It happens all too often.  The chronically problemed children are left to their devices.  Described as "anger management" kids and given a wide berth by teachers and administrators while the everday students are disciplined for more tame behavior.  The same is true for education programs.  We want no child left behind, which is admirable.  But what of the achievers?  What do we do to tap into the potential of those students?  Latin?  Gone.  Debate programs?  Cut.  Not much according to recent studies on No Child Left Behind:

"We also learned something from the data from the 1990s. For the mostpart, both high- and low-achievers made tepid annual gains. But therewas one exception: In the states that already had accountabilitysystems similar to those that would eventually be required by No ChildLeft Behind, there were much larger gains at the bottom than at thetop.

So what does all of this mean? It is clear that No ChildLeft Behind is helping low-achieving students. But it is also obviousthat high-achieving students — who suffer from benign neglect under thelaw — have been making smaller gains, much as they did before it wasenacted. Alas, this drug is producing no miracles."

Read the rest here.

Thanks, Virginia.