Critically needed reforms to No Child Left Behind, the 2001 federal public-school improvement initiative that was born early in the Bush administration, must be back-burnered until the next White House occupant moves in.

It's dismally regrettable that a cohort of school children have moved almost all the way through elementary and middle schools with this flawed program in place, virtually unchanged.

Pressing schools to reach a goal of full student proficiency by 2013 is a noble undertaking. Who wouldn't applaud the notion of leaving no child behind?

Unfortunately, the law's restrictive standards can penalize a school even if it makes progress, negatively affecting all its students — including those kids who are successfully meeting NCLB goals. The law needs to be more flexible to handle the unique problems faced by individual schools.

Some progress was evident in a presentation the state Department of Education made to the school board: Statewide percentages of students testing as proficient in reading and math have been on a steady climb since No Child was set in motion.

Then why is everyone so miserable about No Child? It's because the law sets the bar unrealistically high for a school to be considered passing. A certain percentage of students — a benchmark — must be judged proficient in reading and math in each of 37 population groupings, including such subsets as students whose first language is not English and groups defined by ethnicity.

Each state is allowed to set its benchmarks with the aim of reaching that 100 percent goal by 2013. And this year in Hawai'i that percentage jumped 14 points to 58 percent in reading and 18 points to 46 percent in math.

Falling short of the percentage in any one of the 37 groupings means the entire school essentially gets an F.

And failure means the school may be forced to reallocate its resources for teaching to meet the benchmark. In many schools with, for example, a fair-sized immigrant population, hitting the mark is tough because new English-language learners are constantly being added to the mix.

Certainly, No Child should hold schools accountable for helping these students achieve. But the unintended consequence is that too many schools are under pressure to divert attention and money away from a well-rounded education and place inordinate focus on "teaching to the test" so that all groups can master the basic skills.

A less punitive, more flexible system that can target specific groups makes sense; delivering the same curriculum to students who are already mastering the skills does not.

Both presidential candidates say they favor reforming the law, but up to this point have been speaking in general terms.

John McCain and Barack Obama, the presumptive nominees for the major parties, each have differing approaches to educational reform generally but so far have not fleshed out their ideas for specific changes to No Child Left Behind.

That needs to happen, and soon, so that voters can decide who has the better plan for reauthorizing the law.

Whoever is elected must be held accountable to a pledge for strategic changes in the law, to help schools sustain their march toward steady growth and improvement.