For more than a decade, the release of federal scores indicating California public school students’ progress — or lack of it — has incited alarm, anxiety and anguish among educators.

But when those marks were ever so quietly posted this month, barely anyone noticed. And it seemed few cared. For the first time in years, California schools met federal standards — but only because the yardstick had been replaced with an easier-to-meet measurement.

It’s the sign that the federal No Child Left Behind law, an effort to hold schools accountable for students’ failure to learn, has lost its muscle a year before it expires. That retreat enrages reformers like former state Sen. Gloria Romero of Los Angeles. “There is an effort to minimize, whitewash and scrub the file so that parents don’t have information,” she said. “If you can kill the data, you can’t have the reform.”

Since 2002, No Child Left Behind tied schools’ federal grades to students’ proficiency in math and English. But now, under a waiver granted in June, California bases those grades solely on attendance, test participation and graduation rate — which itself has been inflated with the demise of the state high school exit exam.

Those are much easier bars to hurdle — and achieved by most California schools.

On Dec. 15, the state posted schools’ federal grades, known as “Adequate Yearly Progress.” Those that didn’t meet expectations could be labeled failing schools, branded with a “Program Improvement” label and be subject to various sanctions, potentially leading to school closure.

But the posting happened quietly — the state Department of Education didn’t even bother to announce the scores, but simply noted that enough students took the test for California to meet federal requirements. And instead of dread, educators collectively shrugged their shoulders.

“It wasn’t even a subject of conversation,” said Troy Flint, spokesman for Oakland Unified School District, where a stunning 85 schools are in Program Improvement. “It’s not the standard by which we’re measured.”

As a result of lowering the bar, some schools were freed from Program Improvement status. Ironically, some high-performing schools now find themselves on what was once a list of shame. At Palo Alto High, scores of juniors last spring refused to take state standardized tests, which don’t affect grades or college resumes.

Without the fed’s waiver, more schools would be facing more mandates if the yardstick were still based on proficiency. On standardized tests last spring, only 44 percent of California students tested proficient in English, and 33 percent proficient in math — far short of No Child Left Behind’s unrealistic expectation of 100 percent proficiency.

Even though nearly half of California public schools are still designated as Program Improvement, educators no longer see it as threatening. “We have to jump through a few hoops,” said Dorothy Abreu-Coito, director of instructional services in the Sunnyvale School District. But the federal label “doesn’t have the importance it once did.”

The new federal education bill that Congress passed earlier this month largely cedes power back to states, including the authority to judge failure and success. And California, as it decides how to comply, is likely to leave accountability to school districts.

“We do welcome the change,” said Sunnyvale Superintendent Ben Picard. “We really like the local control.”

Thirteen years ago, another change in law also was warmly welcomed. No Child Left Behind was ushered through Congress by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, former Rep. George Miller and Rep. John Boehner, signed by then-President George W. Bush and embraced by liberals and conservatives alike.

That landmark bill left a significant imprint. In some districts, the pressure to improve teaching, leadership and school options produced remarkable gains. Test scores in the Alum Rock Union School District in San Jose, for example, climbed steadily. Parents fed up with failure successfully pressed for more educational choice, such as charter schools and small alternative schools.

But the law also sowed resentment of federal involvement, testing and narrow judgments of schools.

In some places, both threats and outside assistance failed. Even after years of effort, the Ravenswood City School District in East Palo Alto on last spring’s tests posted some of the lowest scores in the state. Just 15 percent met English standards, and only 9 percent met math standards. Both are lower than nine years ago, when they were 18 percent and 12 percent, respectively, although the new state tests are tougher than the previous STAR exams.

Critics say that despite lofty goals, many children have been failed by their schools and by governments’ good intentions.

But some fear that without federally mandated high expectations and demands for transparency, schools will continue to fail poor and minority children, the intended beneficiaries of No Child Left Behind. A year early, “it’s gone,” said Romero, with the law replaced by laxer enforcement and attitudes.

“That’s the sadness of this,” Romero said. “These are two big steps backward in terms of education reform.”

Contact Sharon Noguchi at 408-271-3775. Follow her at Twitter.com/noguchionk12.