[SauronOfMordor]

I really like the European model, in which students who show aptitude are allowed to go on to high school, and those who don't are given vocational training. I think that before students go to high school, they ought to be able to show they have the ability to succeed there. If they don't have the skills, there ought to be remediation available for those students who wish to take advantage of it.

Of course, many FReepers will say that is taking away the students' freedom of choice....

Kids would retain their freedom of choice. They could continue to take academic courses. They just should not have the expectation that the TAXPAYERS will pay for it, if it seems like a bad investment. However, there would be nothing stopping any kid from buying education himself (either his parents buying, or him working to pay for it on the side).

Taxpayer-funded education is an investment by the nation's taxpayers. There should be some scrutiny on what sort of return on investment there is.

[Amelia]

Kids would retain their freedom of choice. They could continue to take academic courses. They just should not have the expectation that the TAXPAYERS will pay for it, if it seems like a bad investment.

I could readily agree with that.

You know, the welfare reform act required that students receiving AFDC benefits had to remain in school...but they didn't require that those students attend regularly or pass any classes.

Any judge or legislator who requires students to stay in school ought to also put attendance, behavior, and academic strictures on the requirement.