One-Size-Doesn’t-Fit-All

            When I was six my dad read to me The Lord of the Flies. I thought it was god awful; I could not understand why anyone would ever read or write such a weird book.  At the time I, of course, did not understand all of the symbolism and deep meaning that the book held.  I had taken it at face value and was horrified at such dark children’s book.  My dad thought that I had actually understood the book’s deeper meanings and was proud of himself for exposing me to such fine literature at such a young age.  What he had actually done was scar me from ever wanting to read anything but picture books. Later in highschool, I had to read the book again for my freshman english class.  I discovered that the book was actually a fascinating work that made the reader (if the reader was more mature than 6) think - unlike most of the other books I had read.  

This applies to any reader or student, 6 or 22, if they try to examine literature that they are not advanced enough to understand it is counterproductive - no matter how good the book is.  If a teacher senses that the students in their class are not advanced enough to read, say, Of Mice and Men, then the teacher can give the class easier works to build the students’ minds up to where they will understand and possibly enjoy Of Mice and Men.  But, the worst thing that the teacher could do would be to force the book upon the students before they are ready.  Then the students would be discouraged.  

     The best argument for having a standardized curriculum is that it would provide a benchmark for schools.  Students, and the schools, would know where their standards for education should be.  Students would also have at least a basic knowledge of classic novels which should be common knowledge for everyone.  However, there are other works that are just as impressive and as educationally charged as the ten most common novels taught in High Schools shown in source B.  If we made those ten the standard books that ever High School in America had to read then we could lose some diversity.  Every student in college would all have the exact same repertoire to draw from.  

Having a different curriculums through the nation does not just encourage diversity but also promotes creativity. This goes back to how it is best for the teacher to decide the books for the class, not a preset of books that cannot be changed. Clay Eshleman agrees in source C that “teachers have to make their own decisions (qtd. in Source C) because the teacher can gage their class’s reaction to different books and interests.  The teacher, who in this stage of the students’ careers, is most likely trying to interest their students with reading.  The teacher can probably make better decisions regarding which materials to use because the teacher is involved with his/her students and gets a better idea of the student’s interests and abilities.

Source F even argues that a standard curriculum would not even be appropriate anymore as technology and digital text evolve and expand.  He believes that “the idea of the great, inescapable book belongs to the age of print that is now passing.”  And he is correct; every class and every new generation is different; therefore, making a one-size-fits-all curriculum would stifle creativity and possibly the students the students’ interest in education as well.