I think the author makes some good points, but for the wrong reasons. A lot of the issues he complains about (lateness policies, taking the "fun" out of learni

I think the author makes some good points, but for the wrong reasons. A lot of the issues he complains about (lateness policies, taking the "fun" out of learning, ...) stem from other skills that HS is attempting to teach. He is correct in assuming that these skills are important for a student entering college. However, I think he was on the right track when he wrote "High school isn’t educational because it incentivizes a credential only meaningful to universities instead of educating students." This isn't entirely true; high school students will learn things that will be useful even if they don't attend college. But much of the material of a high school education (and the way it is taught) supports the college-preparatory model. Many students would do well to enter a trade school at an earlier age. Perhaps the US high school education system could be streamlined if students decide which track they were on earlier. Students who were set on college would continue with the traditional HS model, while trade school students could begin vocational training at age 16 or 17. The real root of this issue is that there is a demand for workers (in the US economy) with skills above that of a HS diploma, but below that of a bachelors degree. These certifications are specialized trade skills. These jobs are relatively well-paying and continue an American economic tradition of entry-level jobs which enable workers to work their way into the middle class. However, trade schools are looked down upon. Many people go to college and end up working in jobs which they are (supposedly) over qualified for. We need to refocus our entire education system on what matters, and the perception of these non-college degrees will change.