"It is unfortunate that today's educators place so much emphasis on finding out what students want to include in the curriculum and then giving it to them.  It is the educators' duty to determine the curriculum and the students' duty to study what is presented to them."  

　　The statement above conceals intesting connotations far above curriculum development.  Issues of classroom control and development of scholarly talents are at stake, not simply a debate over which books are acceptable or over revisionist histories. 

　　The statement itself is a bit misleading in that in my experience, student control over curriculum hardly existed.  Each year, there were certain course offerings made available, and students were to choose from those offerings, of course bearing in mind requirements for graduation set forth by the administration.  On a classroom level, the immediate, initial material may have  been somewhat directed by the students, but this was a part of the process allowed by the teacher/professor in order to gain the interest and attention of the students.  However, too much of any one thing becomes problematic; letting students set the curriculum, as with letting students choose and design their own major in college, serves ultimately to dilute the quality of the educational experience unless a single advisor can devote significant amounts of time to the individual student.  This amount of time, or even  the expense to the student of this individual attention, seem to indicate that resources would be better allocated elsewhere. 

　　Of course, any school in which the students decide "what goes" is bound to have problems controlling students.  Once the educators, be they administrators or teachers, are under the control of students, even a democratic situation would be like holding royalty acountable to the mob. Presently, students hear for hours that they should not forget to use a condom in the heat of the moment, and educators think the message gets through,  while half the kids can't even remember to bring a pencil to class.   Students go to school not to simply learn the Pythagorean theorem, but to learn direction and receive guidance. This cannot occur when students are  in charge, and standards, already hard to find in America's contemporary public schools,  will become unenforceable.  If students dictate and administrators do, students will never learn academic responsibility, and if they can't be held accountable for homework, what other responsibilities will they avoid when they get older?

　　But in another sense, teachers and students do exist in a partnership of sorts.  Teachers are there to satisfy the needs of the student, and the student, while perhaps not being the most experienced/ knowledgeable person  on what his/her needs actually are (versus wants), at least should be afforded some say.   In addition, we must remember what the purpose of education is, and that there are different levels of education. 　  

　　In high school, the focus is not so much on learning actual material.  The focus is on developing study habits, and on social interaction.  The best secondary schools promote an environment in which individual creativity and pacing can be developed, where students are taught to thinkon their own, and learn to debate and argue in a scholarly way, through writing and other formal methods of discourse.  Group collaboration and interpersonal skills are developed and honed.  The actual details of what is studied and tested is of less importance.  Whether a student reads Maya Angelou, or Yeats, or Euripides essentially is beside the point as long as a student's mind is cultivated, not just their ability to record and recite.  What is important is that secondary students develop and grow in the hands of the professionals. 

　　The secondary educational experience is designed to prepare a student for college.  It is in college where the individual learns to examine the world and how it works, and the individual's place in it. 

　　As for duty, it is the educators' duty not simply to determine the curriculum, but to present it effectively.  They cannot half-heartedly paint it on the blackboard, they must enliven it and actually teach.  Hard work must be lauded, while freeloaders are punished.  These are the duties of teachers, and the duty of the students is not just to learn or study, but to grow. An independent mind is what students need, and that mind has to be in a position to want and be able to question beyond the material presented, not simply to question its legitimacy. That distinction, though subtle, is the difference between letting the students follow a self-destructive course of premature self-determination on the one hand , and permitting on the other hand the fostering of great talents through a cooperative, mentoring relationship  

　　COMMENTARY 

　　This is an insightful, well-articulated discussion of curricular responsibility and the larger issue of academic responsibility.  After a brief introduction examining assumptions implied by the topic, the writer skillfully develops the position that letting students dictate the curriculum could dilute the educational experience.  Allowing students to determine the curriculum, the writer claims, will deny them the guidance and direction they need to learn academic responsibility.  

　　The line of reasoning is strengthened by the discussion of how teachers and students can work in partnership to satisfy the needs of students.  The argument is further advanced with concrete examples from high school courses showing how teachers provide guidance for students through group collaboration, development of interpersonal skills, and preparation for college.  The examples are varied (from condom use to reading Angelou, Yeats, or Euripedes) and used effectively to further support the writer's position. 　  

　　In the conclusion, the writer thoughtfully discusses how educators should not only determine the curriculum but present it in an enlivened and appropriate manner.  The final sentence, contrasting a "self-destructive course of premature self-determination" and "a cooperative, mentoring relationship," ties the essay together.   

　　The essay is clearly organized, although the writer does not rely on conventional phrases (such as "first," "second," etc.) to signal the organizational structure.  Instead, the organization and focus progress through the line of reasoning that moves fluently and coherently from one paragraph to the next. 

　　Language use is generally precise and effective (e.g., "holding royalty accountable to the mob"), and sentence structure is well controlled (e.g., "hard work must be lauded, while freeloaders are punished").  The few errors are minor, the kind that can easily be made -- and forgiven -- under testing conditions. 

　　This outstanding response received a score of 6.