http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081107/us_time/shouldkidsbeabletograduateafter10thgrade Is this too young ? What do you think?
It is interesting that's for sure. Why do they think skipping 2 years of school will not matter? Do they really do nothing? I personally think it's too young. I have friends who have accelerated their kids, so they will finish year 12 when they are 16. I think this is a huge mistake. The kids are bright enough to manage academically, but what about emotional maturity? If all their friends are 2 years + older, will they be engaging in romantic relationships sooner, sneaking into clubs with their friends, ready to take on the responsibilities of the adult world? You get to be a child for so little time, then maybe 80 years of adulthood. I don't understand the rush.
I don't agree with it - plain and simple. Now I am accelerating my kids, but not so they can go away to college early - because I want them to be completely prepared. I also agree that this will do as the person at the end of the article states.... if you can afford college you will make your kids stay - if not... get a job. I graduated at 17 - but 16 wouldn't have been a big deal to me that way. I went all the way through 12th.
I know that in most British territories High school graduates are usually 16 years old. I could be wrong... They have 'A' levels then 'O' levels,etc.
I know of a few people who have done that. The one girl started college just as she was turning 17. I think it depends on the person. This girl was very mature and lived at home. Last I heard she was doing very well both academically and socially.
We had 2 kids here from Ireland over the summer. They don't have to go to school after age 16. They were both 11 years old. Neither could read very well because it wasn't important. Both were looking forward to getting out of school but neither had any sort of plan. Honestly - they saw my 3rd grader know more than them and were upset. Would these kids be REQUIRED to go to school? I mean they have a ton to smooth out in my opinion.
This is a great way for the school districts to save money and make themselves look better - smaller class sizes for those "serious" students. I personally hate the way schools have already divided students up like cattle and this further sections them off. On the other hand, I had quite a few friends - and my dh - who spent most of their senior year doing work study so were basically only there for English class. On the flip side, my 18 yo SIL is currently in her high school only for English, and enrolled at the community college for the rest of her classes; that sounds like a better option. On one hand, I wonder how much of what you learn in PS is going to be "real world" applicable (or the connection is made to the students); on the other hand, I doubt the ability of the PS to cram whatever is needed in any better in 11 years than in 13. My friend's daughter was in school in NJ; she felt it was too high-pressure and actually had her daughter repeat 1st grade because she felt the expectations were ridiculous (this is a smart kid, too) and too stressful. One of the reasons they moved to PA was to escape that; not sure it was a major reason, but to hear her talk it was definitely a factor. I can't imagine how much more stress this will put on the elementary kids. I wouldn't be surprised to find it is primarily money-related; less teachers needed for the last two grades means less salaries paid.
Depends how you look at it. In many ways, today's high school graduate is equivalent to a 10 or 12 year old of Puritan New England. The reason most folks think a college education is required is because the system has been watered down so that a 4 year degree just gets you back to a typical high school graduate of 80 years ago. Homeschoolers can do much better. More details in this article: What A Teenager Can Do
True Mark - and I see it a TON with some of the people I have hired in the past. Scary. I wonder if they would "teach to the test" if the test is what will get them out of school early. That philosophy is one of the reasons we are homeschooling (teaching to the test). It was awful - and teacher's hands are tied.
I wonder if that's part of the point. School can't give kids all they need so by letting them get a start on their career path or a job earlier they can start to learn the real world stuff sooner. Personally I think it's a great idea. I don't know why school is stretched out for 13 years on this continent. In many countries 11 years or less is the norm. The only problem I see is that it's something I think the whole education system would have to support, from elementary schools to universities. Everyone would have to buy into this and support it.
It would depend on the individual. There are two sides to the coin. If a teen is beyond his or her years in maturity and academics, preventing him or her from moving ahead could cause the teen to act out from boredom. On the other hand, if the child lacks the maturity required to be successful in college, we could be setting them up for failure.
I agree with this. For starters, where I live, people are not starting their children in kinder until 6-7 yrs old. Spring and summer birthdays and even late winter are waiting the extra year. Then, because of high retention rates, they are 19-20 when they graduate. No 19-20 yr old wants to be in high school. And frankly, it is in my opinion that 11th graders, even if they are 16, should start down the track toward college or technical career training and so on. Why should every single child be taking the same English, History, science, math, etc classes all the way through? College bound kids are often taking college level courses at this age anyway. If they do not switch to graduating after 10th grade, they will need to crack down on the delayed kindergarten. I think the delayed kinder has gotten completely out of hand. Parents will justify it as they want their child to be the top in kinder, but statitistics say, the older they would be at graduation, the less likely they are to graduate at all! Being the oldest and top in kinder does not have any effect whatsoever on later performance in school. If they could go back to having kindergarten be what it was intended to be..a prep time for real school, done at 4-5 yrs old. Then have 1st graders start at 5-6 yrs old, no later than 6. Then at the high school level, start offering tech type courses and training courses and such so that kids who don't want to go on to college canhave some sort of rea life prep, then that would be the only way I think continuing having 11th and 12th grade would be ok. No where else in the world are kids kept in "kiddie" school until they are 19 or so. Let alone 17 and 18. All the other educational models across the world has kids veering off in their career direction around 16 yrs old. (Germany, Asian countries, etc etc)
Back in H.S. for Jr. and Sr. year, kids could do school for half the day and the other half work. I think that's a wonderful idea. I joke with hubby that we can kick all the kids out at 16 and start our retirement years. He says no way is he gonna let his 16 year old daughters go to the local college with a bunch of 18, 19 and 20 year olds. Yet okay for our boy.
I think it all depends on the child & the situation. Unless she has serious problem & has to repeat a course, dd will be graduating at 16 with more credits (including core classes) than our district requires. She won't be going off to a university right away, though. She'll be attending our CC (at least part time), for 2 yrs. That way, she gets to get acclimated to the college environment, academics, etc., while still having the safety of living at home. I agree that most 16 year olds aren't emotionally ready to go away to college (which is why dd will only be going part-time to a CC). However, they shouldn't be held back academically because of where they are emotionally. I should have skipped a few grades in school & would have done much better if I'd been allowed to. So, I think it all depends. Holding them back academically isn't going to do them any good, but neither is pushing them out into the world before they're ready.
ya, My dd is accelerated, will actually be 15 at time of grad if she gets her way but I am pushing for at least 16... She is not going away to college but will go to intern with her Aunti for at least summer and then work at a fabric store for a year , maybe taking a couple of classes to get into Community college second semester of that year... we are taking it slow but I was not about to slow her just because she was young, its not fair to her to hold her back either. And her brother will be a year ahead of her in College and can look out for her a bit too.
I think, like everything else, it depends on the child, for which parents have to make the decision. I wanted to "quit" school at 16, my father enrolled me in a college course that summer...very smart. (I was bored...and wanted to just take my ged and get started with real life) I learned 3 things. I could handle the course work. The boys wanted too much to do with me and the girls too little. AND I needed to know how to type. I went back to high school. My eldest, very advanced academically, I did not allow to take college classes until her sr. year. she was not ready socially. the next, she took classes in her Jr and Sr. year, even though she is not as advanced academically. But socially it was not a problem. Each one gets a seperate deliberation and decision.
