The school curriculum is a collection of courses and standards that a school sets; it

comprises both informal and formal topic learning. The curriculum usually coincides with
student intellectual ability (Richmond, 2018). National curriculum is a program of study in
schools aiming to achieve nationwide consistency of content and standards in education. It's
normally enacted by the government, with regional input (Brennan, 2011). Some believe school
curricula are superior to national ones. They claim this is because it caters to pupils with
different needs, talents, and interests. These characteristics, together with changes in society,
make it clear that curriculums must adapt to be responsive to students, thus the benefit of a
school curriculum. This paper will discuss the benefits of a school curriculum over the national
curriculum. We'll evaluate the merits and downsides of schools and a national curriculums.

Schools Curriculum refers to the curriculum given by a school to its students. As the
primary implementers of curriculum, schools play a vital role in curricular decision making.
Taking pupils into account, schools choose how to get the desired learning objectives. The
allocation of time to a specific activity or subject is determined by the school. A school
curriculum implemented by instructors prepares students for individualized learning. The
beauty of how individuals learn is that they do it in diverse ways. Some children are hands-on
learners, while others remember information better through auditory means. A school
curriculum used by instructors will assist in identifying the sort of learning in which each child
excels (Richmond, 2018). Learners will not be pushed into a general, sterile atmosphere in
which they must all acquire knowledge in the same manner. When this occurs, it is basically
impossible for each and every student in the class to achieve academically and realize their full
potential. But with a school curriculum, pupils can be prepared to appreciate individualized
learning. A school curriculum enables learners' academic strengths to be highlighted while their
academic inadequacies are addressed. Every student possesses both academic talents and
limitations. A school curriculum will assist in identifying these areas, although typical national
curricula will not. Some learners excel in math and physics, while others perform better in
history or English. When a school curriculum is created individually for students, it will
evaluate their academic talents. This is also the time to examine their academic inadequacies
and devise a strategy to assist them improve in those areas. Creating a curriculum that
emphasizes both the academic skills and shortcomings of each student will help them to have
more meaningful and fruitful academic careers (Lawton, 2011).

Although customized education provides enormous benefits to students, it is a

burdensome technique since teachers must modify their speed, conduct extensive preparation,
and learn to understand each student's requirements and effectively engage them. If the path is
not followed precisely or if the learner loses interest, the procedure is time-consuming and does
not offer fruitful outcomes. Another deficiency is that the school curriculum is contingent on
the quality of each particular school and its instructors (Mustafa, 2011). There is a need for
well-resourced schools and trained, instructors who can adjust the national curriculum and
apply both formal and informal learning. If the teacher is improperly trained and the school
lacks the resources to develop an effective school curriculum, there will be serious educational
ramifications. It is also feared that instructors would simply teach what they know, neglecting
the national curriculum's primary goals (Lawton, 2011).

The national curriculum, as established by a national government, is a collection of

subjects used by schools to ensure that pupils are taught the same material. It outlines the
disciplines taught and the criteria that students should achieve in each area. This sort of
curriculum specifies the subject matter that must be taught in a variety of disciplines in schools.
It gives an outline of fundamental information around which instructors may build engaging
and interesting lessons to support the growth of students' knowledge, understanding, and skills
as part of the broader school curriculum. The national curriculum has the advantage of
preventing the curriculum from being so localized that national aims are not met. It guarantees
that all students at the national level are marketable and that there are not too many curricula
in the education system, which would prevent learners from transferring from one school to
another (Brennan, 2011). In addition, a national curriculum will eliminate the need for schools
to regularly change curriculum materials or purchase new materials to meet the needs and
preferences of individual teachers. When educators strictly adhere to a national curriculum,
they can account for the state's investment in the education sector. In addition, this curriculum
ensures that all utilized texts have government approval. In addition, when teachers have less
training, this curriculum specifies what to teach, how to teach it, and what resources to utilize.
The creation of a national curriculum serves the political necessity for an accountability system.
This suggests that a centralized curriculum framework is required to determine academic
growth and educational development levels. A national curriculum makes explicit the criteria
and expectations for what should be taught and learned. Therefore, this makes development
and achievement nationally measurable and comparative. Thus, poor performance may be
quickly addressed, while success can be imitated and shared. In this regard, the National
curriculum is more successful since it restricts variations that may be irrelevant during
examinations (Apple, 2012).
 Taking a curriculum as mandated by the government, however, contradicts the schools'
and teachers' legitimate demand for autonomy. This demonstrates that the prescribed approach
is very limiting and presupposes that schools are incapable of developing effective curricula.
This is detrimental to both school and teacher development because research is not permitted.
The school and its instructors are restricted to delivering the specified curriculum, which
emphasizes material, primarily information, above the development of attitudes and abilities.
This leads to a chase for certifications with little concern for the development and presentation
of productive talents (Voogt, 2012). The national curriculum disregards, above all, potential
variations in resource availability. It presupposes that educational institutions have the same
facilities and that students are similar and function under the same conditions. This may not be
the case, as rural schools are typically underfunded, and their infrastructure is either temporary
or in disrepair. This is the reason rural schools tend to do badly compared to their metropolitan
counterparts. Finally, opponents of national curriculum say that allowing the government to
participate in the process will only complicate the situation with an excessive amount of
bureaucracy. This is because it makes it impossible to enact fast and appropriate change in
response to a society's shifting requirements (Apple, 2012).

In conclusion, it has been demonstrated in this paper that the school curriculum is a
framework that specifies a school's desired instructional strategy and takes students into
account. Learners will not be coerced into a generic, sterile setting where everyone must study
in the same way. The primary benefit of this curriculum is that its execution takes socio-
geographical aspects and learner variety into account, hence fulfilling the demands of diverse
learners at different institutions. However, the requisite abilities and resources are extensive
for this program. The national curriculum is a collection of subjects and standards used
by schools to ensure that students are taught the same material as mandated by the national
government. This curriculum is helpful since it is not overly localized to the point that national
objectives are not met, students remain marketable, and they can simply move across
institutions. However, the downside of this curriculum is that schools and instructors have less
autonomy, professional independence, and evaluation. Both sorts of curricula, in my opinion,
are excellent and should be used. The national curriculum ought to act as a guide for school
curricula. And school curricula should implement the national curriculum in a manner that
takes into account the particular requirements of learners in their own localities.
References
apple, m. W. (2012). The politics of official knowledge: does a national curriculum make
sense? Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 1-16.

Brennan, m. (2011). National curriculum: a political-educational tangle. Australian journal of

education, 259–280.

Lawton, d. (2011). The politics of the school curriculum. London: routledge publishers.

Mustafa, j. (2011). Proposing a model for integration of social issues in school curriculum .
Nternational journal of academic research , 925-931.

Richmond, k. W. (2018). The school curriculum. London: routledge publishers.

Voogt, j. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century

competences: implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of curriculum
studies , 299-321.