Michael P. Mazenko of the Denver Post writes: Education Paths - Should Colorado’s focus be on preparing students for colleges? What should be the goal of education, anyway?

Mr. Mazenko’s article is very thought provoking, challenging the assumption that the majority of students should attend college after high school.  Should everyone be on the college track?  Are we trying to fit all students into a cookie cutter image, that ends with a college degree?  If 80% of Gen-Y has a college degree, will there be enough jobs?

For as long as I can remember, I have always planned on going to college.  College is an opportunity to learn more about politics, economics, international affairs and law.  I can’t wait to attend university classes, and every action I take will hopefully prepare me for a challenging college education.  Every one of my peers in the IB program at Thornton High School plans to attend college.  We work together to learn and achieve our goals.

But other students at Thornton won’t attend college.  Should students who are not inclined to participate in IB or AP feel like failures?  I don’t think so.   Everyone should feel good about their choices, and not be forced onto a particular track.  If your dream is to become an artist or a chef, why should you be forced to stay in high school for 4 years?  Why not move to a specialty school at age 16 where you can focus on your dream?

New Hampshire recently revealed a plan that allows high school graduation at 16. That’s not the ability to drop out, but graduate. Students who’ve completed sophomore year can test in to community colleges or trade schools. Students who remain in high school will take a more rigorous college-prep curriculum based on the AP or IB model, and they will subsequently take tests for admittance into a four-year university.

New Hampshire’s program not only saves money, but gives students an option.  At 16, students who are ready to move on feel trapped in a system that is tailored toward kids like me.  Why not give them options?  It’s a win:win:win.  Students win, schools win, taxpayers win.

Newt Gingrich recently argued “adolescence” is an outdated invention of the 20th century, and people like Benjamin Franklin graduated high school at 13. Ralph Waldo Emerson finished Harvard by 18. Gingrich has said that schools should allow students to progress more quickly, and give them financial incentives to do so. For example, a student who graduates a year or two early — saving taxpayers a lot of money — could be given some of that funding as a scholarship.

I think these options should be discussed and implemented.  I’ve met adults who didn’t go to college and even with great sucesss in their lives, they confide that they are embarassed that they never attended college.  I think that’s a shame. College isn’t for everyone and not attending college shouldn’t be a stigma.  I think this type of social reform would make this stigma go away.