High School should be terminated and replaced with an alternative.

You have made many good points, and I will do my best to clarify. I couldn't quote your entire statements because of the character limit. Your statement: "You are only replacing highschool as the resolution suggest so I am wondering if i should address this or not however i will just becuase i see how this would help transition into the highschool alternative. Is this middle school proposaleven needed/ can it work? ..... I would like a bit more information on how you plan on manifesting a centralized learning system without any divisions and more importantly why this is needed." My Response: Yes, I am replacing High school as the resolution, but for my system to work there must be reforms before/after high school. Many schools operate on a Classical learning style and it is incredibly fast paced. From Kindergarten up, students are forced to work and think for themselves. I only attended a classical school in Kindergarten and half of first grade, but I remember being way ahead of the other kids because of my roots in classical learning. Yes, the classical system already works around the world. The modernized version does include subjects, but I am proposing that we revert back to the original classical system. Your link brought me to a "cannot display" page so I can not check out and discuss your source. I acknowledge that my suggestion is in no way unique to my plan- I simply propose to use an already in place system, with some changes, mainly the internships. You asked how math and science can be learned from literature. Take the book "Fever 1793" by Laurie Halse Anderson. From this book lessons in biology about the Yellow fever and other diseases can be pulled. The point is that kids learn that every subject can correlate to another. Taking lessons from books would not eliminate practice sheets. The only difference would be that the lessons would be pulled from literature. Technically there would still be "subjects", but they would just be melded together and taken from one another. Your Statement: "I compete on a debate team and whenever someone proposes soemthing on a event that requires some sort of policy or bill or whatever to be proposed the best ones are specific and let you know what they suggest. I feel like if you are proposing any sort of policy or alternative to national education you need to at least be more specific in important areas. Now I am not saying be specific everywhere there's only a certian amount of characters but what i mean is show what parts of highschool or what classes or subjects will be covered in middle school." My Response: You are right- I should have been more specific. Just as cirriculums are different based on schools, exact subjects covered may vary. The point of Grammar school (grades 1-8) is to complete basic core classes. Your Statement: "This would only increase the preponderance of kids going into collage without knowing what they want to do. The problem is a lot of kids including myself don't know what they want to be in 9th grade or when the are only 13-14 years old. Also again you don't elaborate on why we need to do this. Why do we need to eliminate high school in order to provide the alternative to go to trade school or skip to military, can't we simply just add this option to the school system as it is? Also according too according to http://mentalhealthdaily.com......... the brain is fully developed at the age of 20 so I wonder is it good to have 13-14 year olds making career choices? Another thing your proposal doesn't address is athletes, I mean without high school what alternative will you provide for basketball players and football players to prepare for collage sports? Will you have to establish a sort of 13-18 year old league and if so can we afford it?" My Response: I disagree. The point of the internships is to discover what you want to be! Instead of sitting in a room learning things we don't need we would get to experience real world life. Yes, there would be switching of internships, but that is meant to replace switching majors so students would be able to get in and out of college as quickly as possible. The beginning years of internship are not "career" choices as you propose, but they are simply tools that an 18 year old going into college would use to help choose his major. My system is about education, not athleticism. Honestly I don't think sports are very important ( I mean, what about the arts, you didn't mention them) but for the people that do, there are church leagues and other teams to join. With the abolition of high school, there would be a higher demand for teams. Of course we can afford it- these teams would not be subsidized by the government; if you want to play you have to pay a fee. In regards to your clarification: I don't see anything wrong with changing the routine, if there are things to be changed. The result/reward of changing internships is different than changing majors, because going into college knowing what you want to do will minimize college time. In regards to your conclusion: No, we can't force kids not to switch majors, but as a result of the internships they will know what they want and will be infinitely less likely to switch. I only guaranteed that there would be less. Also, I disagree with you that teens 14-18 are unable to make decisions. Just because our brains are not "fully developed" does not mean we are incapable of thinking correctly. Besides, the choice of what internship you want to take is not life changing. The internships are simply ways for a student to see what a prospective job atmosphere would be like. The more important decisions would come in college, and I believe the internships will leave students better prepared for that decision. My answer to your Question: Good point. However, since colleges will now be specialized, you would only take the classes you need. Say you take an English major. There would be no need to take Algebra 2, Calculus, Chemistry, etc. The student would concentrate on Liberal Arts classes. Also, the internship (based on what you take) would include some classes that are relevant to the job. For subjects that would be harder to pick up such as math, it would be the student's job to maintain their current knowledge in these areas instead of homework- but not new knowledge, just what they already learned. In a classical education, in 8th grade Students are usually learning Algebra or Geometry, so that is the knowledge level they should have on a core basis. I believe there is no need to go any higher unless one is majoring in math. Regarding your response to core classes should be removed: My new system does involve fixing the issue with core classes, but you are right, my alternative has little to do with core classes alone. The alternative addresses this problem: students are sitting in rooms learning things they won't need (core classes) instead of experiencing what working in the real world is like. Then they are expected to know what they want to do? Even in college, you still have no idea what your prospective job would be like, hence all the indecision. Regarding common core: I am assuming the "national curriculum" you referenced is common core. I believe that this is not the solution to the problem, rather it will only make the problem worse. If you want to, check out these references that explain why I believe common core is harmful to society. http://www.tfpstudentaction.org... http://www.freedomworks.org...