One of these is simple reality. By age 16, most if not all young people already are adults, in every way that matters. Physiologically, certainly. Psycho-emotionally is perhaps more debatable. But historically, and by that I mean in every era of human history from our earliest days until at least the early decades of the 20th century, 16 year olds, both male and female, were expected to be productive members of society: adults. The women were by and large married by then; some had children already. The men held adult jobs and adult responsibilities.
If some 16 year olds today are not psycho-emotionally prepared for adulthood, I submit that it is due to the artificially prolonged childhood they “enjoy” (if that's the right word for it) in today's society. It is a cultural artifact, and as such, can be altered.
Besides, there is plenty of precedent in law for 16 year olds to be charged as adults in the case of certain violent crimes. That being so, we are either doing them a disservice by treating them as adults when they are, in fact, children, or else we are doing the rest of our youth a disservice by treating them as children when they are, in fact, adults. I suspect the latter is the case.
It would also reduce the ridiculous and almost schizoid confusion that reigns when it comes to who may do what and which age. At age 16, young people may take their own and others' lives into their hands behind the wheel of an automobile, and in most states condemn themselves to painful death by tobacco use, but they may not make free and independent decisions about sexual intimacy and marriage. At age 18, they may join the military, kill and die for their country, and vote for national, state, and local leaders, but they may not legally consume alcohol for three more years. This is, frankly, silly.
Finally, and here I return to the maturity question, most people, most of the time, have a tendency to live up -- or down -- to what is expected of them. If late adolescents and even folks of 20 or 21 are expected to be immature, childish, irresponsible, and so on, why are we surprised to find that they are? If they were expected to live as mature, responsible adults from age 16 on, I suspect that the vast majority would rise to the challenge.
Again, there is historical precedent. Compare college yearbooks, for that matter compare high school yearbooks, from the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries with ones from the turn of the 20th and 21st, and you will see immediately what I mean.
I will go further, however, and recommend that mandatory public education also be ended at age 16. However, for those entering what would otherwise be their junior or senior years of high school, there would be voluntary, optional -- and free -- opportunities for students to return and continue with academic studies for those intending to go on to college, or guided, structured internships and apprenticeship programs for those planning to enter the working world.
These two-year tracks would be open to returning students up to age 21, as I suspect that many, after spending a year or two flipping burgers, might decide that more education would be worthwhile after all. But it would be by choice, not by following the foolish and erroneous notion that college or university study is the best choice for all students, all the time.
Many students are patently not suited for higher education, but might make excellent tradesmen, technicians, mechanics, salesmen, laborers or foremen, restaurateurs, and small business owners: the very sort of people we need to rebuild our infrastructure and stop shipping jobs oversees, or pawning them off on immigrant labor.
Are these radical notions? You bet they are. Are they counter to the prevailing wisdom of conventional society? Absolutely. Could they turn our society around if implemented? Very possibly. Certainly the prevailing wisdom is not doing much to assure domestic productivity and social cohesion. Maybe trying something a little different, a little bit radical, might be just what the doctor ordered.
----------
Interestingly, a corresponded responded to me, privately by e-mail:
Your proposal is not new or untried. You describe the system in place in the UK at this time. Most of Europe also embraces this philosophy. In England, where I lived for several years, students take O level exams at age 16 and choose to work, go to a trade or technical school, or move on to a college prep setting. If they choose the pre-college route, they study for 2 years and take A level exams that determine which university they may attend. University used to be free, now it is still cheap and heavily government subsidized, making it very affordable. They base admission to university on academic ability, and there are no athletic scholarships. Imagine that- university is about scholarly pursuits, not sports! As a high school English teacher and parent of teens, I see the value in your suggestion. The Europeans also have at least 4 weeks off a year in holidays from work. And they live longer than we do, enjoying a pleasant atandard of living and a less stre ssed life than Americans. Something to ponder, indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment