As a high school teacher, I sometimes wonder about the usefulness of certain topics. Some topics seem to be in the textbook because they have always been there, not because they lead anywhere interesting.
For instance, I am fairly sure that rhombuses and kites are pretty useless. In fact, once you get past alt-int angles, parallelograms are not horribly useful later. I do not recall needing any of this in any math afterwards, at least up to and including calculus.
Since I have been told to cut out some geometry to make way for statistics / probability, it seems to me that rhombuses, kites and a good lot of parallelograms are perfect candidates for the chopping block.
Am I right? Or do rhombuses and kites turn out to be really useful in the conceivable future of any random student? I am not denying their beauty etc.
If proofs could be be put back into the state test, of course, rhombuses etc. would just be more practice in proofs.