EDITORIAL - The Bush Administration's No Child Left Behind act, originally created to supposedly address low expectations for our government-funded school system, has succeeded in lowering standards and contains perverse behavior, says Washington Post columnist George Will.

“The rationale for standards-based reform was that expectations would become more rigorous and uniform, but states' proficiency tests vary "wildly" in difficulty, "with 'passing scores' ranging from the 6th percentile to the 77th."”, Will writes.

The federal law places specific requirements upon school systems before receiving federal funding, like teacher qualification exams and bachelor's degrees. Student process is measured on a yearly basis in math and reading comprehension. If students or teachers fall short in passing these evaluations, federal funding for those schools are in jeopardy.

The law, of course, succeeds in replacing local control over our nation's schools with federal control by mandating arbitrary federal requirements over the teaching staff and students. The Constitution provides the federal government with no authority to intervene in education in any way, shape or form.

But then again, what is the Constitution to our current crop of politicians? Our government has turned our Constitution into a document of convenience, to be used only when a law or regulation accidentally falls within its specific guidelines.

Although the No Child Left Behind act requires states to admit when schools fail any number of NCLB's standards, the practice is hardly followed. “NCLB requires states to identify, by criteria they devise, "persistently dangerous schools." But what state wants that embarrassment? The Washington Post recently reported that last year, of America's approximately 94,000 public schools, the "persistently dangerous" numbered 46. There were none among the 9,000 schools in amazingly tranquil California,” Will said.

The goal, writes Will, is “America's version of Soviet grain quotes, solemnly avowed but not seriously constrained.” He added that the majority of states still retain the standards that existed before the implementation of this federal bureaucracy, and some schools have even changed their definition of “proficiency” as to provide an easier road to satisfy those requirements.