School would be vastly improved by the ability to pre-test out of topics or subjects. I actually went to an elementary school that let you do that for math and it was great.

The fact that this isn't common is mind-boggling to me. If a student can prove that they know the subject well enough that them sitting in that class would be a waste, then why does anyone think it's a good idea to make them continue sitting in that class?

My first guess is "there are some pushy parents who will want their kid to be in a higher class even when their kid isn't qualified for it". The answer to this is, have a rigorous test and a high standard for skipping a class.

My second guess is "teachers have a general stance of not wanting to make any 'concessions' to parents, otherwise that will attract more pushy parents". (I did once have a math teacher who said "If I let you ... then I'd have 100 parents wanting the same for their kids.") So... keeping a strong negotiating position for the teachers is more important than doing right by individual students.

I think the answer is that, ultimately, the people making decisions about children's education don't have strong incentives to make it go well. If the kid sits in class bored but not causing trouble, that doesn't create a problem for the teacher or the principal; if the kid is enthusiastically learning in the next-level class, that might be nice for that teacher, but on average likely won't make a huge difference—and actually the teacher whose class the kid came from will get a replacement student who might need help, so that teacher may be genuinely disincentivized to recommend the kid's advancement, even aside from the "negotiating position" aspect.

For some subjects it seems that the issue is not level, but quantity of work. They don't want to be seen as letting students get away with less work.

Maybe there's also something of a resentment about them not being needed when they encounter an autodidact? I had problems with an AP chemistry teacher who was angry that I was doing the homework in class instead of listening to the lecture. When I said that I thought textbook had explained the topic quite well, her reaction was extremely negative. The existence of the autodidact sort of threatens the proposition of school itself.

bruised egos are an understated problem when it comes to teaching. in my experience there are many teachers who react very poorly if you learn differently than their way. one straight up refused to give me a syllabus after transferring schools to patch over the gaps in my knowledge because she 'planned it all in her head'

Walking into a classroom and telling the teacher that you have already passed the final exam, that you are done with the class and will no longer be attending their class ... that is basically highschool fantasy.

> who here actually learned anything inside a highschool classroom

Perhaps my junior and senior high schools, in the south west England in the late '60s, early '70s, were better than yours, or perhaps they just suited me better than yours suited you, but I learned a lot. We also did Shakespeare but I don't remember anyone having to memorize it unless they were actually putting on a play.

I'm a bit long in the tooth, so perhaps my experience is colored by time and nostalgia; but I found high school to be where I learned the most in terms of academics. It was where I had an outstanding English teacher who taught me to write with both passion and with a clarity that I cherish. A Biology teacher who helped direct my attention to subjects that helped me fill in gaps in my understanding of our world. A History teacher that guided me towards challenging the status quo, in questioning sources and understanding motivations. This is just a small sampling of the best classes, and obviously ignores the most dull and uninspiring teachers. Highschool was hell for me in so many ways, but academics was the least of the reasons.