Review of the logic of NCLB, reality check

Assume for a moment that the reality check from today's Washington Post is correct - 100% proficiency is not a realistic expectation and it will leave most schools labelled as inadequate and subject to NCLB sanctions - what does this imply of the logic for NCLB sanctions?

The logic, if this assumption is correct, is that the sanctions prescribed are appropriate reforms for most schools, regardless of their academic performance. That is, these reforms in and of themselves are good for schools, whether or not the schools make adequate progress.

Here are the allowed sanctions. My review of each prescribed sanction suggests that none of them appear appropriate school reforms in and of themselves. Your mileage may vary, but it seems worth asking whether support for NCLB correlates with different player's opinions on each of these sanctions as stand-alone reforms.

Requirements for Corrective Action

The district must take one of the following ...

replace school staff relevant to the failure
institute and implement a new curriculum
significantly decrease management authority in the school
appoint outside experts to advise the school
extend school year or school day
restructure internal organization of the school.

Requirements for a Restructuring Plan
School plan must include one of the following alternative governance arrangements --

Reopen school as a public charter school
Replace all or most of school staff, including the principal
Enter into a contract with an entity, such as a private management company, with a demonstrated record of effectiveness to operate the school
Any other major restructuring of the school's governance arrangement