One of PGs essays discusses similar ideas (http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html). I agree that segregating teenagers may actually be harming their development instead of aiding it.
The problem is specialisation and aptitude. First part of the problem: Underlying most modern education is the idea that each individual is suited to a different profession, and that both the individual and society benefit when people are allowed to pursue that specific profession.
Second part of the problem: there are more specialisations, professions, then ever before. How many basic professions can you think of? Farmer, sailor, doctor, ... There are hundreds or thousands. And every one has hundreds or thousands of specialisations. In some professions these change on a yearly basis.
Thus education becomes a search problem, and like all search problems the key is scaling: how do you find the ideal speciality for each of the millions of students? Modern education takes an iterative approach, where students learn the absolute basics of everything, then learn a little more of a slightly narrower subset. The early iterations (i.e. school) are long and concentrate on building up foundations for later choices. The later iterations (i.e. early jobs) are shorter and concentrate on quickly narrowing down huge numbers of possible specialisations.
Reality (young brain needs real world) vs. Idealism (direct each person to an ideal profession). The trick is how to compress the spectrum - incorporate reality into a system built on an ideal.
"The trick is how to compress the spectrum - incorporate reality into a system built on an ideal."
It's actually much, much simpler than that. Schools simply don't give a damn about teaching students about anything- their primary purpose is just to keep the kids in one place all day long. So give the sufficiently motivated/intelligent kids, who have proven that they don't need to be kept in one place all day long, an opt-out option.
I've seen that opinion here a lot, that school is a glorified babysitting service. Maybe that's true in your experience, but that is a shortcoming of those schools in particular, not of schools in general.
I loathe special cases. As a programmer I see them as a sign that program design is flawed. A good program, and a good education system, has mechanisms in place to handle extreme cases.
Opt-out is fine for students who have a specific alternative (e.g. trade apprenticeship). But it is not a "solution". It does not help the 99% of brillient students for whom there is no alternative. Simply cutting them loose is a cop out.
I am a programmer by training, but my first job out of school was an administrator-type under a government grant in one of the ugly parts of government (Health and Human Services). Sadly, there is a huge difference between established bureaucracy and code. People aren't widgets, we are all special cases, we all learn differently, and we all have different things that inspire us. If you think schools actually serve the "smart" student well, then you are not looking at real funding priorities or went to a special case school yourself.
ND has full driver's licenses at 14. An old teacher of mine says it will probably go to 16 since students aren't as mature as they used to be. WTF? That shouldn't be. Teens are running half-million dollar combines at that age. What changed?
This argument bothers me, since it degrades everything teachers do. My girlfriend student taught this semester, and worked her ass off, in coordination with her supervising teacher to build interesting lessons (history in particular).
The sheer amount of teacher hate I run across here is amazing.
I suggest you're reading too much into it. The OC said "schools" not "teachers."
My own hate is certainly for the system and for teachers only to the extent that they perpetuate it. (Member of a public employee union and not fighting to have it abolished? Consider yourself hated.)
worked her ass off
The real world has no "A for effort."
interesting lessons (history in particular).
Interesting lessons may or may not be effective at teaching. It is, however, a reasonable conclusion that they would be effectivein keeping the students in one place.
The problem is specialisation and aptitude. First part of the problem: Underlying most modern education is the idea that each individual is suited to a different profession, and that both the individual and society benefit when people are allowed to pursue that specific profession.
Second part of the problem: there are more specialisations, professions, then ever before. How many basic professions can you think of? Farmer, sailor, doctor, ... There are hundreds or thousands. And every one has hundreds or thousands of specialisations. In some professions these change on a yearly basis.
Thus education becomes a search problem, and like all search problems the key is scaling: how do you find the ideal speciality for each of the millions of students? Modern education takes an iterative approach, where students learn the absolute basics of everything, then learn a little more of a slightly narrower subset. The early iterations (i.e. school) are long and concentrate on building up foundations for later choices. The later iterations (i.e. early jobs) are shorter and concentrate on quickly narrowing down huge numbers of possible specialisations.
Reality (young brain needs real world) vs. Idealism (direct each person to an ideal profession). The trick is how to compress the spectrum - incorporate reality into a system built on an ideal.