I think the US high school system is fundamentally flawed. In my four years in it, I've seen many a student drop out because they had a large number of classes which were uninteresting and unimportant to them. I think that if we focused less on more traditional classes (English, Math, etc.) and instead focused on what will be useful to the students later in life, more students would graduate and go on to college. In my proposed system, students would take a test to determine which careers they are best suited for in 7th or 8th grade. The students would be able to choose to take classes for one of those, or any other if they want. This would require the participation of colleges as well. They'd have to stop requiring so many courses before being able to get to work on your major. So, what do you think of this system, or the high school system in its current state?

I agree with your view. I think once a student reaches high school, education should be more trade school-like.

What if they don't want to do the subject they're best at?

Courses like English and basic math should be mandatory, but there should be more options at the beginning of high school.

[Edit: to Macman:]

I disagree. I think that if we deemphasize the importance of well-roundedness, then we run the risk of becoming an overly specialized society. Yes, that may be a more "efficient" system, but I think there's more to life than economic efficiency. We ought to encourage a developed and thoughtful citizenry.

Maybe English 1 and Algebra 1, but nothing above that. If you're going into say Computer Science, English isn't that important.

Mac allowed for this. "The students would be able to choose to take classes for one of those, or any other if they want." The test he proposes is more of a recommendation than it is an absolute judgement.

We need more focus on why we teach certain courses. We need to let students know why taking math, English, science, etc is important for a basic education.

If they wanted a recommendation, they could see the careers counsellor.

On the topic of subjects being "interesting", there is no need for an entire change of system. I have a book called "The Physics of Superheroes" that was used to teach a physics class successfully, changing nothing more than the examples it relates it to. Students would likely be more interested in basic curriculum subjects if they associated with it more.

I think high school should be about half liberal arts and half practical skills.

We should have well-rounded students, and that's where the liberal arts comes in. But we should also de-emphasize the taking of high-level "core" courses that students aren't interested in, and have little practical application outside of a few fields. Taking AP Chem and Calc is great if you're going into science and or math fields, but I think classes like personal finance or some kind of social science class would actually create a more well-rounded student and be better for the majority of students.

I agree with PJM.

English is still very important to computer scientists. One must be able to communicate effectively in any field.

Edit:

I also agree with PJM.

I agree with core classes such as Math and English being vital for a good education. Everyone needs that base to start off on and branch out to look at things more geared towards careers and secondary learning.

I was lucky enough to go to a school were we had a "career center", where students could take a class that lasted the entire year. The classes offered were those like Early Childhood Development, Web Development, Emergency Medical Training, and other career-based classes. I know not every school district has this, and that's a real shame; I took a class there, and it helped a lot for me to decide what I would go into college majoring as.

English in High School has nothing to do with communication, it's all about Literature.

Literature comprehension and exposition, both of which are vital to communication.

I don't know about you, but I've been able to read and write since well before English I.

I don't know about you, but I've learned helluva lot about writing since English I.

So have a communication class. Remember, there would be a lot more room in schedules.

It's not only about learning how to, but developing those skills even further.

(Man, the quote function is being raped.)

The subject English is very important to education. Without it, we wouldn't have a full understanding of Shakespeare or other texts that require a certain level of understanding. We wouldn't be able to appreciate what masters of the English language have written, we'd just read it and be done.

Would I have picked up Macbeth before studying it in English - probably. Would I have put it down after a few pages because it required too much brainpower? Probably. Now having finished it, written more than enough essays and doing in-depth analysis on the characters, I realise just how well thought out the play was and can even understand some of the humour. None of which would have happened without English class.

The same goes for visual and technical art, drama, etc. Yes you're unlikely to go into theatre or whathaveyou, but by analysing it you're more able to appreciate how unique good art is.

It's not being raped. It had drunk casual sex once and these are simply its children.

Then it flew to Sweden and cried rape! Oh right, my bad.

I think that English 1, 2, and a half semester of American Literature is needed.

Algebra 1 and 2 definitely. As for Trig, though, there's no need unless you go into mathematics. Just the other day I was asking a teacher the practical purpose of providing proof of identities. Is there something like algebra in business for trig? She said there really was no practical use. That kind of stuff pisses me off. I have no taste or desire for math (although, I'm rather good at it.) Don't feed me this stuff when I could be getting other classes done.

Government and history should always be mandatory--these classes create educated and informed citizens.

Physical fitness stays; we're too damn fat.

Then you have your vocational classes along with the fine arts.

I think a small test should be taken every year for students to see what they are good at. It's ultimately up to them, though.

If you're really wanting to reform education, scrap No Child Left Behind. As the son of two educators, I can attest to their despise of it: federal regulations without federal funding. Plus, kids who just hinder the system are forced to be there. If they're making a mess and don't want to be there, kick em.

Another thing I'd do is have mix-schedules. Not a pure block and not a pure standard. It works in many schools.

Budget wise, four day weeks, longer days. Scrap paper standardized testing. Making it digital. We use something called NWEA, and teachers love it.

After that, I've got nothing else. If I think of something, I'll put it down.

I also think a year long school year with more days off would be a good idea. You lose 2 months worth of education over the summer, and that would eliminate that problem.