These laws are in place partially to protect children. 8th graders are only 13 or 14 years old and very much in their parents control. What if a child wanted to go to school but their parents force them out to get a job. In a "perfect world" parents would encourage their children, but in reality this doesn't happen in many parts of this country. Allowing 13/14 year olds to drop our of school will only worsen the cycle of poverty. Will a 13 year old really be better off with a full time job instead of school? If school is going to be a choice, 8th grade is too young. I agree that school has to be optional for people to really make the most of it, but optional can mean many things. We should increase student's options. Emphasize vocational school or work-study high school programs. Allow students to have more control of the subjects that they take in high school instead of forcing a college prep curriculum on them. Allow students to take mostly sciences or maths with just a few writing or humanities classes; or let students take mostly humanities and only a few math classes. As you suggested, maybe there is another solution. If we reform early childhood education and elementary school education, then we can inrease enthusiasm in schools. And sometime people need an extra push. I'd argue that your point that "most don't even when the tools are handed to the on a silver platter." Most people do take advantage of these, some people don't. This is completely true. I am a strong supporter of early childhood (pre-school) education because this is where we can really make a difference. I suggest reforming high school specifically because of the reasons mentioned above. Giving students options and letting students have some control of their own education can solve the problem without necessarily giving them the option of dropping out (until at least 10th grade). These fields all should be available to those who want to take them. Maybe a solution is an emphasis on the realities of these degrees. My best friend is a music major and I don't know a single music/art major who doesn't know the realities that they face when they graduate. They don't have high expectations but most believe that following their passion is more important. They're all aware that financially, their futures will be difficult. With degrees that you call "garbage" (and I think you are completely wrong in calling them that) maybe all we need is to educate people on what they should expect, so that individuals can make the choices that are best for them.
These are interesting facts. How are you suggesting that we use this information? In regard to your "skewed statistics" comment, I think that it is really important to keep these differences in mind when considering educational reform.We can use this information to improve our educational system. We can't let the success of the top overshadow the needs of the bottom, or the problems of the bottom distract from the success of the top. I recently graduated as Valedictorian of one of those top 10% high schools. My school district wasn't perfect by any means, but we scored very well (on average) on standardized tests. The problem you described above was true within my high school itself, the top percentage of students did extremely well and the bottom students did terribly. The problem was that my high school focused only on making the top students better in order to have their scores compensate for how low the other students' scores were. There was a little focus placed on the worst students to help them, but in general the middle-range students were screwed. The "average" students got absolutely no attention and struggled significantly; they had no control of their own education and instead had to wait while all the top and bottom level students got special treatment. It was easy to let "averages" distract from what was actually going on.
My first piece of advice would be to read the book called "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell. The intention is to enable an understanding of where we are because of who we are or where we were. My other advice involves segregation and I am sure that anyone in the top 10 % of anything will consider me a racist troll. Thus, carry on with with your preconceived notions.
american education is fine at the top end, the best universaties in the world are in the US; on the other hand the education system in the US in general is one of the worst (and most unfair) in all of the "western world".
Why not just require parents to educate each child like they must house and feed etc. their child and give them a sum of funds to use for that say 75% what they spend per child now. If they refuse or don't make arrangements this can be very flexible treat it as felony child neglect. But leave the means up to the parents until the child is eighteen. Issue the money as a tax benefit so its not a voucher and don't bother with anything save sending the check.
What beliefs do you mean? I'm not in favour of people being able to indoctrinate their children. School should not be biased, and in my opinion should absolutely not be religious in nature.
What's the point of a government school system if the students can't be indoctrinated? That's been the whole purpose since compulsory education laws were enacted: create good government citizens who are generally obedient to authority and also make good workers for corporations and industry. If you want an unbiased school, send your kid to a private school.
I always thought it was meant to ensure certain educational standards, but they've certainly failed at it.
Well, if by standards, you mean Protestant ethics, you would be correct. The early advocates of government education definitely did not like the influence of Catholicism on children who attended inexpensive Catholic schools. Education in America was widespread and almost everyone was literate prior to government involvement. Government schools weren't created to ensure that more people would learn academics, they were created to homogenize society and bond more people to government. You said you don't like indoctrination, but that is exactly what goes on in government schools. Children learn to believe that government is the cure for all problems; and they are taught right and wrong based on prevailing legislation (illicit drugs are bad, FDA approved drugs are good, trust your government-licensed doctors, etc.).
I graduated from a relatively small, Northern Michigan high school in 2004. I've had several years to reflect on this, particularly since history and politics and news have become like a hobby to me. I feel that there was a lot of information left out in History lessons. While I pretty much got the gist of most situations that occurred, I believe the same for my peers, there appears to be crucial gaps in the overall story-telling process. And I've noticed, upon further examination, that these gaps tend to be "revealing information" about our government, I.e. something they've done wrong. That's not to mention periods of time that are completely glossed over. I particularly remember doing most of my History learning from the various books I had to sign for/out over the years. And while it is probable that there was discussion of events outside of the book, all I can remember is reading from the History book on my desk. I've asked my wife, who is a History teacher, why History is taught in fashions like that. She's said that it is easier to teach from the book (which she adds that she doesn't like to do) and that teachers do not have enough time to cover all of the information relevant to a particular event. I can see it being easier for teachers to teach strictly from the book, which is treated as the end-all, be-all source of irrefutable knowledge. It's their guideline. And I definitely agree that History teachers do not have enough time to cover the amount of information they must pass on to eager young minds. However. Where I raise a question is if we're being taught necessarily the "right" information to begin with, given that our teachers' time is finite. For example, all I can remember from my schooldays about US foreign policy: Revolutionary War, 1812, Mexican-American, various Indian ones, Spanish-American, World War I and World War II. I can't remember ever getting past WW II. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41677.pdf But as that shows, there is a lot more to US foreign policy than just the conflicts I mentioned above. I guess it boils down to the information we want our high school graduates having when they come out of school to enter the adult working world. For it is the stories they are told in school that comprises their compass view of history and the world around them. And there has been many times I've heard or been a part of the following, "Well, that's what I was taught in school." To which the other person replies, "Well, you were lied to."
