The article, Cultivating Failure has garden supporters up-in-arms. Basically the author, Caitlin Flanagan, argues that time spent in the school garden does not help, and in fact possibly hurts students. While I in no way agree with her, I admire her taking this unpopular point of view and triggering a lively a dialogue. She wrote:

Here is the essential question we must ask about the school gardens: What evidence do we have that participation in one of these programs--so enthusiastically supported, so uncritically championed--improves a child's chances of doing well on the state tests that will determine his or her future (especially the all-important high-school exit exam) and passing Algebra I, which is becoming the make-or-break class for California high-school students? I have spent many hours poring over the endless research on the positive effects of garden curricula, and in all that time, I have yet to find a single study that suggests classroom gardens help students meet the state standards for English and math.

While time spent in the garden isn't exactly "teaching to the test", an unfortunate emphasis brought about by this country's "No Child Left Behind" policy, by the same reasoning , arts, music, sports, or any activity that fosters creativity or critical thinking in school takes away time from learning to pass the standardized tests.

And the author here is talking about low performing, low income schools--which have always struggled and will most likely continue to do so for a variety of factors. Beauty, fresh dirt, flowers and fresh vegetables, a safe, serene spot, and feeling the gratification of reaping what you sow should not be withheld from low performing schools, most of which are in impoverished neighborhoods, or it will only be one more punishment.