As opposed to Chris’ post, I offer this argument in favor of a core curriculum: a core curriculum provides exposure to students.
The advantage of including a core curriculum to the education system is that it makes resources available to various major subjects. This creates an equal opportunity for subjects to be more equally represented.
Why is it important for various subjects to be represented?
What if a child does not know that his questions about why peppers come in a variety of colors (red, green, yellow and orange) has to do with biology? How will he know what his interest is (biology) in order to choose to study it? On the other hand, even if a more experienced individual can tell the child this, what if the child would actually be more interested in how light is interpreted by our eyes so we see the pepper’s colors in that way? Without exposure to different perspectives, a student might never know the other contexts in which questions might be developed. They won’t know what questions to ask. All the student knows is that they are curious about the colors of peppers.
With a core curriculum, students will have some basic knowledge on the perspective that each subject asks questions.
With this in mind, maybe the current core classes (history, science, math and english) are not the best way to foster asking great questions. Maybe the different core subjects should be ways of thinking, such as: the scientific method, literary analysis, philosophical analysis, and etc. With these perspectives in mind, the child is more likely to get a more complete and satisfying picture as to why peppers are different colors.