I really like the idea, myself. Or at least the intention behind it. The secondary general-education portion of school goes on for too long anyway. However, this is symptomatic of a problem with the American education system that won't be resolved without sweeping reforms.
I think that the way the British education system works is a far better way of implementing things (in theory anyway). Primary education is similar to ours, then secondary general education is finished up by 16. After that, if you want to enter the workforce, you do. If you want to continue your education, you go to college, which seems to be a lot like the "core curriculum" my university forces upon Freshmen/Sophomores, and then University is more akin to the last few semesters of an American undergraduate degree.
Theoretically, it is a much sounder system--kids are educated faster, less money is spent because only a percentage of kids keep going to school past 16. Now, in practice I recognize that this system has its own flaws that I'm not all that familiar with, but I think it indicates that it is possible to cut a few years out of the curriculum with some proper planning. Now, they're doing it entirely at the wrong end (I remember bits and pieces of my education throughout high school. I don't remember ANYTHING I learned in Middle school), but their hearts are in the right place. The American education system is in serious need of reform and we need to stop holding the K-12 curriculums sacrosanct, but it's a matter that needs to be given more thought than "Fuck it give the kids a year off."
