WHEN George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002, he was flanked by Ted Kennedy, who had shepherded the legislation through the Senate, and John Boehner, then the head of the House education committee. On December 9th the Senate voted overwhelmingly to replace that law. The House has already passed something similar, and the president is likely to sign a modified version. This new bill, too, has support from both parties. But this time it stems from a shared hatred of Mr Bush’s law.

The federal government’s role in running America’s public schools has grown from that of a glorified think-tank, charged with scouring for information to help states build better school systems in the 19th century. When the second world war put military installations, and the children that came with them, in states with thin tax receipts, the federal government stepped in to make up the shortfall. When the federal government moved to end racial segregation in schools in the 1960s, Washington’s role in education increased again. The traffic has been one-way ever since, even though the federal government provides only 10% of overall school funding. The new law, though, goes in the opposite direction.

No Child Left Behind obliged states to set standards for proficiency in reading and maths, and held states and school districts accountable for meeting them. Pupils were tested annually, with the goal of raising standards and closing gaps in achievement between those from rich and those from poor families. For a while pupils, especially those from ethnic minorities, performed significantly better. The gap between black and white children narrowed. The law required all to be proficient for their age in reading and maths by 2014. The deadline was not met, and it was clear several years ago that pupils would not make the annual gains needed to achieve that goal.

Because the regime relied on regular testing of pupils to monitor the schools’ progress, it came to be loathed by teachers, who complained that too much classroom time was taken up preparing pupils for tests. At the other end of the political spectrum, conservatives who wanted more local control of education bristled at what they saw as federal overreach. “It was an interesting coalescing,” says Michael McShane of the Show-Me Institute, a Missouri think-tank. “The left and the right did not like the centralised dictates coming out of the Department of Education.”

They especially did not like the power wielded by Arne Duncan, the outgoing secretary of education. Mr Duncan began releasing states from the need to comply with parts of No Child Left Behind. His waivers came with conditions. In exchange states had to evaluate teachers and implement standards, such as the Common Core, a controversial set of standards that many states are opting out of or are rebranding. More than 40 states agreed. All this expanded the footprint of both the federal department and the secretary.

The new bills from the Senate and House aim to reduce the role of the education secretary and to roll back federal involvement. States will determine how schools should be held accountable, and for what. But not everything has been thrown out with the bathwater. States will still have to test pupils in reading and maths. They also will have to be more transparent about the results. States will have to submit plans to the Department of Education. What is not clear is what happens if these are deemed inadequate. Any time the House bill states a requirement, points out Martin West of Harvard, it uses strong language prohibiting the secretary from using his authority to go beyond what is laid out specifically in the bill.

If America’s technocrats had their way, schools across the country would teach a common curriculum and pupils would take the same tests. States would be left to figure out how best to set up their schools. Comparisons between states would be easy and innovation would flourish. The past decade suggests that is, for now at least, an unattainable aim. No one can say for sure whether the new law contains the right ingredients to improve schools. What is certain is that it will make it considerably harder to work out what they are.