It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should Kids Be Able to Graduate After 10th Grade?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Should Kids Be Able to Graduate After 10th Grade?


www.time.com

High school sophomores should be ready for college by age 16. That's the message from New Hampshire education officials, who announced plans Oct. 30 for a new rigorous state board of exams to be given to 10th graders. Students who pass will be prepared to move on to the state's community or technical colleges, skipping the last two years of high school.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
news.yahoo.com




posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   

But can less schooling really lead to better-prepared students at an earlier age? Outside of the U.S., it's actually a far less radical notion than it sounds. Dozens of industrialized countries expect students to be college-ready by age 16, and those teenagers consistently outperform their American peers on international standardized tests.

With its new assessment system, New Hampshire is adopting a key recommendation of a blue-ribbon panel called the New Commission on Skills of the American Workforce. In 2006, the group issued a report called Tough Choices or Tough Times , a blueprint for how it believes the U.S. must dramatically overhaul education policies in order to maintain a globally competitive economy. "Forty years ago, the United States had the best educated workforce in the world," says William Brock, one of the commission's chairs and a former U.S. Secretary of Labor. "Now we're No. 10 and falling."


i can't say i agree with this... the "dumbing down of America" comes to mind...


Critics of cutting high school short, however, worry that proposals such as New Hampshire's could exacerbate existing socioeconomic gaps. One key concern is whether test results, at age 16, are really valid enough to indicate if a child should go to university or instead head to a technical school — with the latter almost certainly guaranteeing lower future earning potential. "You know that the kids sent in that direction are going to be from low-income, less-educated families while wealthy parents won't permit it," says Iris Rotberg, a George Washington University education policy professor, who notes similar results in Europe and Asia. She predicts, in turn, that disparity will mean "an even more polarized higher education structure — and ultimately society — than we already have."


aren't Japanese students, on average, much smarter than American students, and don't they also go to school more often? why would TPTB possibly think that going to school less will help this country?!

i think it's just so we can get into the workforce earlier, to get a headstart on feeding the wolves... it sounds like they're trying to make any excuse they can to get us to work so as to advance their own greed and selfishnsess...


who cares about a true education when you can start making money earlier to help those at the top?!


www.time.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   
here's some links regarding the "New Commission on Skills of the American Workforce" and their report, "Tough Choices or Tough Times"...

www.skillscommission.org...
"Tough Choices or Tough Times", .pdf _/url]
[url=http://www.skillscommission.org/pdf/High_SkillsLow_Wages.pdf]"America's Choice: high skills or low wages!", .pdf _/url]


When the report of the first Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, America’s Choice: high skills or low wages!, was released in 1990, the globalization of the world’s economy was just getting underway. That Commission understood the threat in the straightforward terms captured in the report’s subtitle. A worldwide market was developing in low-skill labor, it said, and the work requiring low-skills would go to those countries where the price of low-skill labor was the lowest. If the United States wanted to continue to compete in that market, it could look forward to a continued decline in wages and very long working hours. Alternatively, it could abandon low-skill work and concentrate on competing in the worldwide market for high-value-added products and services. To do that, it would have to adopt internationally benchmarked standards for educating its students and its workers, because only countries with highly skilled workforces could successfully compete in that market.

[url=http://www.skillscommission.org/pdf/exec_sum/ToughChoices_EXECSUM.pdf]"Tough Choices or Tough Times", page 6


ok, why am i thinking of Socialism and the NWO right now?...


...it sounds like this is just the tip of this iceberg...





[edit on 7-11-2008 by adrenochrome]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   
It is not a "dumbing down". My high school actually practiced this to some degree where professional training was available to students in their junior and senor years in lieu of the regular curriculum. It was one of the best school systems in the nation. Cutting out the nonsense and getting people into a profession without all the extraneous nonsense and expense is a good idea and a necessary one. Build the human capital and smash the roadblocks.

Counties like Sweden and Norway bring in professional programs early. My girlfriend lived in both of them and so knows this to be true.

I am happy to hear this be considered somewhere as I have been worried this wouldn't even come up.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I kind of like this, in theory. I'm by FAR no genius, but I skipped a grade and had enough credit to graduate high school at the end of 10th grade. That would have been AMAZING if I could have gotten a jump start on college - even if it was for nothing more than to get me working ahead of time. It would definitely have been worth it.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   
I know it isn't your fault, adrenochrome, but the article title is a ill framed.

"Should Kids Be Able to Graduate After 10th Grade?"

I know I and my entire senior class graduated 'after' the 10th grade...



And the title was probably decided by someone who spent that extra two years at high school, in addition to whatever continued education was completed.

A bit of irony there for you...


[edit on 7-11-2008 by MemoryShock]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   
The majority of 16 year olds are in no way mature enough to handle college and the university atmosphere that surrounds it. 18 year olds can barely cope with it. Perhaps this would have been different 20 years ago in regards to maturity level.

I personally feel that the 16 year olds today expect everything and do not want to work for anything. Many of them do not even hold jobs or want to hold jobs. They have not developed a key sense of self worth or have yet understand the value of a dollar.

Why the rush to force kids to grow up so soon?? I find it refreshing when I actually observe kids that have and use their imagination. At 16 I focused on school, getting a license, getting a job to pay for car insurance and finding a date for homecoming. 16 year olds don't need to worry about anything else.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by jibeho]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
I know it isn't your fault, adrenochrome, but the article title is a ill framed.

"Should Kids Be Able to Graduate After 10th Grade?"

I know I and my entire senior class graduated 'after' the 10th grade?



And the title was probably decided by someone who spent that extra two years at high school, in addition to whatever continued education was completed.

A bit of irony there for you...


Some pendantic smarty pants always has to jump into the fold, eh? Well, I read it as "to allow graduation at any point following the 10th grade." so really, it is a mathematical inequality being expressed:

if grade > 10 and exam = passed then
student may graduate



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I've been preaching this since i was in 10th grade. Although i wasn't in 10th grade for very long, I dropped out, and never looked back.

High school doesn't teach you anything useful anyway. It's a baby sitting service for big kids. It's impossible to concentrate with all the hormones flowing, which is why I disagree with the jump start on college idea.

Get these kids out early and give them the option to work. We can put them to work doing jobs that only illegal aliens will do, so that these kids can earn a little cash, learn to be a part of the workforce, and hopefully earn some sort of college compensation for the work done.

I wouldn't recommend going to college until a person reaches their 20's.
get some life experience first. I think the UK members will concur with that last part.

2 cents from a high school dropout who's never regretted it.


-Liquidsmoke



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
Some pendantic smarty pants always has to jump into the fold, eh? Well, I read it as "to allow graduation at any point following the 10th grade."


Whoa...hold up there for a second. Of course the statement is equal for more than one scenario. However, your phrasing above would have been the more fitting choice as it is clear and concise. The chosen title is technically inaccurate.

The moral of my post was such that, in some cases, the extra two years of schooling may not make a difference as far as academics go. I actually agree with the concerns above that this move would widen the socioeconomic divide even more. And currently, the upper class does not need the help in continuing that trend.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
I think it would work, and be a good idea, if and only if there is a complete re-working of our education system. As it is students spend a lot of time learning things, memorizing is actually a bit more accurate, that they never use and don't need once they graduate. I don't know about anyone else, but the majority of information covered in my high school classes I only memorized long enough to be tested on and then instantly forgot once the test was over.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Excellent point regarding memorization and regurgitation. That philosophy followed me through my first two years (waste of money) of college. College didn't truly make sense to me until I hit my core upper level classes. The first two years were spent primarily listening to lectures and scribbling notes from the overhead.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
Whoa...hold up there for a second. Of course the statement is equal for more than one scenario. However, your phrasing above would have been the more fitting choice as it is clear and concise. The chosen title is technically inaccurate.


It is accurate but is logically equivocal. I simply read it as it may be colloquially interpreted.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
The moral of my post was such that, in some cases, the extra two years of schooling may not make a difference as far as academics go. I actually agree with the concerns above that this move would widen the socioeconomic divide even more. And currently, the upper class does not need the help in continuing that trend.


A concomitant change should be to have a path to a career available to anyone that can make it in the door and fill out the needed paperwork regardless of their standing in any regard. Of course not all will make it but many will see a reason to learn something since the next step isn't blocked to them even before the birth certificate is completed.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


the only reason that i think this is just one example of "dumbing down", is that they not only want to lessen our time spent on education, but also they're trying to get us in the workforce earlier...

so is sacrificing education for a work trade going to make us smarter? of course not - unless they seriously crack down on the quality of the education, but unfortunately, i think that concept will get overlooked...
just like a president that promises many things before he gets into office, once he's in there he doesn't follow through on the issues he's addressed...

personally, i love learning something new every day, but when you're forced to learn it, it becomes a tedious task! i thought 12 grades of school didn't teach enough as it was, let alone 10 grades...

the point i'm trying to make, is that we're better than this - why should we forfeit some of our education so that we can become a specified, certified mindless robotic drone that's worked to death, just so the wolves can increase overall production to make their pockets even fatter??


unless i'm seriously missing something here, i really don't believe that this action will benefit us or the students - i think it's only going to benefit those in charge, those in power. how does shortening our education truly benefit us, when actually what this country really needs is more of an education?


peace, & Service-to-Others!! ...and thanks everyone, for replying intelligently and sharing your input!



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
The majority of 16 year olds are in no mature enough to handle college and the university atmosphere that surrounds it. 18 year olds can barely cope with it. Perhaps this would have been different 20 years ago in regards to maturity level.

I personally feel that the 16 year olds today expect everything and do not want to work for anything. Many of them do not even hold jobs or want to hold jobs. They have not developed a key sense of self worth or have yet understand the value of a dollar.

Why the rush to force kids to grow up so soon?? I find it refreshing when I actually observe kids that have and use their imagination. At 16 I focused on school, getting a license, getting a job to pay for car insurance and finding a date for homecoming. 16 year olds don't need to worry about anything else.
I would have to agree with this position. Let the kids be kids as long as they can. Besides, it should be up to the parents and the kids what and when they should do, not the state.

If you want to make a difference, outlaw dental mercury and fluoride!!! The IQ curve will go back up to where it should be.



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   
aren't most kids that are in 10th grade only 15 or 16?? can you imagine an immature 15 year-old sitting in college class?!! also, how's he going to get to school if he's not even old enough to drive?!!

it's not like they run school busses at community colleges...


what greedy, selfish swine came up with this nonsensical idea?!!!


i'm sorry, but i just don't think sacrificing an education is a good trade-off for SLAVERY.......


"The greatest slave is the slave who thinks he is free."

[edit on 8-11-2008 by adrenochrome]



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Seems that most everyone here is against this idea.


I still love it. I don't see trading an education(which there isn't much of to be found in the last 2 years of high school anyway), for an opportunity to work as slavery. Work is all i wanted to do at 15. I'm sure a lot of other kids feel the same way.

This is a good idea so long as we're not just sending these kids straight to college.



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by liquidsmoke206
 


well, when you start learning that literally, at LEAST 1/3 of your yearly income goes straight into the government's pockets from taxes, you begin to realize who's really benefitting. ...it was "1/3" anyway, for the year 2006.

i think the stats for 2006, that were released in 2007, went something like, we worked an average of 34 days that year to pay for state taxes, and an average of 77 days for federal. let's just be incredibly generous here and make that an even 100 total - well, 365 days in a year, and around 65 of those are for weekends and holidays, so that's about 300 days per year that we work, and over 100 of those full days go entirely to paying taxes...


personally, i don't like working for free, especially for over 100 days a year, and i'm sure you don't either!!


the truth hurts...

now maybe you can see where we're coming from, in not endorsing this heinous political effort!!



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
i get what yer sayin.
but the idea of ending school in grade 10 is not your enemy, clearly taxes are.

if there was a way to end school after grade 10 that didn't make the gov't look like greedy leaches, would you endorse it?

what i'm asking is, if you could manipulate the circumstances, could you ever see yourself being for this idea? and what would it take?



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by liquidsmoke206
 


i thought there would be an easy answer to that question, but apparently i'm gonna have to think about that more.

it's rather complicated, because there're so many factors at hand...

i'll get back to you soon!



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join