Insofar as pupils have the same human rights as adults do, your argument is compelling. If we did to adults what we are doing to adolescents, we'd be violating their human rights.

An obvious defense of our education system (BTW, non-Western ones are not much different and mostly more restrictive) would claim that each person's human rights become more extensive as they grow up and that mandatory schooling of people below a certain age does not violate the narrower set of human rights they already have. There is surely something to this story: a mother is not violating a human right of her toddler when she prevents him from exiting down the stairs -- the toddler does not yet have the relevant human right to freedom of movement (though he already does have the human right not to be killed). But can this be developed into a defense of forcing a 14-year-old to attend school?

There's amazingly little serious work on this general question: on what competences and capacities children must possess in order to have this or that (component of a) human right. One important aspect of this general question is the extent to which the law may generalize, that is, may tie the rights of children to their age. Some people are more mature at 14 than others are at 18 -- and can it be legitimate to deny the former the full protection of human rights as afforded to the latter? Would this not be as wrong, and for the same reason, as it would be to place special restrictions on male adults with two Y chromosomes on the ground that they are more likely to commit violent crimes?

Another important aspect of the question is how serious coercion and punishment must be for them to constitute a human rights violation. Clearly, shackling someone to a chair in a classroom constitutes a violation of the human right to freedom of movement, and so would the credible threat of a month in jail for non-attendance. But we don't actually go this far. Are milder punishments acceptable? What actually happens when your teacher denies permission to go to the bathroom and you go anyway? If the sanctions are mild, they may not violate human rights even on the assumption that the pupil has the same human rights as an adult. For example, well into adulthood, I had to take various classes as a condition of my employment: classes about proper conduct in the workplace and about how to handle fire emergencies, among others. Had I refused, I might well have lost my job. Did my employer violate my human rights? If not, then your school might argue, in parallel, that it is not violating your human rights by requiring you to attend classes on pain of suspension or even expulsion. "You have no human right to attend this school on your own terms," it might say, "you are free to stay away but, if you do choose to come, then you have to accept our terms."

To be sure, this sort of argument can only go so far. Not allowing pupils to go to the bathroom is wrong even if these pupils have the option of not being in school at all -- no less wrong than would be not allowing workers to go to the bathroom when these workers have the option of resigning their job and losing their income.

As you can see, there is a lot to be thought about here; it's a superb topic for further study.

I have a couple of suggestions for you. The first is to look into books that pair philosophical analysis with contemporary culture. Both Open Court Press and Wiley-Blackwell have book series of this nature (called "Popular Culture and Philosophy" and "Philosophy for Everyone," respectively) . For example, there are books on comic book characters, television shows, sports, and many other topics that will appeal to high school students. The articles in such books are designed for a general audience. The entire book will not be about just ethics, but I can promise each book of this type will have several articles about ethics. It might be worth getting your school or local library to stock a selection. (Disclosure: I myself have published an article in one.)

Another idea is to look to literary classics that have ethical themes. If you would like an ethics anthology you might try Peter and Renata Singer's The Moral of the Story (Blackwell 2005). This book is nice because it features short selections organized around themes, in both theoretical and applied ethics.

Finally, nothing appeals to high school students like jokes and puzzles. Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein's Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar is very fun (Abrams 2007), though this book is not devoted just to ethics. You might also try Martin Cohen's 101 Ethical Dilemmas (Routledge 2003), which is bound to get even sleepy high school students talking.

First, I think you should cut yourself some slack. You won’t have the same chemistry with every child or with every class. Sometimes we just do like some people more than others.

Your concern seems to be that the children you enjoy are the ones who are “smart.” Presumably, their academic brightness and good behavior are not praiseworthy any more than the slowness and poor behavior of their fellows are blameworthy: they are, after all, are just children.

First, I would separate being smart from being well behaved. There is a case to be made for praising good behavior in that it positively reinforces and sets examples for others. Are the poorly behaved children, who perhaps are driven by uncontrollable, chemical compulsions to act out, being treated unfairly when you praise the attentive, calm listeners? I don’t think so. The trick for you will be to ‘catch’ the usually squirming, boisterous children doing something - anything - right and praise them lavishly. (“Johnny, you’ve sat at your desk for two minutes straight. Wonderful job!”)

Here’s why I think being smart and being well behaved are different: there are different kinds of intelligence. (Behavior, on the other hand, is a code of classroom decorum which you determine.) Even the class dunce has something he is good at. The trouble is, his talents may not be ones that are assessable in traditional academic terms. For example, the stereotype of the ‘dumb jock’ athlete gets it all wrong because being able to see a game in motion and insert your body at the right place and right time to intercept the ball involves tremendous physical intelligence - but this not an intelligence that will earn you a passing grade in school, where linguistic and mathematical intelligences are valued. Psychologist Howard Gardner has pioneered work on ‘multiple intelligences’ and has very creative, easily-implemented ideas for school teachers on how to acknowledge multiple intelligences in the classroom. Perhaps such an approach might get you to see the ‘unintelligent’ students in a new and more likeable light. Good luck!

If you do decide to take the chronological approach, then I think you should definitely focus on key works--in fact, in many cases just chapters of key works. I think it would make sense to choose a history of philosophy as your guide, staying away from anything overly voluminous or idiosyncratic. Blackwell has a one-volume history by Anthony Kenny that looks good. The table of contents references specific philosophical works, which may help you create a manageable, focused itinerary for yourself. Bon voyage!

I agree with Allen Stairs that reading topically is important, but I think it is equally important to remember that philosophy is a conversation that has been ongoing for something like 4500 years. To join in on the conversation, it can be very useful to see it historically, to see how it began and how it evolved, and thereby to gain an understanding of why it is where it is today.

One can combine these approaches: Read chronologically within a topic. Or read contemporary philosophy alongside its history. To compare philosophy with physics, as Stairs does, misleadingly suggests that the history is irrelevant.

(That's not to say that philosophy doesn't "make progress"; on that topic, see my essay: Rapaport, William J. (1982), "Unsolvable Problems and Philosophical Progress", American Philosophical Quarterly 19: 289-298.)

Since you have checked out the Leiter page you must have seen the Continental rankings there. My understanding is that his report has been expanded in the past few years to include Continental philosophy, feminist theory, applied ethics and other approaches that are not 'analytic,' so that is a step in the right direction. I do disagree with the assessment that there are few good departments doing Continental philosophy, however.
I would recommend SUNY Stony Brook - I think it is the best, no matter what the rankings say, because most of the graduate students I have met from there have jobs and seemed to enjoy their grad school experiences. I believe that program has an active exchange with a German university. DePaul University also has a very good program, though I happen to know less about it.
You might want to check out this list on the web, it's a couple of years old but should still be helpful: http://www.earlham.edu/~phil/gradsch.htm Good luck!

The question doesn't specify what is to be taught. That matters. To take an extreme case, only a fully expert, well qualified, person should teach brain surgery. It would indeed be unethical to ask anyone else, or for the non-expert to comply with such a request. Too much hangs on getting things right.

But that's really a rather exceptional case. Fortunately. And most of us (unless we are very senior or in very big departments) from time to time do have to teach outside our areas of real expertise. Which is no doubt good for us (the effort is rarely wasted, and you can often find surprising connections with your main interests). It can be good for the students too. Being taught by someone who is vividly aware of the difficulties for a beginner on the topic, who isn't in danger of making things too complicated too soon, who is willing to share a real sense of exploring an area together (rather than giving oracular pronouncements as an expert), can all be very positive.

Assuming we aren't talking about something too near the brain-surgery kind of case, I can't see that there's much of an ethical issue, then. If needs must, you do the homework, teach the course, make the best fist of it you can, and be honest with the students if and when you get really outside your comfort zone.

I think the two compromises you propose bring up very different issues. Letting parents choose between two types of sex education classes is problematic. Although you have personally chosen abstinence--which is entirely fine, of course--studies show that abstinence education generally (on average) changes the age of first intercourse minimally or not at all. If regular sex education generally does a better job of preventing unwanted pregnancies and STDs, the school would essentially be offering a choice between better sex education and worse sex education. I don't think offering that choice fits within the mission of health education--which is to use the best methods available to steer children and young adults toward better health.

The other compromise seems more sensible. Religion plays such a major role in world affairs, it is odd that a person can graduate from high school knowing next to nothing about it (as I did). It seem reasonable to at least offer comparative religion as an elective. However, if the idea is to offer such a class as an antidote to the teaching of evolution in science classes, that's another matter.

There are conservative Christian organizations that are all too eager to get into schools and manage the curriculum of religion classes. They are eager to push religion education toward a focus on their own literal, exclusivist, evanglical version of Christianity. There would be many other "agendas" that would inevitably shape the teaching of religion in the public schools. Conservative religious leaders would want to stop teachers from approaching religious scriptures as historical texts, for example. In the end, I don't think students would be likely to get a factual introduction to comparative religion as opposed to an air-brushed introduction to each religion as its leaders want it to be seen.

Still, maybe a distorted introduction to comparative religion is better than none at all. For many students, high school is the final stage of education. The important thing would be for curriculum designers to see knowledge and mutual understanding as their goal, not "correcting" the lessons taught in science classes. A true "comparative religion" class would not violate the first amendment to the constitution, but a class molded by Christian evangelicals most certainly would.

Answer to Q1: Why should a person who loves philosophy not steer towards academic philosophy? The better one knows her the more she has to offer, such as fascinating arguments. Answer to Question 2: If you are in love with someone, you really should marry that person, other things equal, no? Philosophy can be difficult sometimes, even temperamental, but she is not mad.

This answer may not be quite what you want to hear, but if someone is convinced "for a fact" that nothing they're learning in high school is relevant to anything that matters, then one of two things is likely: (a) this is a very unusual high school, or (b) the person making the judgment isn't really in a very good position to judge. My guess is that most people on this panel thought at some point in their high school careers that everything they were doing was a waste of time. My guess is that most of them also woudl agree that on reflection, this wasn't really so, even if the benefits weren't immediate or obvious.

The agenda proposed here sounds awfully ambitious: become a Buddhist monk and study religion, philosophy and science extensively. I'm hard pressed to think of many people who've managed all that. Perhaps someone like Matthieu Ricard would count, but he had the benefit of a PhD before he became a monk -- something he probably wouldn't have gotten if he hadn't finished high school.

You might also ask: how likely is it that one person's decision to become a Buddhist monk will benefit the world all that much? For that matter, how likely is it that the extensive study of religion, philosophy and science will provide that much benefit?Some religious scholars, or philosophers or scientists may end up doing much more good than the average carpenter or doctor or accountant, but I'm not convinced that there's a slam dunk case to be made here.

As someone who's a fan of Buddhism, I'd add another thought here. A good Buddhist teacher would probably see signs of dukkha in what you've written. And the medicine that the Buddha proposed for dealing with dukkha was not just reacting to it or springing into action. Slow down. Sit with your dissatisfaction. Let yourself feel it without getting caught up in the stories you tell yourself about it. Those stories are often what get us into trouble. And above all: breathe.