I have had children in two different money-reward systems, because we moved the year between elementary and high school, and the problems with these systems related directly to who was paying.

The first system was a NCLB system on steroids, with a week-long state competency test with typical NCLB consequences. In February the kids started reviewing and practicing for the test; they took the test in early May, and then played until school got out. I figured they lost 1/3 of their year to these tests.

Second system was in high school (paid for by private grant) divided into three subject/track-based schools, ostensibly for the purpose of creating "small learning communities." Each "school" was on its own, with its own administrative staff and subject teachers, though the schools shared the arts and Spanish teachers. Otherwise, each school had its own math teacher, chemistry teacher, etc. Kids did not have the opportunity to take electives offered in the other two schools. The teacher who was best at teaching a certain subject, say honors history, was assigned to one of the small schools, and kids in the other schools did not have the opportunity to take her class. Indeed, the honors students not in her school were placed into regular history classes and given honors credit.

Both of these experiments had the effect of shortchanging the smart kids, either by boredom or ineffective allocation of resources, and shortchanging not so smart kids for the same reasons.

Education systems and schools need to be free to use their resources to their greatest benefit. Schools posses different teaching talents and financial resources, and they are in the best position to decide how to use them wisely.