No Child Left Behind: Leaving all of us behind

I wrote this article about a year ago and sent it in to the local newspaper but it went unpublished. I am using it now to supplement what I am about to write:

"I believe that those who support the No Child Left Behind Act and its subsequent permutations (standardized testing, etc.) should read the Act in its entirety before voicing their support. When I read the Act, it came to my attention that one of the ways in which schools can monitor their improvement and avoid punitive measures is by noting the “changes in the percentages of students completing gifted and talented, advanced placement, and college preparatory courses” (NCLB Act, Sec. 1111: State Plans).
This presumes that the eventual goal is to see the majority of students achieving at the levels required for enrollment in said courses. It is truly daunting to think that every child can potentially be enrolled in a gifted and talented program when most require an I.Q. test with results above the average level. Since I.Q. cannot be learned or adapted, I find it difficult to understand how any teacher could alter a child’s I.Q. to then be acceptable for gifted and talented programs.
Secondly, I am curious to know how lawmakers envision the state of America’s colleges and universities if EVERY child has taken college preparatory courses with the logical intention of applying to and attending a college. I would like to know if these lawmakers would like to return to their alabaster Ivy League schools, overcrowded and crippled, lacking the resources to accommodate EVERY child.
It is irresponsible and foolhardy to create a secondary education system which aims every child towards higher education, when no changes have been made in the realms of higher education to accommodate those students. This is another example of the Bush administration creating a program that sounds optimistic and laudable in speeches and campaigns, but lacks realism. George Bush, where are all your “No Child Left Behind” high school graduates going to go to college? Personally, I am glad to be graduating college this year, so that I may avoid losing at academic musical chairs to the children you refused to leave behind."

Additionally, I feel that the No Child Left Behind Act has been successful in its attempt to urge more young people towards graduating from college. However, lawmakers have not had the foresight to see the repercussions of so many new college graduates being introduced to the job market after earning their degrees. If more children are graduating from college, that equals more workers competing for a very limited number of job openings. It hearkens back to the simple question of supply and demand; when balanced, a country or institution can run more efficiently. But when the "supply" as it were of newly educated wokers exceeds the "demand" of job vacancies, the results are, at least frustrating, and at most, tragic. George W. Bush has essentially set up a nation full of young people to postpone their failures until after college graduation. Instead of failing to reach excellence in school, they fail at acquiring the job for which they have been trained. America's rates of bankruptcy, debt, and poverty are skyrocketing. But Americans fail to see the connection between their beloved educational reform and the rapid breakdown of the country's infrastructure.

Again, we need look no further for inspiration than our near European neighbors, whose educational system allows for young people to be educated in every different type of job, not just an elite and elusive few professions. The German school system breaks down into three parts, covering the whole spectrum of potential employment, while the American system covers only one third of the jobs created by the German system. It seems, once again, we have a lot to learn, though we are too proud and patriotic to ever admit it and pursue a prudent solution.