Issue 3
"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."
The speaker would prefer a national curriculum for all children up until college instead of allowing schools in different regions the freedom to decide on their own curricula. I agree insofar as some common core curriculum would serve useful purposes for any nation. At the same time, however, individual states and communities should have some freedom to augment (改为argue)any such curriculum as they see fit; otherwise, a nation's educational system might defeat its own purposes in the long term.
这是一种不同于前两篇的开头：先陈述原文观点，再有让步地反对。我们要学习的好句子：I agree insofar as… “在某种程度我同意此观点，因为……” at the same time, however,接着陈述自己观点……otherwise,…
Serve useful purposes for…;
see sth. fit, 觉得……合适;
defeat one‘s own purpose
in the long/short term
A national core curriculum would be beneficial to a nation in a number of respects. First of all, by providing all children with fundamental skills and knowledge, a common core curriculum would help ensure that our children grow up to become reasonably informed, productive members of society. In addition, a common core curriculum would provide a predictable foundation upon which college administrators and faculty could more easily build curricula and select course materials for freshmen that are neither below nor above their level of educational experience. Finally, a core curriculum would ensure that all school-children are taught core values upon which any democratic society depends to thrive, and even survive——values such as tolerance of others with different viewpoints, and respect for others.
简短说明原文观点的必要性，也为下面的驳论作铺垫，形似咱们的阅读了。我们要谨记在心的是它的first of all, in addition, finally,的结构，这是最简便的分层次论述，但不可用得过多。
However, a common curriculum that is also an exclusive one would pose certain problems, which might outweigh the benefits, noted above(这两词多余). First of all, on what basis would certain course work be included or excluded, and who would be the final decision- maker? In all likelihood these decisions would be in the hands of federal legislators and regulators, who are likely to have their own quirky notions of what should and should not be taught to children——notions that may or may not reflect those of most communities, schools, or parents. Besides, government officials are notoriously susceptible to influence-peddling(peddled) by lobbyists who do not have the best interests of society's children in mind.
