Much Too Fast

As a concerned citizen in North America I have noticed a predominant ebb and flow of “growing up” becoming some kind of expedited concern, that children are encountering those things that make them adults sooner and sooner within their upbringing and social interaction. While this might be a kind of thing that animals such as raccoons or squirrels might appreciate as it will tend to equate with more of their species being able to avoid the pitfalls that lead to being captured and eaten, this is not a good idea for human beings. Children don't need to learn how to deal with violence and taunting in the school yard when they are 5 or 8 years old; children don't need to learn how to say not to drugs when they are 13 or 14 years old; children shouldn't have to make life changing decisions regarding sexual partners or narcotics and alcohol when they are 16 or 17 years old. This letter will go over what seems to be a predominant base axis for the logistics of children growing up too fast, likely one of the major factors that results in (predominantly) based substance-activated tent cities around the North American continent.

For starters, the North American public school system seems inappropriately gearing towards growing its wards (the school children) up faster; a predominant lack of sufficient learning material and habit seems to predominate into kids learning to become adults (and typically inappropriately) instead of learning literature, math and history. At the lesser end we see this in rushing kids into the school system with concepts like per-kindergarten as well as including younger grades in upper level schooling. There should be a clear differentiation between a baby sitting organization and an 'early' school. Three year old and four year old (children) are, simply put, not old enough to start learning (in the manner of institutional schools), they should be in day care nurseries or even better, at home with their family. 13 and 14 year old teenagers are not yet old enough to attend high-school where there is a predominant permeation of cliques, romantic involvement and (especially) smoking, drinking and substance use starting to develop. Parents who don't want their children involved in this nonsense are either required to pay for a private school or to teach their children at home on their own; this is not (in any way) a good representation of the logistics and sanctity of a good common law country (or countries – as both the United States and Canada are inherently Common Law based legal systems).

For starters, concepts like per-kindergarten and kindergarten are meaningless scholastic realities. Realistically, the majority of children (especially in the public school system) are not going to start learning until they're late into their fifth year or at least six years old. Children 5 and under belong in daycare if anything, and truth be told, our economy should satisfy and be geared towards allowing for at least one parent to be able to stay at home with the children. Public school should start around the age of 6 with grade 1. There is realistically no need to start babysitting children not old enough to truly understand the nature of scholastic involvement and to start that leaning slope of combining education with babysitting as a form of child care instead of a scholastic pursuit.

Next, keeping in mind that the earliest separation of grades should start at grade 1 providing that school children are going to be at least 6 years old by the time they're done their first year, there really should not be any school children older than 10 or 11 (an in extreme cases 12) attending that school as students. This means that the first consideration of (basically what amounts to) starter schools should be from grade 1 to grade 5. This should effectively lessen school yard bullying and keeps early child hood separated from children starting to hit the age of puberty.

The second separation of grades should be from grade 6 to grade 9 and this should be done for at least two different reasons. First (and foremost) it is entirely inappropriate to have 14 year old (young teenagers) going into high-school. By the end of the first year of high-school, every student in that school should be at least 16 years of age. Secondly, grades 6 through 9 represent children at the age of starting to reach puberty. By removing grade 6 from the earliest school years, the element of child hood puberty is all contained within the same school year consideration. This type of organization will keep concepts like sexual education effective as starting out in the grades 6 through 9 consideration and basically remove any conceivable need for this type of education to younger children. Furthermore, as school children start to reach the age where puberty takes effect, those children who might be born earlier in the year won't end up in high school at the age of 14 and thus be subject to very adult oriented concepts like driving, smoking and drinking.

Moving onwards, the logistics of starting high-school at grade 9 is further inappropriate. High-school should be minimum 3 years (for those getting into manual labour workforce after) and should have and encourage a 4th year for those interested in pursuing college and university (and/or other forms of high education). High-school should not, however have 14 year old (young teenagers) in attendance; the logistics of this age group does not blend well with the 16-18 year old mentality of many types of exploratory and recreational lifestyle adaptations of many high-school students in this age bracket.

Last (but not least), students should not be leaving home for university at the age of 17. University (and college) is for (legal) adults that are ready to leave their parents home and (hopefully) ready to make responsible decisions when it comes to intimate relationships and adult specific considerations like drinking and skipping classes. By requiring high-school to encourage an extra year of study and whereupon most universities and colleges will require extended learning and scholastic sufficiency, the probability of a 17 year old attending university (or college) will be more of a one-off consideration rather than (strictly speaking) the norm.

The consideration of these age based logistics and the manner by which public schools are chronologically ordered in terms of the age brackets of their attending youth will keep younger children in the same school as younger children. This (in and of itself) can easily sway the realities of sexual-related education classes to a higher age bracket and make sure that kids (below the age of 12) have no logistical representation of sexual education in their schools as it would not be necessary. Considerations like these help remove the ambiguity that results from having k-6, 7 & 8 and 9-12 (and/or 13); having youth going through puberty in a child age bracket is a bad idea which virtually preempts school yard bullying and paves the way (with age based uncertainty) to allow sexual education in childrens schools which ultimately seems to give way to having drag queens in classes somehow.

Further along this consideration is having 14 year-olds attending high-school and 17 year-olds leaving home and going off to college or university. Children and teenage youth are (often enough) naive and impressionable and they are (a great majority of the time) not ready to make life changing critical decisions as adults.