Urging innovation seems a political position that is too easy. I guess the idea is to encourage exploration by promising not to judge. Or, perhaps the suggestion amounts to “I have no ideas, but change sounds good.”
US News and World Report is at least willing to offer a proposal. As I understand the recommendation, it is to cut back high school to three years focused on the essentials. The recommendations for the 4th year is kind of a hodge podge:
Instead of a traditional senior year, that 17- or 18-year-old year could be spent in apprenticeships and various industry training programs, additional preparation for students who want to attend four-year colleges but aren’t academically ready, preparation for military service, gaps years, national service or starting college early for students who are genuinely ready to go.
As a retired university faculty member with considerable experience teaching freshmen, I certainly do not encourage putting students into a university setting earlier. If anything, I would support the US News proposal as a 5th year of high school. I like the gap year idea as a way for students to consider what they should do next and not waste expensive options because of a lack of commitment or maturity. I also wonder about the notion that high school should focus on the essentials. This idea is such an area of disagreement and I think most who work in high school settings would argue that they are expected to take on more and more rather than less (e.g., coding skills, financial literacy).
An issue that is important is that smaller school districts cannot offer many options. Gap year options make individuals less dependent on their local districts, but the challenge then becomes how to make these options available. This is one of those issues that wealthier families have always been more able to address through travel, time and resources for hobbies, etc. I just don’t see politicians taking up the slack. If anything, fewer resources are being invested in preparation for life.