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.
Exactly. Ideas on this discussion thread have included:
- single subject acceleration (SSA),
- cluster grouping by readiness and ability without regard to chronological age,
- one or more grade skips.
Any of these may be facilitated by research showing 15-45% of students may be performing at least one grade level above.
In any of these occurrences, the money may be considered to be more efficiently used than it is today: This may include spending the money on curriculum and pacing appropriate to the child... or not allocating/spending the tax dollars if a child has moved through the system more quickly.
There are a number of kids who already graduate early... some through alternative schools... some after much advocacy. Wouldn't it be lovely if their paths to high school graduation were treated as "normal", mainstream, accepted... and were not so fraught with being marked as an outlier or outsider? With test results showing 15-45% of kids performing one or more grade levels ahead, this type of flexibility and affirmation seems within reach.
And actually what you pointed out may be one incentive why schools want to hold back these kids, because they get to keep the extra $10,000 per year by keeping them in the system for all 13 years, which to me is just unconscionable.
Yes, unfortunately there may be several reasons (including financial) why teachers/schools/districts may not want to accelerate a child... as discussed in this
old post.
