Differentiated instruction for gifted kids and no child left behind.
...or else it's just trivial juicy gossip.
There seems to this stealth browser to be such a delicate balance (read power struggle) between holding children accountable to the standards of the world and holding the world accountable for meeting the child's individual needs.  I've always believed it's always possible for everybody to get their way at the same time.  Of course I haven't tackled the challenge of proving it in years.
Now, as a mother, I'm suddenly interested in children's education.  Guess it's time to wake this dormant old dinosaur between my ears and try to reconcile no child left behind with the opportunity to advance the national support of the development of the  potential of gifted children.
Which is why Obama is promising huge grants from our new trillion dollar budget to any state that agrees to accept these standards quickly, asking states not to rush to judgement (according to the NY Times).
Mix this with the upcomming deadline George Bush wrote into the 2007 NCLB law promising stiff fines and penaltys to the states for non-compliance ...((Rigorous Coursework—By 2010-11, states must develop course-level academic standards for English and mathematics that prepare high school students to succeed in college and the global workplace. By 2012-13, states will administer assessments aligned to these standards for two years of English and mathematics and publicly report the extent to which all students are on track to enter college or the workplace fully prepared.)) 
And there's one company that stepped up to the plate and actually made a comprehensive outline of standards that the president approves of and is willing to back with financial incentives for states who adopt the standards.

I can see wording in the preamble to the core mathmatical standards that give grounds to hinder advancing gifted students with common traits I keep reading about, such as "one who is proficient in math can understand any possible method of arriving at the answer", or something like that.  Meaning visual-spatial kids who can't show their work and follow the teachers lead on how to arrive at the solution, by definition now, aren't proficient in math.  Of course you can always hothouse their political savvy in negotiating with the teacher by saying, "show your work doesn't mean write the steps you used, since you can't.  It means fill in the steps like you were trying to teach someone who doesn't understand the problem how to solve it." (not my idea, I read it somewhere.)
It's late.  I haven't read too far into these pages yet.  I'll try to at least skim them sometime looking for potential opportunities to add something positive to NCLB.  At this point I don't want to look for flaws.  They put a lot of work into this.  They're proud of it.  They have two presidents on their side.  They likely will get many states to subscribe.  But at the same time they're new and asking for suggestions.  
Here's the checklist they propose for English and math standards.  Anyone who's considering advocating for a grade skip or subject acceleration can see here the standards the schools are teaching to and what they need to consider.     
( I recommend the NY Times article if you just want to click one)
(then click on standards from the article and skim the FAQ)
Youth lives by personality, age lives by calculation. -- Aristotle on a calendar