Think of what this would mean too for the schools, how much money we could save by moving these kids through K-12 quicker, 11 years of education vs. 13. Many kids can enter college by 16. It's a win-win-win for all.
I wonder if this is actually true. The schools will be left with a higher percentage of students who cost more to educate (ie special ed, ELL, etc.) With less students the schools will get less money through ADA but have more expensive students.
I'm thinking about this... wouldn't the "more expensive to educate" students be there either way and wouldn't there perhaps be the same total number any given year, just at different age distributions? (Maybe even more, if fewer parents felt they had to go to private schools or homeschool for the right educational pace.) I may be missing something as it is late.
I don't know that the solutions all involve oodles of kids graduating early. I suspect that there may be many who could easily be ahead in some subjects but not others. There has to be a model that work around all of this, though, if as a system, education let go of this fixation on age-based averages.
