Well, that is certainly up for debate. From my own perspective, I saw it as a national consequence of our national dialogue with what to do about the education system. The intellectual history of it certainly starts from the Nation at Risk era and it gained strength in both liberal and conservative camps. Stronger standards, more accountability, more measurement, and testing. The more interesting thing at the local/state level, at least from North Dakota, was that any political debate about NCLB in our state (we are not a high-stakes testing state) could be reduced to partisan bickering. In one session I attended in the capital, there was a Republican lady complaining to a representative of DPI for the implementation of the law in the state, to which the DPI rep replied "Hey, I'm just doing my job implementing a law that was pushed through by a Republican President." There is a great deal of hype surrounding the law, but to a degree, we must remember that states have some leeway with how to pursue this law (which carries with it its own problems and benefits).
I think it is tempting for most people to just do a blanket "oh it was bad" without really thinking about how supported it is in concept and why it is merely a reform process that is going on right now. To me, it was far too ambitious, far too simplistic in design, but is still around for a reason.
