Hiigh School should continue until 25 years of age.

[TNAR]

there will be no need for no private school......

What's the alternative?

 

[Medusa]

What's the alternative?

if you think you really need any alternative to public schools ,we dont have to talk about it..

 

[Wiseone]

Since we live such longer lives, it seems to me that high school education should last until at least age 25. That way, since most post teens don't have a really good idea of how they want to make their living, this will give them time to think things over for a longer period of time and put their expensive, college education to waste.

I'd make this the post-teen years something like community college, but more elaborate and with the chance to live on campus.

Anyone else think this might be a good idea?

I went to work when I was 19 years old and went to college part time. I was a "jack of all trades" and master of none. I really didn't have a good idea of what I wanted to be "when I grew up" and there are lots of kids who are like this.

I'm 24 years old. I'm in charge of a truck platoon in Korea with a critical mission to the deterrence of nK aggression, I have roughly 50 Soldiers under me and 30 trucks and other equipment valued at over 30 million dollars. I've transported over 35 million in ammunition and moved my platoon all throughout Korea logging over a 1000 miles with no accidents or incidents. We've trained for war together and our efforts paid off by being recognized as best in BN at our last training event.

I'm a leader, a decision maker, and a Soldier, and I will not go back to high school.

I don't know why you would expect to figure out what you want to do by 25 any more than you'd know it by 18, especially if you are still in high school at 25. You're age won't change anything if you are still in that high schooler mentality. Just because you may not know exactly what you want to do doesn't mean you can't find a good with prospects for advancement, heck you may find you love it once you arrive. As long as you enjoy work, take pride in your work, and have a working environment where you're appreciated, see the results of your actions, have some kind of freewill in how to accomplish your tasks, you'll enjoy you're job.

For example while I was in college my education was in intelligence analysis, and I wanted nothing else but to be an analyst for the Army. I thought if I didn't get that job it would be the end of world and I'd just be putting up with some bull**** career I hated. Well I got into the Army, but I didn't get that job and instead was placed in Logistics and transportation. At first, I hated it, but I found there's was a sufficient degree of complexity that demanded study and good decision making to be successful, it was a challenge and I ****ing love a challenge. A year later, and I'm so happy I never got that job I wanted, I wouldn't have had these experiences. I've seen people and worked with people who had the job I wanted, and it wasn't what I had made it out to be.

 

[TNAR]

if you think you really need any alternative to public schools ,we dont have to talk about it..

Does this mean we should be crushing open competition and encouraging monopolies instead?

 

[imagep]

You would be doing my son a disservice while hindering his future prospects with your suggestion...not to mention his loss of freedom to make his own decisions.

not necesarally. All branches of the military have bands. And who's to say that he couldn't be an assistant music instructor in a public school? It's not unusually at all for recent high school band geek graduates to "tech" at a high school program for a modist income from the booster club, or sometimes for free.

I think that if we did requre some type of public service, there would have to be a very wide amount of options and opportunities, to include basically every career choice. there is no reason that music couldn't be one of them.

 

[Mycroft]

not necesarally. All branches of the military have bands. And who's to say that he couldn't be an assistant music instructor in a public school? It's not unusually at all for recent high school band geek graduates to "tech" at a high school program for a modist income from the booster club, or sometimes for free.

I think that if we did requre some type of public service, there would have to be a very wide amount of options and opportunities, to include basically every career choice. there is no reason that music couldn't be one of them.

My son has no desire to enter the military...not even to be in the band.

Being a teacher's assistant is already a requirement to achieve his music ed degree...he'll be doing that in his junior year.

The only thing a (I assume Federal) public service requirement would do is take valuable time away from his path to achieve his goals.


You know, I must ask: What would be the purpose of this public service requirement? How would it benefit my son? How would it benefit anyone?

 

[Medusa]

Does this mean we should be crushing open competition and encouraging monopolies instead?

education is not a competition..this is a basic right ..

 

[Mycroft]

education is not a competition..this is a basic right ..

Really?

Is this right listed anywhere? In the Constitution, perhaps?

Or is this similar to the so-called right to healthcare?

 

[Erod]

Here's a better idea.

Provide a path during high school for those who couldn't give a rip about education. Not every kid wants to go to college, yet the state decides that we must prepare everyone to do so. It accomplishes nothing but holding certain kids back, and teaching other kids nothing they can use in the workforce when they don't go to college.

 

[Mycroft]

Here's a better idea.

Provide a path during high school for those who couldn't give a rip about education. Not every kid wants to go to college, yet the state decides that we must prepare everyone to do so. It accomplishes nothing but holding certain kids back, and teaching other kids nothing they can use in the workforce when they don't go to college.

Yes. That is a much better idea than the one the OP came up with.

 

[TNAR]

education is not a competition..this is a basic right ..

Okay, let us agree that education is a basic right; this still says nothing of the question I asked previously. Why would competition not be desirable for any good? Competition creates higher quality, cheaper prices, more options, and more innovation.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Since we live such longer lives, it seems to me that high school education should last until at least age 25. That way, since most post teens don't have a really good idea of how they want to make their living, this will give them time to think things over for a longer period of time and put their expensive, college education to waste.

I'd make this the post-teen years something like community college, but more elaborate and with the chance to live on campus.

Anyone else think this might be a good idea?

I went to work when I was 19 years old and went to college part time. I was a "jack of all trades" and master of none. I really didn't have a good idea of what I wanted to be "when I grew up" and there are lots of kids who are like this.

Yet millions of kids are able to make a choice about career decisions. Why hold back those millions so that the few who have not grown up can catch up with them?

Those who cannot figure out what they want to be when they grow up, pump gas or dig ditches Etc. until someday when they figure out that it sucks.

 

[TNAR]

Yet millions of kids are able to make a choice about career decisions. Why hold back those millions so that the few who have not grown up can catch up with them?

Perhaps the education system itself has something to do with many young adults being uncertain about their futures. I certainly thought I knew what I wanted to do when I "grew up" but it turns out I was completely wrong. I would bet that if schools allowed kids to pursue career paths rather than forcing specific and generic BS down their throats they might have a better idea of what suited them and what did not.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Perhaps the education system itself has something to do with many young adults being uncertain about their futures. I certainly thought I knew what I wanted to do when I "grew up" but it turns out I was completely wrong. I would bet that if schools allowed kids to pursue career paths rather than forcing specific and generic BS down their throats they might have a better idea of what suited them and what did not.

Many high schools have vocational training. But if the student isnt doing well in school they never are able to take any of the classes.

The responsibility lies on first the student and at the same time the parents, schools can only do so much. And the school system was never intended to take over all lessons. In reality school only supplement what the parents should be teaching their own children. Or whoever is responsible for the child. Today's parents are lazy, not all but it seems that the trend is for parents to assume they just send their kids to school and thats that end of parenting. And as a parent I know it takes a lot of time and effort.

 

[TNAR]

Today's parents are lazy, not all but it seems that the trend is for parents to assume they just send their kids to school and thats that end of parenting. And as a parent I know it takes a lot of time and effort.

That's a rather bold statement. Are they really lazy or does the system in place simply allow them to drop off their kids and forget about them? Isn't the biggest argument against home schooling that parents allegedly don't know how to educate their kids? Seems like a damned if they do damned if they don't sort of deal.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Here's a better idea.

Provide a path during high school for those who couldn't give a rip about education. Not every kid wants to go to college, yet the state decides that we must prepare everyone to do so. It accomplishes nothing but holding certain kids back, and teaching other kids nothing they can use in the workforce when they don't go to college.

I'm with you in theory, but a few problems...

Exactly when do we decide which path to put them on? How young, exactly, are kids supposed to commit to a life path? Are they capable of doing so? How do you decide this?

Part of the reason 18-year-old college freshmen tend to drop and flunk out so much is that 18 is pretty young to know what you want to do with the rest of your life, especially when you haven't actually lived any of your life yet.

What happens if they want to solve that little problem by waiting a year or two to go to college? Statistically, the longer they stay out the less likely they are to return. At what point does it become a bad risk? At what point is the extra effort we spent on preparing them for college become wasted? Should we cut off opportunities for kids who really do want to go to college, just not immediately, in an attempt to make safe bets?

I'm not arguing against your point. But I see a plethora of implementation problems.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

That's a rather bold statement. Are they really lazy or does the system in place simply allow them to drop off their kids and forget about them? Isn't the biggest argument against home schooling that parents allegedly don't know how to educate their kids? Seems like a damned if they do damned if they don't sort of deal.

lol Thats why kids go to school to get additional training that parents dont have time to do. But that does not mean that they are off the hook and can just depend on the school system.
It is a known fact that children who get additional help outside of the school system do much better than those that do not. Come on its simple common sense.

 

[TNAR]

Thats why kids go to school to get additional training that parents dont have time to do. But that does not mean that they are off the hook and can just depend on the school system.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you; I simply don't think that we can attribute the failure to lazy parents or not enough subjects being taught at school or pretty much any of the other common claims. In my mind, the problem is simply one of monopoly privilege. Schools don't have to compete (essentially) so they don't bother with things that will actually help kids determine what they enjoy and, subsequently, what they may find desirable later in life.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you; I simply don't think that we can attribute the failure to lazy parents or not enough subjects being taught at school or pretty much any of the other common claims. In my mind, the problem is simply one of monopoly privilege. Schools don't have to compete (essentially) so they don't bother with things that will actually help kids determine what they enjoy and, subsequently, what they may find desirable later in life.

We already allow children to attend private schools and other alternatives to the public school system. And schools do compete now that many states allow students to go to the public school of their parents choosing. And they also compete with private schools. There are many options these days for where or if you want to send your children to a public school.

You make it sound like the only option is a state ran school system. You also are asserting that its the public schools job to help a student make decisions on future career choices. I believe that the state should not be taking the roll traditionally filled by parents. if by the time a student graduates from high school and they have no idea what career choice they want to make, get a job and try out some vocations then get the higher education needed. In the real world many adults change their mind on what career is best for them. Why should it be required that children make decisions that dont really need to be made? Colleges require a basic education that will be used in any career choice made later. Even if you know your major before hand those classes are still required. After completing those classes one should either pick a major or move on.

 

[TNAR]

And they also compete with private schools.

This is like claiming UPS and FedEx compete with USPS. Sure, they both compete for packages (e.g. students) but none of the private alternatives enjoy federal backing and a monopoly of first class mail. Private schools certainly have to compete with public schools for students but they also have to compete for funding because the students are their funding. Public schools, on the other hand, appear to compete for students but there is actually a higher payoff for having less students attend because this will allow them to spend more per student since their budget is not determined by the number of students attending. This is not free competition by any stretch of the imagination.

You make it sound like the only option is a state ran school system. You also are asserting that its the public schools job to help a student make decisions on future career choices.

Of course public schools are not the only choice; they are simply the only recipients of taxpayer money and government influence which essentially immunizes them from competitive forces. I do not presume that public schools ought to assist students with career choices (though many of them do) because I believe they would fail miserably at it. However, I do believe that it is within the proper scope of a school as such to help students discover their talents and desires which formulate into career paths. This is not "taking the roll traditionally filled by parents" or a requirement "that children make decisions". It is education. Education not only expands the mind in relation to external events but for internal events as well. It is well within the scope of an educator to assist a student discover not only which traditional school subjects are of interest but also which areas of real life are desirable. This would eliminate the need for a trial and error approach as you suggest students take.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

This is like claiming UPS and FedEx compete with USPS. Sure, they both compete for packages (e.g. students) but none of the private alternatives enjoy federal backing and a monopoly of first class mail. Private schools certainly have to compete with public schools for students but they also have to compete for funding because the students are their funding. Public schools, on the other hand, appear to compete for students but there is actually a higher payoff for having less students attend because this will allow them to spend more per student since their budget is not determined by the number of students attending. This is not free competition by any stretch of the imagination.

Sorry but you got that wrong. Less students means less money to public schools.

Of course public schools are not the only choice; they are simply the only recipients of taxpayer money and government influence which essentially immunizes them from competitive forces. I do not presume that public schools ought to assist students with career choices (though many of them do) because I believe they would fail miserably at it. However, I do believe that it is within the proper scope of a school as such to help students discover their talents and desires which formulate into career paths. This is not "taking the roll traditionally filled by parents" or a requirement "that children make decisions". It is education. Education not only expands the mind in relation to external events but for internal events as well. It is well within the scope of an educator to assist a student discover not only which traditional school subjects are of interest but also which areas of real life are desirable. This would eliminate the need for a trial and error approach as you suggest students take

.
yes tax's pay for public schools. I am not sure why you are stating the obvious. But if an alternative private school takes away a large percentage of the students then the school looses money. Which is direct competition.

First class is a type of mail service and many privately owned mail services offer the exact same type of service. Why do you think that the US Postal service is struggling?


I did point out that schools do offer vocational training. But I was talking about the advice that parents give their children. The state should never be that roll model.

 

[Medusa]

Okay, let us agree that education is a basic right; this still says nothing of the question I asked previously. Why would competition not be desirable for any good? Competition creates higher quality, cheaper prices, more options, and more innovation.

you cant not rebuild something by destroying its basis.this leads to the commercialization of education system ,is it an industry market or a necessity for the progression of a society?

no ,niether teachers nor students deserve being treated like voluntary slaves..everthing starts from a true educational background ...

 

[TNAR]

Less students means less money to public schools. … if an alternative private school takes away a large percentage of the students then the school looses money. Which is direct competition.

Why would a public school lose money if it lost students? Does the county reduce taxes? Does the federal government reduce taxes? Does any government take a tally of how many students are in attendance and remit funds based on that number? Someone can feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but from my understanding of pretty much any government agency’s funding processes the amount they receive is based on 1) how much they received previously and 2) how much they request. I have never seen a government agency defend the use of funds on any level.

First class is a type of mail service and many privately owned mail services offer the exact same type of service. Why do you think that the US Postal service is struggling?

The USPS certainly competes for packages and large envelopes but there are no competitors for simple letters and postcards. The USPS is struggling because of the inability to set prices based on costs.

you cant not rebuild something by destroying its basis.this leads to the commercialization of education system ,is it an industry market or a necessity for the progression of a society?

I’m not suggesting we destroy it; I’m simply advocating for an end to the monopolization of education. Aren’t we continually being told that monopolies are bad? Why would government monopolies not fall into this category as well?

Education is certainly a necessity but so are food, energy, and shelter. Does the world experience a shortage of any of these because of commercial activity? Not that I’m aware of. On the other hand, there is much shortage of goods worldwide due to government quotas and restrictions.

no ,niether teachers nor students deserve being treated like voluntary slaves.

What do you call the near requirement of all children to attend school for an arbitrarily set period of time if not slavery? Why would you consider competition to be “voluntary slavery”?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Why would a public school lose money if it lost students? Does the county reduce taxes? Does the federal government reduce taxes? Does any government take a tally of how many students are in attendance and remit funds based on that number? Someone can feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but from my understanding of pretty much any government agency’s funding processes the amount they receive is based on 1) how much they received previously and 2) how much they request. I have never seen a government agency defend the use of funds on any level.

Read this:

Enrollment declines in Toledo Public Schools - Toledo Blade The decline means less money and a continually shrinking district, which less than a decade ago had 10,000 more students. Districts get a set amount of money per student from the state.

The USPS certainly competes for packages and large envelopes but there are no competitors for simple letters and postcards. The USPS is struggling because of the inability to set prices based on costs.

People email instead of sending a post card now days. When was the last time that you sent a letter? I know that I haven't sent a letter in the last decade. Let me point out that I am not a supporter of Deprivatization. I fully supported the privatization of our phone system. The USPS serves a great purpose though to communities that would not support a private carrier.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

You know - I'm sick and ****ing tired of the brainless asskissing dribble that goes on and on and on and on about how private schools are better.

I do not have mountains of money to dump on enrollment and fees for my kids to attend school.

Thus - I'm heavily involved and quite active in the means provided to parents to continually be involved in public school and our children's education. . . with parents like me in mass: we can make beneficial changes to the school district's behavior and function which benefit our students.

Private schools that cost an arm and a leg and offer many inconveniences are overblown and praised too highly - and I'm tired of people being told over and over that the only good bet is THAT bet for their kid's education because it's NOT.

Without strong parental support and involvement in a child's education even private school fails to deliver.

The problems with public schooling isn't in their basic nature - it's in a lack of parenting interest and involvement and those that DO care the most and CAN make the most beneficial change when we ban together are bailing left and right - leaving fewer and fewer of us to actually improve things.