A b c d e f g h I j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z I am a beast deal
withit I am ur mom
hwklo ennwk jwmwkdk njasnxsnf e jvjfen2 envjve fbfnfvrf vre fnnbfrf vbfn vbn bfendfvfvfn fvvdjccdncv dbvfh
America creates a lot of jobs that any bright 5th grader could do. Currently half of our college graduates are either un-or under employed. It is true that many jobs have been inflated to require a high school diploma and more, but that does not change the fact that someone with much less schooling would do as well. During the past few recessions several of my Starbucks baristas have been unemployed MBAs and PhD holders. They didn't serve the coffee any better than someone with half the education. Today tourism is the holy grail for economic development because that industry generates lucrative sales and bed taxes for local government. But few of those jobs require schooling beyond the 5th grade and few weeks of on-the-job training. Children in the UK conclude their secondary education at 16 (10 years of schooling, including what we call Kindergarten). This is more than sufficient for most kinds of employment. Nevertheless, if children went to school year-round, without taking a 3-month summer break, they would attend the equivalent of 12.5 years of school over 10 years. Allowing children to conclude their primary education "early" would likely result in more young people taking 2 years to learn a trade or AA degree (which are much more in demand than BA degree holders). No doubt, many would take a one or two-year "gap year" and a few would develop a promising new business. Basically, today's ever-ever-lenghtening education burden serves only one purpose: to delay more workers entering the workforce in a shrinking pie of good jobs, effectively shortening their working careers and their effect on scarce wages.
This is getting silly i don't know why u r all voting no , but u r all wrong. You r being very silly if u want to vote no,children's grades r at the stake here. Just vote yes please, okay.Oh and just think about it too and then u will vote yes
Schools such as schools in Texas are already behind on academics thanks to lack of time. If the government shortened the duration of school, students would be gaining less knowledge than they already do. Especially because most kids at our school don't even pay attention. So why should our time for learning be cut short.
Children should have shorter days in school - keeping them in school for many hours in a day doesn't serve much an educational purpose, and shorter days would keep children more focused during the time they are in school. The time should be made up by longer school years, which increase retention.
The duration of primary and secondary school should remain the same and it should not be shortened. The current school calendar has worked for the workforce it has produced today, and there is no need to change it. If it were shortened, parents would be unable to plan for their children's additional free time.
We shouldn't shorten the duration of primary or secondary schools in the United States. In reality, the current lengths for these schoolings make perfect sense. Children and teens develop proerly through elementary and high school under the prescribed terms that currently exist. Therefore, no changes are necessary to this system.
No, primary and or secondary school should not be shortened. If anything, it should be extended. Students have long extended breaks for each season, which cuts down on the time they spend in school on the regular. It also gives students a chance forget what was taught during the year.
I believe that the duration of primary or secondary school should not be shortened. Learning is a process that occurs over many years and occurs in different stages. Shortening the time students are in school would not allow them to learn things in the way they need to learn. It would also force them to grow up too soon.
The amount of time we spend in school in the United States -- 12 years from start to finish, give or take a few months -- is perfect. It's neither too intense or relaxed. However, we should make better use of the time we have children in school by updating the lessons and teaching methods.
School is preparation for a trade or a career, and a shortened school year does not prepare a student for what is waiting in the real world - basically a year-round job with one or two weeks of vacation to start. Statistics also show that a shortened school year tends to result in the beginning of the following year being used to review materials from the previous year. In particular, subjects that build over the course of education, such as science and math, suffer due to the long period of time taken off in the summer. Many secondary schools are considering the option of year-round school, and many students in college take summer classes due to the benefit of 'staying on course' with their academics.
Issues of schooling remains a staunchly local issue. So, the duration of the school term in one district and state will be different than in other places. There is no need to make this a federal issue. Also, the current duration of time is much preferable than shortening or lengthening the term.
It is inconceivable to think that America is slowly losing its number-one spot in world education rankings, yet we are considering shortening any type of school programs. If anything, they should be made more difficult and improved before they are shortened. In the circumstance that these schools cannot be better, then they should be done away with and replaced, not shortened.