CATO Institute: Neil McCluskey- 'No Child Left Behind: A Decade of Failure'

Source:CATO Institute- Neil McCluskey talking about the 2001 No Child Left Behind Law.

"The No Child Left Behind Act was meant to compel states to adopt high standards and rapidly improve K-12 education in public schools. It is now clear that NCLB has been a failure and has set the stage for even greater federal control over curriculum. The solution, contrary to what many advocates claim, is to get the federal government out of America's classrooms. Neal McCluskey, associate director of the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom, comments on NCLB's decade of failure."
 

From the CATO Institute 

Before I get into the No Child Left Behind Law, you need to know the background on it and why a Republican President named George W. Bush would even be pushing Federal education reform at all. 

In 1999-2000, then Governor George W. Bush ran as a Compassionate Conservative, which essentially translates into a modern Progressive Republican. If you are old enough to remember the 1990s and the political environment in Washington during that decade, you know that the Republican Party was moving into a fundamentalist, populist, direction, with an economic libertarian component. Which is probably why the Republican Party lost the 1996 presidential election, along with nominating Bob Dole for President, because they were seen as a party that didn't care about average Americans and minorities and only cared about their religion, guns, and wanting to keep their taxes down. 

G.W. Bush in Canada would be called a Progressive-Conservative (no, that's not an Oxymoron) which means he's someone who believes in using government through market principles help people in need who are struggling. And is someone who doesn't want the Federal Government running public education, but who believes that the Feds have a role in education when it comes to funding and setting standards, making suggestions, providing funding for public schools and even private schools. 

If the Democratic Party sounded more like Republicans on economic policy in the 1990s thanks to President Bill Clinton, then the Republican Party sounded more like Democrats when it came to domestic policy in the 2000s, thanks to President George W. Bush. Because you have a large block of independent voters who don't like the fringes in either party. And when you are trying to run a national campaign for the presidency, you need voters who aren't part of your hard core party base. Public education and immigration, as well as Medicare reform, was how George W. Bush spoke to non-traditional Republican voters. And it worked for him politically.