This might not be a correct assumption, but the difficult part about it is defining "quality", and should there be a difference, identifying the culprit. I sus

This might not be a correct assumption, but the difficult part about it is defining "quality", and should there be a difference, identifying the culprit. I suspect that the "back to the basics" ethos of NCLB has done more harm than good (it's amazing how quickly children learn to read when they're read to every day, rather than the current method which seems to involve lots of phonics instruction in spite of English's phonetic weirdness). This is the same "back to the basics" ethos that was promoted shortly after Sputnik was launched, and the same ethos that was promoted after "A Nation at Risk" was published. And when that ethos doesn't work, we generally pile even more on it. "Chidren not performing well enough at math? We'll do 2 hours instead of 1! We'll cut recess!" I don't think I'm disagreeing with you here, but the only successful attempts I've seen to "improve education" have been the ones that offer more engagement and more freedom, with higher expectations placed on students (as well as a willingness to work around student learning, rather than forcing student learning to work around a pre-determined progress chart). Everything else has been ham-handed, at best.