Everything I Learned in High School Could be Learned in Three Years

After reading this article in The New York Times, and pondering my own high school experience, I am convinced that one of the best  and quickest ways to reform this country's educational system would be to reevaluate "high school" as we know it.  While I would never advocate putting children in "career tracks" or in any way limiting their preparation for all future opportunities, I believe that providing a choice beyond "personal finance or computer programming" can benefit all students. Whether students have the intellect, tenacity and financial support to leave high school a year early, or choose to complete all four years for academic or social reasons, everyone can benefit from a change to the system that allows this choice. This panel of experts came up with a much more comprehensive list of the pros and cons for this change than I will, but I am going to list my reasons anyway:

1. Everything I learned in high school could be learned in three years.
2. If I had left after three years, every senior year class would have been less crowded by one student--giving those who stayed more attention.
3. Young adults who are ready for responsibility could take advantage of the opportunity, and those who need more time learning or maturing would have less crowded classrooms to achieve that growth.
4. I could have traveled, joined AmeriCorps, held an internship or begun college early.
5. I could have held a full-time job that year and paid for much of my college education myself. No loans.
6. Because of NCLB, students are already being tested in 10th grade. No additional testing would need to be developed or implemented. 
7. Instead of spending money trying to keep kids in school for all four years, funding could be provided for vocational and career training programs to be taken during that "4th year" of school.