Of course we want more students college bound, but current efforts at SFUSD with enforcement of the AG requirements does not take into consideration two essential caveats to that expectation. First and foremost, too many students from impoverished backgrounds are functionally illiterate and do not achieve at the level required for college readiness. The second point speaks to the individual's needs and not society's – many students are not interested in college careers for any number of reasons. To the extent that students need to develop more interest I wholeheartedly support efforts to mentor them in this quest and, therefore, I applaud the work you are doing. But let's not do so at the risk of losing even more students who will never achieve at a college level unless they know how to read appropriately. Counseling is important, but adopting curricula and instructional methodologies that have proven results for reading acquisition are more important. In the case of many students, the most needy ones, we are putting the cart before the horse.

I believe that SFUSD's A-G college readiness policy is a wide-eyed outgrowth of the social equity agenda, which, well-meaning as it may be, indulges in the optimistic notion of universal college-readiness at the expense of reality. The parent trigger component of recent Race to the Top legislation, a reaction to chronic academic failure, underscores the abysmal performance of many schools and their students and the problems associated with illiteracy.

The work you do in navigating students towards a successful college career is essential. At the same time, not every child will be ready, willing, or able to start college out of high school. A program called Multiple Pathways is gaining traction because it provides alternatives for many students who are not on the college track. It is designed specifically to diversify the programmatic content of school curriculum so that learning can take placed geared with relevance to daily life. The idea of learning has in any number of differing contexts. Funneling everyone through a college preparatory education may be defining success in too limited a fashion and could be a recipe for failure at its worst. The adoption of the AG requirements speak to the needs of only those students that perceive themselves as college bound. What about the rest?

Of course we want more students college bound, but current efforts at SFUSD with enforcement of the AG requirements does not take into consideration two essential caveats to that expectation. First and foremost, too many students from impoverished backgrounds are functionally illiterate and do not achieve at the level required for college readiness. The second point speaks to the individual's needs and not society's – many students are not interested in college careers for any number of reasons. To the extent that students need to develop more interest I wholeheartedly support efforts to mentor them in this quest and, therefore, I applaud the work you are doing. But let's not do so at the risk of losing even more students who will never achieve at a college level unless they know how to read appropriately. Counseling is important, but adopting curricula and instructional methodologies that have proven results for reading acquisition are more important. In the case of many students, the most needy ones, we are putting the cart before the horse.

I believe that SFUSD's A-G college readiness policy is a wide-eyed outgrowth of the social equity agenda, which, well-meaning as it may be, indulges in the optimistic notion of universal college-readiness at the expense of reality. The parent trigger component of recent Race to the Top legislation, a reaction to chronic academic failure, underscores the abysmal performance of many schools and their students and the problems associated with illiteracy.

The work you do in navigating students towards a successful college career is essential. At the same time, not every child will be ready, willing, or able to start college out of high school. A program called Multiple Pathways is gaining traction because it provides alternatives for many students who are not on the college track. It is designed specifically to diversify the programmatic content of school curriculum so that learning can take placed geared with relevance to daily life. The idea of learning has in any number of differing contexts. Funneling everyone through a college preparatory education may be defining success in too limited a fashion and could be a recipe for failure at its worst. The adoption of the AG requirements speak to the needs of only those students that perceive themselves as college bound. What about the rest?

I would add that, on an individual level, mentoring a student is one of the best ways to get involved. Serving as a student's mentor greatly improves their academic performance and chances at succeeding in college.

To learn more about mentoring and how to become one, visit http://www.sfedfund.org/programs/volunteers_individuals_ways_mentor.php

Allen Taylor