If that is the case, I think revamping the high school requirements would be a better investment.
There are some vocational coding schools, but these won't prepare you to do real computer science.
There are some vocational carpentry schools with increased focus on AutoCad and other analytical skills. But these won't equipt you to design bridges..
(This is a reference to several jobs posted at MIT and in other Cambridge, MA workplaces on various occasions.)
Another point is that HS graduation rates in the United States have been basically flat (after a long, steady increase) since the 1970's [1], despite constant calls to increase it.
When more than 9 of 10 people already have HS diplomas; when the economic condition of each student's family is highly predictive of graduation; and when and each school tends to have a fairly homogeneous characteristics, it's hard for me to see how you can raise graduation rates without lowering the bar. Unless you're open to adjusting the economic condition around under-performing schools, of course.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_...
Since the early 1990s, what was then a fairly advanced college prep track for math seems to have become the baseline standard, and graduation requirements have increased in other ways. Compared to comparably-named classes, grading or presentation may have become less rigorous, but the baseline curriculum is more advanced, not less.
Yes, and my mom just last month retired from teachig English in a nothing-special (in ratings terms) high school in a relatively poor area, and was teaching Shakespeare, Donne, and the rest of the traditional canon of classic literature, as well as a small number of more current bits of non-juvenile literature that isn't part of the Eurocentric canon, works from Amy Tan and others (many of which I also remember reading—in college.)
But in any case what makes it challenging or not isn't what books they read, but what the expectations are of what they'll be able to do having read them.
Memory is a tricky thing. I wouldn't be surprised if you aren't comparing today's 13 year old to your 16 year old self inadvertently.
That's easy, we live in a world where each generation is smarter than the previous. For IQ tests measuring abstract thinking todays teenagers score an average of 3 points higher than teenagers did 10 years ago.
This is due to better schooling, better edutainment of kids, and many other things such as increased focus on not leaving behind kids with learning disabilities.
The trend is starting to ease of in the developed world. But only in the last 10 years or so...
Whether the bar have been lowered is hard to disprove. But we know for fact that newer generations are far more book-smart than older ones where in their time.
Note. Some forms of pure generalized intelligence don't have the same trends. But analytical and abstract thinking, also commonly known as book-smart or good in school is trending upwords over the generations.
YES: kids today are actually smarter :)