High School Education should be simplified and focus on specialization.

Criticisms 1. But hyperbolas and matrices are not important like knowing how to calculate interest. Everyone should know that, but only statisticians need to know about the formulas for matrices. My social studies program, instead of randomly teaching history, would be about teaching history with parts in which the teachers give problems that students must use their problem solving skills to resolve and use history to prove it. Thus, the problem solving skill that you claim would be lost by cutting down on math would be returned in history class, but with a more real-life application. 2. Most jobs-any job that requires sales, persuasion, or informing people. 3. People should know the difference between viruses and bacteria. They should know that too many antibiotics are not good. Without these classes, this knowledge, that everyone who gets sick should use, would be lost. However, why does a person need to take physics, which teaches that gravity causes a ball to hit the ground. All the people need to know is that it hits the ground(unless the student strives to be a physicist). 4. I am not saying to turn high schools into colleges. I am saying to offer more career classes and to teach them at a higher level and have the opportunity to gain college credit off of them. We have AP classes, so why not make classes like AP business or architecture. Except all career classes would be taught at college levels, students do not have to take the opportunity to get the credit for them. 5. The government would not pay the teachers any more. They would just encourage more information about that class to be taught. It is the same as the government paying for an AP class. 6. The benefits of not having classes build on each other is that if one concept is not completely learned, it will not kill that student for the rest of high school. (This principle just applies to high school, not the primary and secondary schools.) 7.Why does a student who hates to design need to take architecture. Why do students who do not like touching dead things need to take biology. They will never need these classes. It is more important to teach the important things for life and then let them specialize in what they like. 8. See 1(above) Criticisms for your defense. 1. Math teaches so that 10% of the information students learn is actually useful for the average life. By forcing students who do not like math to lean about trigonometry and matrices, they would learn to hate the subject. 2. And, reading Shakespeare will just make them love to read(not). Any job that requires any type of persuasion or presentation requires research. 3. Why do students need to know that gravity makes a ball fall. It just falls, that is all they need to know unless they go into physics. 4. See my previous response for the similar point above. 5. It would have been too much to say everything. I just wanted to mention my basic points. In addition, your required computer classes would teach nothing more than what emphasizing computer use in computer classes would teach. 6. Many students do not want to know the specific career they want to choose, this is correct. However, many students know what interests them and will go into those careers. Students can also change what classes they take in high school. This is cheaper than paying ten grand at a college to realize they do not like design. This option is not really taken today. 7.Your closing remarks. Making people more intelligent is a goal of today's schools. I want to prepare them for life get them to decide on career choices BEFORE they get to college. Today, many students are being asked to come up with a list of careers before they reach high school. Then, they are pushed into taking those classes. My plan can give people the option to pursue many different interests in high school. My claim that students would be exposed to more things with my plan was reasoned by having more class spots open for different things or more college credit. I have done some research recently and most of what you are stating follows convergent teaching. Teacher lectures the students and the students pass test and learn standards. I am pursuing a more hands on method called divergent teaching. This is where students have to come up with ideas to solve problems. My social studies and English programs would greatly encourage this.