This article was recently forwarded to our group. It proposes that allowing High School students to graduate in 3 years (if they meet the graduation requirements) and pass along a portion of the savings of the senior year towards a grant for college. The article suggests that the grant amount should cover two years at a local community college (allowing for a Associates Degree). The other savings goes towards reducing the cost of education, reduces census and perhaps the need for more buildings, and more…. Interesting idea. Read about the proposal here.
Here’s one criticism/response. What’s your thoughts?
===
I like Newt and I think he is bright but this proposal does nothing to address our failing schools. It is the kids who do not graduate at all and who are graduated with no education that costs society so much.
This does nothing to change the schools and the way the schools are forced to teach.
Kids who now graduate in 4 years could graduate in 3 years with little or no incentives. The schools just donot offer such a program. Why does Newt or others think that saving a year of a students life is not worth enough to the student to make such a school option hugely popular without any more of these silly give aways to get kids to go to school.
What next, pay kids to graduate in 3 years from college.
Fix the schools with more choices, competition. I have nothing against this, but it seems designed to help the white kid in a good school who would graduate anyway and who would graduate in 3 if offered the choice even without further incentives.
===