You know, this has been bugging me for about a year as I pieced it all together through rants in my brain. Ever since the slave ages, kids have not had full human rights in America. The closest to having full human rights was child labor, but that was something of slavery as it had tiny wages. Are children not human enough to have full human rights of freedom of speech, right to bear arms and earn a wages from doing something besides house chores?
@Firefly: A slight one, which would allow for children to enter even more accelerated classes on top of the ones already offered in some schools- like mine. They aen't enough for many children, and classes that are more oriented to jobs and specialties would be a welcome addition if we ever get the time and money.
Primary and secondary education is supposed to give you a broad breadth of knowledge in all areas so you have the option to pursue any career that you want. If this policy were to be implemented, there would be no way you could fit in every subject. You'd have to sacrifoce one or two subjects at least, something you might regret later in life.
As for specialisation, 12/13 would be premature. Most children have no idea what they want to do with their lives. I have a brother currently in his 3rd year of university, and he has no clue. What makes you think a child will know any better?
Aside from all that, pragmatic factors would probably halt this before it got off the ground.
If you are so keen on doing this, quit school and go get an apprenticeship. As things are right now, that's the only way you'll get the specialisation you crave.
I don't live in Britain. . .we don't have primary/secondary school. And the saccelerated classes aren't by choice, they're by tests, aptitude, and grades.
I don't live in Britain. . .we don't have primary/secondary school.
Ok, school from 4-15, happy?
And the saccelerated classes aren't by choice, they're by tests, aptitude, and grades.
That still doesn't account for children who don't know wat they want to do, which is a vast proportion. It doesn't account for the numerous pragmatic problems that would materialise either.
That's why it would be a choicewhether you would want to be in it or not.
Therein lies the problem. Children shouldn't be trusted with the responsibility of deciding what they want to do in life at such a young age. Most would probably be predictably optimistic and go for astronaut or F1 driver. What then?
Name a few, please.
Number one, and probably most important would be $. Number two would be finding capable teachers. Most regular teachers do not have specialised knowledge with regards to sepcific career paths. It would be very difficult to accomodate a wide range of jobs. Three, would be the time. A school day is only so long and you would still have to learn basic skills. Taking 12/13 year olds out and teaching them specialised skills would be useless if they don't advance in the academic section too. With extra classes I fail to see how this could be done.
Number one, and probably most important would be $
You'd be surprised how many grants the various EFs are willing to give out for things like this. -------
Therein lies the problem. Children shouldn't be trusted with the responsibility of deciding what they want to do in life at such a young age. Most would probably be predictably optimistic and go for astronaut or F1 driver. What then?
It wouldn't be a whole-time thing- that would be infeasible. Classes with a certain focus would work better- and I'm not sure about the British education system, but extra things like this would easily fit in as an occasional part of US education. And why would such extreme jobs be a part of it? -----------
Number two would be finding capable teachers.
It would be an occasional thing- though this is a legitimate problem. I'll think on it. ----------
Three, would be the time. A school day is only so long and you would still have to learn basic skills. Taking 12/13 year olds out and teaching them specialised skills would be useless if they don't advance in the academic section too. With extra classes I fail to see how this could be done
This is solved by making it occasional- in conjunction with accelerated versions of the required classes, I would be happy academically- and it is likely that other children would be as well.
You'd be surprised how many grants the various EFs are willing to give out for things like this.
Don't forget it's adults as cynical as me who would ultimately be deciding to give this scheme $ or not. I'd most certainly plump for the latter when you consider the other more ebenficial schemes it could be invested into.
This is solved by making it occasional- in conjunction with accelerated versions of the required classes, I would be happy academically- and it is likely that other children would be as well.
Specialised knowledge required for use in the work place is tricky stuff, especially for a 12/13 year old, even smart ones. If it was occasional, there wouldn't be any point, because you wouldn't get enough done.
It wouldn't be a whole-time thing- that would be infeasible. Classes with a certain focus would work better- and I'm not sure about the British education system, but extra things like this would easily fit in as an occasional part of US education. And why would such extreme jobs be a part of it?
You didn't really answer my question. It was how would you get round the problem that the vast majority of 12/13 year olds have no idea with what they want to do with their life.
My astronaut point illustrates how imperfect and unfair this system would be to children with jobs that cannot be easily taught in a classroom.
It would be an occasional thing- though this is a legitimate problem. I'll think on it.
It being occasional would be even more of a problem. It'd be far easier to offer full time employment to said experts, rather than getting to come in at their convenience, although, this would mean paying them an awful lot of money for relatively little value. I can't really see how you'd get round this problem.
I don't think children should be able to vote, because as of now, all they have to worry about is what they're getting for Christmas, and if their friends are cool, or if their grades are good, etc. Even if one does understand polotics, like someone said way back, I think it was on page one, If a child has an IQ of 150, it still doesn't mean he's not a whiny little brat.
I don't think children should be able to vote, because as of now, all they have to worry about is what they're getting for Christmas, and if their friends are cool, or if their grades are good, etc.
I don't think they should have the vote either, but kid isn't synonymous with immature. I guess it depends on what you mean by kid (how old they are). I stopped worrying about that kind of stuff before I became a teenager. And even when I was eight, I still cared about politics, though I will admit I didn't really understand them. The point is, many kids, whether they care or not, won't understand politics until an older age. Some will, but once you're eighteen and out of the house, you have a better chance of understanding what life is actually like. To some it only adds to their understanding, but for many, it will create it. That's my reasoning.
