When I read in the NYT about these kids in Westchester turning down Boar's Head luncheon meat and fresh fruit in order to study harder, I realized that this article had nothing really to do with education at all. It had everything to do with upper middle class parents and providing them with that glimmer of hope that their children are working hard at school and it's all going to be worth it someday.

What I didn't see in the article is the fact that there are kids who aren't eating lunch, not because they're too busy studying but because they are standing in line for a half hour to get a slice of pizza or a hamburger (or anything simple enough to cook for 3000 kids in a cafeteria built for 600). Kids either eating the crap this crap or the crap they buy when sneaking off campus and then have to stuff it down their throats before next class. Where is the concern for their well being?

Hardly any of those kids are going to Ivy League schools (Some actually do make it to top schools, exceptions to the rules). So why don't we start paying attention to the kids not eating lunch because they can't. Kids not graduating, not because they were given too much freedom, but kids who drop out because they weren't given anything of worth.

Well, this is precisely the problem, isn't it? We are talking about two different groups of kids. The ones who work too hard, play too little, and grind themselves into nothing to get into a top college -- and the ones who study little, learn less, and are prone to dropping out.

The problem is that we don't seem to be able to help both sets of kids simultaneously. At present we are in the throes of "No Child Left Behind," which is aimed not at the overstressed overachievers but at their underchallenged, undersupported counterparts at the other end of the curve. Obsessive drilling in basic math and literacy leads to schools essentially ignoring history and science (hence only 2% testing "advanced" in science) and it leads to schools utterly ignoring their upper 25th percentile, because the schools are judged entirely upon how many of their lowest 25th they boost to the "proficient" level. Gifted and talented programs are not merely a waste of money -- they are positively counterproductive to the concept of "No Child Left Behind," because why would any school expend time or resources on a kid who can pass the standardized tests with his or her eyes closed?

So the kids who have a legitimate shot at getting into Harvard are left to their own devices, without any legitimate intellectual stimulation in public school and without any support structure for academic excellence. Such children must go to private school or carve their own paths.

About the only thing that doesn't get scrapped in the name of No Child Left Behind is sports. Here's an idea: end interscholastic high school sports. I really enjoyed my days playing baseball and soccer in high school but the important lessons of athletics can be learned in gym and intramurals. Direct the resources used for high school sports into G&T programs and keep history, science, art, and music a part of the curriculum instead of reducing the schools into factories consisting entirely of preparing for the math test, preparing for the English test, and preparing for the Big Game.

But that is exactly what is happening, all the monies in a district end up at the schools who have the top students judged by these tests. IN LAUSD, they have a school that places nationally every year in the Academic Decathlon competition while schools nearer the urban center have drop out rates of 40%.

When another school in SF Valley was vandalized by some students to the tune of $10k, one of my students said they would have to burn down the school to do that much damage. this is more than the money spent on extracurricular activities, but just that money goes to the facade (showcase schools) and not the infrastructure (the students who make up a bulk of the population. No the kids who are being set up as examples. Or not the kids who are disrupting the classes in a misguided bid for attention. It's the kids who sit there, day after day, who try their hardest but are seen as just fine. They aren't just fine.

Most kids are leaving high school so poorly prepared for life that they have even fewer choices than the drop outs and honor students. These kids need a school system that is built for them. Built to give them opportunities beyond the standardized test. Not everybody comes out of a struggling high school going straight to prison. And not everyone comes out of a gifted school going straight to college. What choices are left to them when most programs are cut to focus on elevating scores and not knowledge. Or skills.

Well, this is precisely the problem, isn't it? We are talking about two different groups of kids. The ones who work too hard, play too little, and grind themselves into nothing to get into a top college -- and the ones who study little, learn less, and are prone to dropping out.

Actually, it's not, really. NCLB isn't really a problem in school districts that send kids to Ivy League schools regularly. Their property taxes pay for the "gifted" programs that keep wealthy people moving into their twons, that keep real estate prices high, that keep the money flowing to the school district.

A big part of the value from school districts like these is that they succeed, realtive to other school districts. City schools have declining property values and a larger (and increasingly larger) share of special needs kids. They can't afford to have "gifted" classes, because they barely have enough to keep their students meeting the baseline for NCLB.

Exactly right eofiss.

At one LAUSD I was very familiar with, 80% of the entering Freshmen were deemed to need additional support in all subject matters (average reading score was about the 3rd grade level) but only ten percent of the English classes were set up for grade level kids and above.

I could go on but in a nutshell, the schools where parents don't have time ( do have the fear) to participate, where property taxes aren't shared equally, where there has been a history of social promotion, where the best teachers are whisked away (by nicer schools with more support and supplies) from the neediest students, nothing is ever going to change.

Throw in the mix of problems short term superintendents and micromanaging school board. Here in Kansas City, we've gone through ~28 superintendents in the last ~32 years. Each is essentially a "bungee boss" who comes in and tries to change everything only to discover that it's damn near impossible to change anything with a powerful teachers' union and a school board high on power.

It's incredibly important in the handling of kids to have consistency and knowledgable authority figures. But when the schedule is dictated by the whims of the school board and the teachers and staff admit they don't know what's going on, it's no wonder the kids have no respect for the system.