The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation has been criticized in many circles. In some ways, the critics are correct. For example, it has significantly increased the paper work and bureaucracy in public education as school districts scramble to meet the myriad layers of requirements that are built into the law. It also has reduced local control through its top down approach to curriculum and testing. As frustrating as these detriments of the law are, there are two positives that may off set them. One is a shift in educational focus from teaching to learning. The second is an emphasis on the success of all students as compared to a concentration on average student performance.

The shift from teaching to learning is a refreshing change. In the past education has focused on what the teacher is doing in front of students. For example, teachers were analyzed on whether they stated the lesson goals, used good questioning skills, organized their classrooms effectively, and so forth. While all these traits of good teaching are important, it is more important that the students are learning in the classroom. Merely judging instruction by a teacher’s performance is a little like judging a racecar by its design rather than by whether it wins races.

This is changing thanks to NCLB. Districts now are judging their performance on the success of their students rather than on more superficial indicators. They now must really look at student data and determine if children are academically improving. NCLB has helped schools understand that learning is the bottom line. A school where students are learning is successful. Contrarily, a school where students are not learning is unsuccessful. It is that simple. This also encourages educators to learn techniques and strategies from one another that bring about student success.

The second positive shift NCLB has caused is the shift away from a concentration on overall averages to an emphasis on the success of each student. NCLB forces school districts to look separately at each student subgroup. Such sub groups include children of poverty, minority groups, children whose first language is not English, Caucasians and so forth. After examining the academic status of each sub group, schools are able to pin-point the children that have the greatest learning needs. From this study, they can design plans and interventions to help failing children become successful learners.

These two redirections of focus were badly needed in education. They are causing educators across the country to re-examine their priorities and make necessary changes. This re-examination is causing districts to expand their definition of success. It used to be if schools had 75% of their students making adequate progress they were satisfied. They no longer have this luxury. Now educators must seek to have 100% of their students successful.

Is this goal attainable? It may not be, but it is an important target. Schools should not be satisfied with having only a majority of their students, who typically come from more advantaged homes, successful. They should not rest until they do all they can to help all our students have the doors of opportunity opened to them through the benefits of a successful education.

Whether the changes caused by the federal No Child Left Behind legislation are more positive or negative in the overall balance is up for debate. However, what is not up for debate is the needed changes it has caused. Forcing education to strive to bring about success for all students, regardless of race or economic resources, has been critical in helping more students access the benefits of an effective education. This increased demand for successfully educating all students is a legacy about which the architects of the legislation can be proud.

For more information, contact the Webmaster.