18 kids were right all along - Essay Example

The High School Debate Richard Melcher’s article en d “18 Kids Were Right All Along” published in Business Week in 1999 discusses a problem most teenagers are already know well. The problem is that much of high school work is redundant. According to the author, teenagers should be released from formal school by the time they are 15 or 16 because what they experience following their sophomore year is generally simply repetitions of what they’ve learned through the first two years of high school.

This seems to be the main thrust of his argument, citing teenagers fed up with the boring nature of their second two high school years and little else in support of his argument. While he has a point that high school can be boring and repetitive in the final two years, Melcher fails to adequately take into account the possibilities available to students in high school to keep them interested, the problem of maturity level of students and misses perhaps the strongest argument in favor of his position, the school system established in England.

Students who have planned their education well are capable of graduating from high school as many as two years earlier than normal now thanks to specialized advanced level classes and limited electives. However, many of these students opt to remain in school longer as a means of further exploring other interests, beginning the difficult process of selecting an appropriate career by discovering interests and ruling out others. Other programs, such as dual credit courses and vocational courses, serve to continue high school students’ interest even further.

For those who are bored with school, just a little application enables them to leave earlier as Melcher suggests. Teenagers aged 15 or 16 are notoriously confident of their own maturity level and abilities to their own delusion. In addition, they are provided with a driver’s license and often a vehicle at this age, giving them unprecedented freedom and range. Should they be turned loose on the streets at this point, without even a class to attend, it is difficult to say what they might do.

Some very few would undoubtedly continue their education with a view toward their future, but too many, without further guidance or other guidelines put in place, would simply go wild. This is, indeed, a problem among the poorer segments of the urban population in England and elsewhere where school is optional after age 16. Finally, Melcher neglects to mention the strongest argument in favor of his position. England, for example, has a school system where attendance after age 16 is optional rather than mandatory.

Because of this, there are several colleges, universities and trade schools designed to accept younger students providing them with a place to go should they be bored with traditional classes and ready to move forward. By neglecting to even mention this system, Melcher demonstrates that his research into the subject was severely limited at best and weakens his argument in the process. While it is difficult to disagree with the idea of providing teenagers with greater flexibility and options in their lives, particularly as it relates to their educational and future training, it is concluded that a stronger argument must be brought forward before such ideas can be reasonably considered.

Examinations into how other countries have designed their school systems and the effects of these, development of after school services for younger people and full exploration of just what is available in the American schools would be necessary before this argument can be considered convincing. Works CitedMelcher, Richard A. “18 Kids Were Right All Along: High School is Obsolete.” Business Week. 1999. McGrawHill. January 29, 2008