if the subjects do not interest them, they may not bother spending time learning it. What gives adults the right to take this basic human right away from students? Holt categorizes a person’s freedom of learning and freedom of thought under a constitutional law of freedom of speech. However, the right to control our own learning is close to extinction. Once we allow laws for someone to tell students what they are going to learn, we lost that general right to choose our own educational path and the students who resist this notion are treated like misfits. Holt feels standardized curriculum is actually not beneficial but rather teaches the students to achieve hollow success and learners become alienated from the curriculum or just learn the game of school. Rather than learning about a curriculum that does not interest the students, why not let the student choose his/her own set of interests, which will translate into a higher retention of subject knowledge. Holt makes very good points about allowing the student to create his/her own path of learning and that a common basic curriculum is not the proper way to be educated.