The formula is to pick and choose who can attend and who can't. The school is full of kids who had to demonstrate academic achievement before they were let in the door.

The success of City Honors supports the argument that much of the difference between city and suburban or private schools can be attributed to the makeup of the respective student bodies. When a city school -- staffed with BTF teachers, and under the watch of the same school board -- has a student body that more or less mirors that of a suburban or priovate school, it can match or even outperform them.

Does any other school in the Buffalo system have an admission test? If not, why not? I see no reason why there should not be more of these type of schools...City Honors has the highest requirements, followed by School "B" then School "C", etcetera...I see no reason why students who have the capability of learning along with the DESIRE to learn should be punished by being lumped in with those who don't care or lack the ability to act in a manner that is conducive to learning. I have no doubt that there are children in schools other than City Honors and to a certain extent Hutch Tech (although standing in line at the downtown Tim Hortons behind those students gives me pause...) who would excel in school were it not for the environment in which they are forced to learn...

Back in the 90s, I know that Hutch-Tech and Traditional also had entrance exams. Performing Arts required a portfolio review or recital, as well.

I think I agree with mbhxam on this one. If students can't get into city honors shouldn't they have a good second or third option? Instead of being a system with only one option for many families why not create a system where more families will feel comfortable or happy to stay in the city. I would be willing to be people would want to move to the city for school if they knew their children could go to a school half as good as city honors since that would still be better than every other public school in Western New York.

It does mean some sort of IQ segregation but when you look at the system today and how its under-performance impacts the city overall it might be something worth looking into. There are already dumping ground schools for children who refuse to learn through traditional means. Why not at least allow students who want to excel have the opportunity to do well in a great school.

Why wouldn't it work? It would work for the motivated/bright students and that would be a success. It wouldn't work for the unmotivated / intellectually challenged students and that would be the status quo…so oh well. Just like in the "real world" some people succeed while others fail. Deal with it.

Oh…and I am not against diversity, but why do "kids need diversity in order to succeed"?

many teachers enjoy working with troubled youth or slower learners and take great pride in helping them suceed and/or turn around. Wouldn't a class on the same learning level be a more efficeint way to teach than one where all learning levels were lumped into one?

More perforance based options would be great. Let those that are ready to move ahead quicker be allowed a path to do so. Create some competition and rewards for achievement. All while making sure those that need extra help get it in a class that may be structured differently.

Balth makes some valid points about what happens to the other end of the spectrum but at the same time children shouldn't have to deal with the lowest common denominator and maybe those lowest schools are totally different in their approach to teaching then City honors. Very vocational, very job training, very strict. Uniforms, metal detectors, boot camps.. Hell why not make them boot camps. These kids often get this way because of a lack of proper parenting. It dads and mothers were involved in disciplining their kids they wouldn't get into drugs, gangs etc as much as they do now. Would it still happen sure, but it wouldn't be considered the cool or respected thing to do if they have they weren't brought up that way to begin with.

The only way that diversity would work and instead of bringing down the class, they would be brought up by it, would be if there was a regional school system. One where parents, teachers and society mingled together as a whole for the betterment of everyone. Outside of that happening I would rather take 3 horrid schools and 14 good to great schools over 14 crappy schools, 2 ok ones and 1 great one. There just isn't a large enough base of population to influence kids in the classroom inside the city when 40% of the city is below the poverty line and a much larger percentage is probably just barely above it. You want to improve the school through diversity then everyone needs to step up to the plate and share the burden of poverty. Outside of that happening we need to give parents and family good schools they can trust within the city. If that means the worst of the worst get dumped to Burgard, Lafayette. So be it. Maybe then the region will look to understand the real problems of a fractured education and social structure instead of just saying.. "not my problem I live "fill in the blank."

This is great news for the Buffalo Schools, congratulations to all involved in the City Honors project.

City Honors should be used as the model for other City of Buffalo schools. There is no reason that children living in the city cannot succeed academically. We make a lot of excuses relating to economics, demographics, race, whatever, but I have yet to hear why a child in Buffalo has an inherent disadvantage to children living in other school districts. What is the difference between a child in the Buffalo Schools or one in City Honors, other than the admission criteria? If we took a child who is struggling at Bennett or McKinley and put them in City Honors, would they succeed or continue to struggle?

As far as income and IQ, does anyone know if there is a link between the two? I hear a lot about how poor children are at a disadvantage to wealthier children, but why? Is there a natural selection process in play or is there something tangible that a poorer child does not have access to. Most of the wealthier families that I know spend little time with their children when compared to the poorer families that I have worked with. Books and television programs are equally accessible, so are head-start and pre-k opportunities. What is the difference other than money? If you gave the poorer family more money, would their children do better in school?

Congratulations CIty Honors. You want to improve all the schools? Introduce a voucher system so parents can shop around and schools have to compete.

This bothers me. I have a kid at City Honors and I know she's getting a good education and all. My trouble stems from the City loving these types of listings so much, City Honors gets things at the expense of the other schools. Montessori (where my other kids go) is being forced to accomodate City Honors. Dr. Williams coming out to say it should be model for other schools is rubbish as that should have been done years ago. No Child Left Behind and general neglect has screwed other schools who don't have a high profile. If more attention was paid to all the children in the district, people wouldn't be buying into charters as the saviors, the district would be stronger, and Ch. 2 wouldn't be hyperventilating about standardized test scores (another no child left behind perk). Quit talking, Dr. Williams, make it happen. I keep seeing them saying about doing things for the children. Never see them actually endeavoring to make that stuff happen. It's great that City Honors gets that notice. The teachers work had to make great things happen, but it would be great if the School leadership and the District would realize that it is only one school and they need to remember that there are others out there.

Is anyone else concerned that Newsweek's "qualitative" evaluation is based on the number of students who take AP tests? Since when does the quantity of students taking a test indicate pedagogical quality? If this were based on the number of students who actually scored well on these exams, it would be different. Moreover, what is the meaning of "Advanced Placement" if so many students are taking "advanced placement" courses?

Username - Advanced Placement courses are designed by the College Board and worth college credit if students attain a certain score on the final exam. The final is a standardized national exam, like the SAT. Teachers who teach AP classes must go through an intensive training program and submit a syllabus and full course outline to the College Board for approval before they are allowed to teach these classes. So, they are not simply "higher level" classes, they are a different type of class altogether with national status and potential college credit.

Aramini - I am very familiar with the AP system. And while I recognize that teachers who administer AP courses are held to certain standards, that means very little without a qualitative assessment of the students' test scores. To base a school's qualitative credentials upon how many students take a course or a test without a correlative assessment of test RESULTS is an inherently flawed approach. Show us how many students scored 4's or 5's on these tests, and use those figures as ranking criteria. Then this ranking would be impressive.

My comments are not meant as criticisms toward City Honors; rather, they are aimed at the College Board and the AP system. The ubiquitous nature of these courses has diluted their quality and meaning. I'm sorry, but regardless of training programs, etc., the meaning of the AP designation has changed significantly in the last ten years. When a majority of students are taking multiple AP courses, I fail to see what is "advanced" about them or what truly distinguishes them. Perhaps it is, as you say, that these courses' parameters are designated by the College Board. If so, that in itself is a frightening reality.

In my opinion, the AP system has become more a function of the College Board and it's industry of test-taking (and test prep, and test prep books, etc) than a truly innovative educational tool. I have seen this system dictate the curricula of already exceptional schools and departments, to the point where the tail is truly wagging the dog. Kids are agonizing over taking college courses in high school, parents are convinced of the need, and the College Board, Princeton Review, and Barrons are laughing all the way to the proverbial bank.

If you doubt the concerns I have expressed, you need only look at the trends among selective colleges and universities. More and more of them are accepting fewer or any AP coursework for credit. Those that are, are now requiring 4's and sometimes only 5's to qualify for credit. So the colleges are doing what the high schools are not -- manifesting the obvious inverse proportionality between quality and quantity. In other words, the more kids take these courses, the less they are inherently worth. Colleges know that, and it speaks to the problem at large.

So, to summarize my original point...to qualitatively assess a school based on the number of kids taking AP exams means so little as to make it laughable. Show us the numbers that matter.

1. The problem with a showcase school like City Honors is that it hurts the rest of the schools in the district. Removing talented students from struggling schools seems likely to have the same kind of effect as removing middle class folks from struggling neighborhoods. Creating pockets of concentrated poverty didn't work as a strategy for urban renewal, and I doubt that creating pockets of concentrated underperforming students will work as a strategy for educational renewal.

2. Those who would say "oh well, deal with it" to the negative impact on the bulk of students forget that we're talking about children who aren't responsible for their upbringing and station in life. Public education is supposed to be one way of overcoming those obstacles. Writing kids off because they can't get into an elite school is a betrayal of that mission.

I don't think it is just about under performing students but removing the students that bring down a whole class and pressure their peers into doing poorly in schools as well. We all know how much of a mistake thinking concentrating poverty was to the social and urban fabric in our cities. At the same time there is no chance of betterment through diversity in the city system alone. If City Honor's couple hundred kids were spread out amongst the rest of the system I bet those students would do far worse and the system overall wouldn't be any better for it. It would be a system without a single good school. Isn't that also a betrayal of the public good?

I see what Colin is saying but I really feel that without a regional school system it is unfair for children to be placed in schools with peers that will hinder their ability to grow and educate themselves even if they want to. I think that is just as much a betrayal of the public good as taking problem students out. Students learn at different rates and wouldn't it make sense to place them in competitive environments that would foster educational growth for whole schools and communities. Those students who fall into the lower end are still going to receive and education and hopefully a better one than they do now because there might be an opportunity to educate them in ways that a traditional school can't or in ways that they would be more receptive to.

sbrof --

I'm with you. I'd love to see a regional system with programs tailored to the particular needs of students, but the chances of that are close to zero. The alternative -- further separating "good" and "bad" students -- is a distinct possibility, though. The result of that plan would be to create a few more bragging points for the district while negatively impacting the bulk of its students.

Spot on Reflip! Well said. Education to the lowest common denominator isn't the answer for anyone involved. We should continue to glean the best and brightest and save them from the blighted schools and negativity that permeates the public school system. It doesn't make a difference to me if we do this via entrance exams and AP classes, or if it happens via relocation to better public schools in the 'burbs or private schools in the city. The end result is the same, we save the best and write-off the rest. Suburban and private schools routinely manage out poor performers either by expulsion or by reverse promotion to the trade classes or BOCES programs. Unfortunately for Buffalo the BPS is one big alternative school. Where most cities have one alternative school for problem children, we have one alternative school for the best and brightest. It is the reverse of what it should be.

The BPS are a result of the failed experiment called social services and welfare. We have created a culture where it is better for a woman to remain unemployed, pregnant, and dependant on the system. We are the second poorest city in the US, and most of our city residents are living in a system that encourages failure by all other measures. You can tell me that no one really wants to be on welfare, and I will agree, but the truth is that it is easier to stay on than to get off welfare, and we all know that it is true. There are many people who are on welfare by chance or circumstance, and I would probably be able to find a correlation of those families with the enrollment in the City Honors program. I would also bet that there is a direct correlation between the lifetime welfare families and those students who do not take their education seriously. Why else would we be so surprised when a child from the projects makes it to college or is deemed a success by the typical 'suburban' standards? The system is flawed, and our schools and city are a result of this failed social project. I am glad that this is relatively contained in the city, because it isn't accepted in most of the affluent suburbs where poor people are generally castigated and isolated from the main stream population, especially in schools.

We have compulsory education for every child in America. Some choose to take advantage of it, while others don't. We should focus on those who do, put more resources into City Honors and the Olmsted schools. Add a few more to encourage more students to take advantage of these successful programs, and offer the minimum for those who only want the minimum. Quit pandering to the victim mentality of the inner cities. The city is not failing because of the suburbs, the suburbs are thriving because of the failures in the city. People are fleeing to escape the downward spiral of a losing culture, one that is more interested in "get money" than "get smarter". It is tough to convince a child to focus on education (tomorrow) when they are only focused on what is in it for them today.

reflip --

I like your vision of "better focused instruction and support services for students at all ability levels." If that was the case, I'd support more segregation by testing. The problem is that the students that are sent to lesser schools don't get that kind of focused attention. They just get written off, as allfit insanely advocates.

The whole purpose of public education is to broadly educate everyone, not to produce a small number of elite students. And while that may sound like "educating to the lowest common denomiator" to some, history shows that nothing has been more effective than public education in raising the level of education and culture in this country.

allfit --

The people that you call on us to castigate and isolate are CHILDREN who bear no responsibility for being born into poverty, bad family situations or any of the other factors you mention in your post.