High school sophomores should be ready for college by age 16. That's the message from New Hampshire education officials, who announced plans Oct. 30 for a new rigorous state board of exams to be given to 10th graders. Students who pass will be prepared to move on to the state's community or technical colleges, skipping the last two years of high school. (See pictures of teens and how they would vote.)


Once implemented, the new battery of tests is expected to guarantee higher competency in core school subjects, lower dropout rates and free up millions of education dollars. Students may take the exams - which are modeled on existing AP or International Baccalaureate tests - as many times as they need to pass. Or those who want to go to a prestigious university may stay and finish the final two years, taking a second, more difficult set of exams senior year. "We want students who are ready to be able to move on to their higher education," says Lyonel Tracy, New Hampshire's Commissioner for Education. "And then we can focus even more attention on those kids who need more help to get there."


But can less schooling really lead to better-prepared students at an earlier age? Outside of the U.S., it's actually a far less radical notion than it sounds. Dozens of industrialized countries expect students to be college-ready by age 16, and those teenagers consistently outperform their American peers on international standardized tests. (See pictures of the college dorm room's evolution.)


With its new assessment system, New Hampshire is adopting a key recommendation of a blue-ribbon panel called the New Commission on Skills of the American Workforce. In 2006, the group issued a report called Tough Choices or Tough Times , a blueprint for how it believes the U.S. must dramatically overhaul education policies in order to maintain a globally competitive economy. "Forty years ago, the United States had the best educated workforce in the world," says William Brock, one of the commission's chairs and a former U.S. Secretary of Labor. "Now we're No. 10 and falling."


As more and more jobs head overseas, Brock and others on the commission can't stress enough how dire the need is for educational reform. "The nation is running out of time," he says.


New Hampshire's announcement comes as Utah and Massachusetts declared that they, too, plan to enact some of the commission's other proposals, such as universal Pre-K and better teacher pay and training. Still more states are expected to sign on in December. And the largest teacher union in the U.S., the National Education Association, is encouraging its affiliates to support such efforts.


Some reform advocates would like to see the report's testing proposals replace current No Child Left Behind legislation. "It makes accountability much more meaningful by stressing critical thinking and true mastery," says Tracy.


No date has been set for when New Hampshire will start administering the new set of exams, which have yet to be developed. But to achieve the goal of sending kids to college at 16, Tracy and his colleagues recognize preparation will have to start early. Nearly four years ago, New Hampshire began an initiative called Follow the Child. Starting practically from birth, educators are expected to chart children's educational progress year to year. In the future, this effort will be bolstered by formalized curricula that specify exactly what kids should know by the end of each grade level.


That should help minimize the need for review year to year. It will also bring New Hampshire's education framework much closer to what occurs in many high-performing European and Asian nations. "It's about defining what lessons students should master and then teaching to those points," says Marc Tucker, co-chair of the commission and president of the National Center for Education and the Economy in Washington. "Kids at every level will be taking tough courses and working hard."


Right now, Tucker argues, most American teenagers slide through high school, viewing it as a mandatory pit stop to hang out and socialize. Of those who do go to college, half attend community college. So Tucker's thinking is why not let them get started earlier? If that happened nationwide, he estimates the cost savings would add up to $60 billion a year. "All money that can be spent either on early childhood education or elsewhere," he says.


Critics of cutting high school short, however, worry that proposals such as New Hampshire's could exacerbate existing socioeconomic gaps. One key concern is whether test results, at age 16, are really valid enough to indicate if a child should go to university or instead head to a technical school - with the latter almost certainly guaranteeing lower future earning potential. "You know that the kids sent in that direction are going to be from low-income, less-educated families while wealthy parents won't permit it," says Iris Rotberg, a George Washington University education policy professor, who notes similar results in Europe and Asia. She predicts, in turn, that disparity will mean "an even more polarized higher education structure - and ultimately society - than we already have."


It's a charge that Tracy denies. "We're simply telling students it's okay to go at their own pace," he says. Especially if that pace is a little quicker than the status quo.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/2008110...after10thgrade

I think its a bad idea!!! although i found my last 2 years of highschool pretty worthless, taking 16 year olds and throwing them in college isnt a good idea for the simple fact that they simply arn't mature enough. (no offence to any one on here that is 16) but there is just so much growing up you have to do between those years, and highschool is a major part of it!

i think it is a great idea
for the job i want i only need my grade 10
with that i could leave early and be 2 years ahead
i am just wasting my time on hard courses right now

here in the merry old land of Aus well more specifically in NSW you do your school certificate in year 10 and odds are if you show up to the exams and can write your own name you will pass. then you can choose to leave school or do the higher school certificate or HSC, to get into a university you'll need your HSC and a UAI (university admissions index- basically a rank across the state) based on your HSC results. if you choose not to go on and do your HSC you leave school and can go to TAFE (tertiary and further education) where you do dumb people courses like apprenticeships and what not. or you get a job mixing concrete.

dumb people are apprentices????
you do realizes the average craftsman makes more than someone who graduated university

you can drop out at 16, but you're an idiot if you do.

and craftsmen only make that much if they go to trade school.

look at the 16 year olds on here they are dumb as fuck.

though most of them are fuckups anyway who are in no way ever going to benifit society. but just imagine if every kid was like them

look dudes, im a junior and 16 and as a junior im still learning plenty. and as a 16 year old, i can honestly say that certain aspects about myself are not mature enough to handle college just yet and that goes for most of the kids that ive come into contact with. So i say that this is not a good idea. well at least not my school

i dont need to be at school right now and it pisses me off
i am just not going to drop out if i could leave and get my diploma at 16 i would

i think isf the school system was better and kids weret so stupid 16 would be good, i consider a person semi-knowledgable to a point at 16, but you're still retarded and need more learning

i know i do not know everything
i would just rather learn the things that will benifet me
not sitting through bio or fucking english