When Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Law in late 2001, it focused attention on an admirable goal: All children should receive the educational opportunities that lead to school success.

But a host of problems with the law since then shows it is time to give the states more flexibility. Education is primarily a state and local responsibility, and the federal government's attempts to help in recent years have often been disappointing.

Despite promises when the legislation was passed, Congress has failed to provide the schools with sufficient resources to help students who are hindered by poverty, language barriers or learning disabilities.

Some lawmakers, led by Rep. Dennis Moore, D-Kan., favor legislation that would allow states to opt out of testing requirements until the federal government provides $55 billion more.

That is an excellent idea: no more federal mandates on schools without sufficient federal money to meet them.

More money alone, however, will not resolve all the law's deficiencies. They include:

• The heavy emphasis on testing for reading and math proficiency has led many schools to shortchange science, social studies and the arts.

• Gifted students get inadequate attention because teachers and specialists — and the funding for these professionals — are focused on other students.

• Schools are improperly labeled as needing improvement when a small group of pupils tests poorly, often because the students have special needs or are immigrants who cannot speak English.

• Children with learning disabilities are under unfair pressure to perform on tests designed for those without disabilities.

Before No Child Left Behind, many states were well on the way to improving their educational standards. Missouri, for instance, passed the Outstanding Schools Act in the early 1990s. Schools that fail to show progress risk losing state accreditation.

But the federal law has undermined many local and state efforts, hurting areas that have worked to improve their schools. Schools should not be allowed to return to the days when some were all too willing to let children advance without knowing the basics. However, states should be given the opportunity to opt out of No Child Left Behind's testing requirements, and its misleading measurements of proficiency, as long as there are suitable alternatives.

Those alternatives must still be focused on the ambitious goal of the federal legislation: success for all children.