Do you think HS is absolutely needed? I mean do you think a kid after the 8th grade could be trained in the work force and handle start working at that point?

Yes and no. 14 yr olds need to be in school, not at work.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Yes and no. 14 yr olds need to be in school, not at work.

A 14 year old could be trained to do the basics of most jobs, but I don't think most kids that age have the people skills or are mature enough to be counted on for accountability or dependability.

High School is teenage babysitting plain and simple. They're too young to be serious competitors in the work force but they can't sit home and do nothing cause the parents would pull their hair out. So we invented High School and pretend that the stuff they learn there is actually going to help them or even be remembered the day after graduation.

Jason B. wrote:

A 14 year old could be trained to do the basics of most jobs, but I don't think most kids that age have the people skills or are mature enough to be counted on for accountability or dependability.

You make a good point about accountability or dependability, Jason. I would also add their lack of physical ability to do many jobs. Most 14 year olds like the strength and endurance to do manual labor.

For the most part I don't think it would be a good idea, we've come a long way from when Red Skelton went to work after the 7th grade ("I guess I was hungry) and would work in the summer and go to school in the winter.

No, I don't think high school is necessary. And I think the reason some young teens have problems with responsibility is because they've been infantilized. When you treat someone like a child, they behave like a child.

If you study the history of education in the U.S., you will learn that high school was made compulsory to keep teens out of the work force....NOT because anyone thought they should be learning, but because they were competition for working men with families during the Great Depression.

I got my first job at 15, and while I didn't quit school, I didn't find it a very valuable experience. I learned more working than I did sitting in a poorly run classroom.

2xy wrote:

No, I don't think high school is necessary. And I think the reason some young teens have problems with responsibility is because they've been infantilized. When you treat someone like a child, they behave like a child.

If you study the history of education in the U.S., you will learn that high school was made compulsory to keep teens out of the work force....NOT because anyone thought they should be learning, but because they were competition for working men with families during the Great Depression.

I got my first job at 15, and while I didn't quit school, I didn't find it a very valuable experience. I learned more working than I did sitting in a poorly run classroom.

But then there's the next question, what about college? Personally, I think I got more out of my high school education than I ever did in the 5 years I spent in college. But then again, I finished high school when I was 13, so I guess that evens out.

2xy wrote:

No, I don't think high school is necessary. And I think the reason some young teens have problems with responsibility is because they've been infantilized. When you treat someone like a child, they behave like a child.

Because they ARE children.

Quote :

If you study the history of education in the U.S., you will learn that high school was made compulsory to keep teens out of the work force....NOT because anyone thought they should be learning, but because they were competition for working men with families during the Great Depression.

As it should be. There are child labor laws for a reason. A menial part-time gig to gain work experience, I can get with......but there is no way a 14 yr old child should be doing back breaking slave labor that's more suited for a grown man. Or have to worry about putting food on the table. It's not just mentally but physically, they aren't adults.

Quote :

I got my first job at 15, and while I didn't quit school, I didn't find it a very valuable experience. I learned more working than I did sitting in a poorly run classroom.

So what exactly do you think they should do with 14 yr olds if it isn't necessary for them to go to school? You really propose putting millions of children into the workforce?

Jason B. wrote:

A 14 year old could be trained to do the basics of most jobs, but I don't think most kids that age have the people skills or are mature enough to be counted on for accountability or dependability.

ITA with this. When I worked in a high school, the excuses these kids came up with for not showing up proved how immature and incapable they were of being responsible. Sure there were some responsible ones in the mix, but then I'd hear kids claiming they were fired for not showing up for work and then they'd reveal they didn't bother calling their bosses and had missed multiple shifts but they were indignant that their boss dared to fire them. They'd call in sick because they wanted to go the mall with their friends and so forth.

Besides, while min. wage might seem great when you're at home and have no expenses other than what you want to buy for yourself, paying for rent, food and so forth is a LOT different. While a very few number can make it with minimal education, a higher level of education opens up far more doors.

If someone wants to stop after 8th grade, they could always go live with the Amish, as I believe that's how high thei education goes.

is high school necessary? not sure, but apparently i didnt think so, which is why i had dropped out of it.

Middle school kids going straight to college after middle school.......yeeeeeeeah

2xy wrote:

Nystyle709 wrote:

As it should be. There are child labor laws for a reason. A menial part-time gig to gain work experience, I can get with......but there is no way a 14 yr old child should be doing back breaking slave labor that's more suited for a grown man.

Personally, I don't know anyone, man or child, who does "back-breaking slave labor."

There are plenty of jobs where grown men toil like slaves. Don't act like you don't know what I meant by that. You don't know anyone who works a lot? Puts in long and tiring hours? You really want me to be technical? Damn, I really gotta stop giving people the benefit of the doubt I see. My point is is that other the specialized careers where advanced education is necessary......menial, grunt and damn near back breaking work would be the majority kind of work that a 14 yr old would be able to get as a result of having no education. A CHILD should not have to be subjected to that.

Nystyle709 wrote:

So what exactly do you think they should do with 14 yr olds if it isn't necessary for them to go to school? You really propose putting millions of children into the workforce?

Where did I say that?

I didn't say you said it. But I'm asking you a question. If you don't think it's necessary for children to attend high school, then what exactly do you think they should be doing in the time that they would be spending at school?

I propose treating children as human beings with rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, just like all the other citizens in our nation. I propose treating children as individuals. ALL people have "special needs." Some will do well in school, some would do better learning a trade, some would travel the world and learn much along the way.

LOL. Forget being a child then. Going by your logic, if they're able to walk and talk at the same time, then they are able to make their own way and know right from wrong. You're going to treat a 10 yr old the exact same way you would treat 20 yrd old? Wow. Kids are treated like human beings. No 'rights' are being taken away from them. We protect children for a reason.


No, "putting" millions of children into the workforce would be just as heinous as "putting" millions of children in school. I don't see my kids as property to "put" somewhere, and I sure as hell don't see them as property of the government.

LOL, oh dear. It's heinous to be put in school? Requiring them to learn is heinous? OMG. So if they don't have to be put in school, then WHAT should they be doing then? Please, tell me.

Being "in school" and having "an education" are not the same thing.

And you really can't require anyone to learn. You can only require them to attend school.

My kids aren't in school. They learn things. They go places. They are not uneducated.

It's heinous to treat someone as a grade or a number. Imagine if this kid was made to stagnate in a sixth grade classroom because he's 12. Thank goodness people out there have made allowances for him, and he won't be going to high school.

Schools are not only about learning, but also about having social contact. Home-schooling is fine, but not everybody can afford that. With more than a billion heads on the planet, how should home-schooling work? And if the children are 'schooled' at home, how will their social behaviour be developed?


I believe everybody improve themselves by learning or educating themselves. Money isn't the only thing that matters in life. I also believe education will open and or widen the horizon.


The quality of life depends on the intellectual quality. People in modern countries have better lives than people in developed or under developed countries mostly because they have higher level of education.

Education improves our lives. Without education, no technology or art. There'll be - for example, no computer. No computer, no internet. No internet - no forums. And worse than that, no beers and no tv.

I don't think 50% of what's learned after grade 10 (including college and graduate school) will be applied into adulthood and career, it's mostly just refreshers and varying technique of the same things already taught at that point. But I don't believe a 14 year old is psychologically "ready" for the repetition or responsibility of working full time. He needs to stay in school for the sake of learning to better deal with commitment and other people.

rienpoet wrote:

Schools are not only about learning, but also about having social contact. Home-schooling is fine, but not everybody can afford that. With more than a billion heads on the planet, how should home-schooling work? And if the children are 'schooled' at home, how will their social behaviour be developed?

The purpose of school is not to have a place to go and chat it up with your friends and play games all day even though that is what a lot of schools are becoming; it's to sit down, shut your mouth, open your mind, and learn. And exactly what bubble are the children going to be in for the rest of the day that they won't possibly be within 100 yards of another child to 'develop their social behavior'?

My brother and I were homeschooled and we were friends with all the public schooled kids on the block. Now how was such an impossible feat pulled off? Because we got together to play AFTER school, you know, that time between the afternoon and dark and before bed. And then there are the weekends, and summer vacation, school holidays, spring break, etc.

High school is the same as trying to work a crossword puzzle in the waiting room of a dentists office. It's less about learning and more about patience.

rienpoet wrote:

Schools are not only about learning, but also about having social contact. Home-schooling is fine, but not everybody can afford that. With more than a billion heads on the planet, how should home-schooling work? And if the children are 'schooled' at home, how will their social behaviour be developed?

-from The Bitter Homeschooler's Wish List

3) Quit interrupting my kid at her dance lesson, scout meeting, choir practice, baseball game, art class, field trip, park day, music class, 4H club, or soccer lesson to ask her if as a homeschooler she ever gets to socialize.

13) Stop assuming that because the word "home" is right there in "homeschool," we never leave the house. We're the ones who go to the amusement parks, museums, and zoos in the middle of the week and in the off-season and laugh at you because you have to go on weekends and holidays when it's crowded and icky.

14) Stop assuming that because the word "school" is right there in homeschool, we must sit around at a desk for six or eight hours every day, just like your kid does. Even if we're into the "school" side of education — and many of us prefer a more organic approach — we can burn through a lot of material a lot more efficiently, because we don't have to gear our lessons to the lowest common denominator.

My friends' children who go to public school have silent lunch periods, silent bus rides, and are frequently told by their teachers that they "aren't there to socialize." With all the activities homeschoolers have to choose from, many provided by or through other homeschooling families, I often have felt that we have had to turn down social opportunities in order to get some work done.

As for it being affordable, most of the homeschooling families I know live very frugally and/or have both parents working. My husband and I both work outside the home, and we are not destitute but we certainly are not well off. And not everyone can afford public school, either, seeing as there are free lunch programs and waivers for this fee and that fee depending upon income. I think I spend less overall, homeschooling, than I did when my kid was in school.

My 15yo goes to dance class on Tuesday and Thursday nights with my friend and her daughter. They're learning swing. After the lesson, there is open dance. On Thursday and Friday last week, he helped his BFF's mom with her home daycare from 10am-5pm. Yesterday he and his 19yo brother went on a ziplining trip with another friend, her mom, and her uncle. They will be home this evening. I'll be sure to let him know when he gets home that he's not getting enough time with other human beings.

(I also do not believe that it takes anyone thirteen years to learn how to get up and be somewhere on time. I really don't believe it takes thirteen years to teach what's learned in school, in general.)

Nystyle, if you are truly interested in answers, I recommend The Teenage Liberation Handbook for some light reading. Someone was thoughtful enough to post the entire book online. I have homework to do.

There are pros and cons to ALL kinds of school - high school, private school, home-schooling. There's never going to be a perfect system that fits all kids, which is why I'm glad we have options. Many of my friends went to public school and not all of them had great experiences , but many did. Some of my friends were home schooled and not all of them had great experiences, but some did. I've had a few friends who've gone to private schools and again, not all of them had great experiences, but some did. Homeschooling is great for some kids, but not for all, just as public school is great for some kids but not for all.

What bothers me is when people think there's only one method - that home-schooling is the only way to go or public schools are the onyl way to go. A good friend of mine has 2 kids who went through public school and are doing great at university, one son still in middle school and another son in a private school. The son in the private school needed a little bit of extra attention in his schooling and is now thriving. Public school can't be an entire failure, because lots of kids are graduating from public school and going on to be very successful. It's not right for everyone but it's not wrong for everyone, either.

I've never met anyone who thinks homeschooling is the ONLY way and that everybody should do it, but I have encountered a LOT of people who feel that way about public school. 'The parents can't teach them, they're parents, not teachers, they're not trained, they won't get it right, they'll only teach them their own fundie religious agenda', blah blah blah.