落實教育品質和平等的績效責任制：美國《NCLB法》的挑戰與回應

Accountability for Quality and Equity: The Challenges and Responses of NCLB Act

10.6151/CERQ.2010.1803.01

陳佩英(Pei-Ying Chen)；卯靜儒(Chin-Ju Mao)

《把每個小孩帶上來法》 ； 績效責任 ； 美國教育改革 ； NCLB ； accountability ； American education reform ； equity ； quality

當代教育研究季刊

18卷3期（2010 / 09 / 30）

1 - 47

繁體中文

美國的《把每個小孩帶上來》（No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB）之教育法，於2001年12月經美國參眾議院審議通過，該法以實施「績效責任」來改進學生學習成果。績效表現的內容，包括：高中以下學生英、數兩科之測驗分數達到精熱度的比例、高中生畢業率，以及適任教師的比例為該法主要的評鑑項目。《NCLB法》設有獎懲機制，符合績效標準的學校可以持續獲得經費補助，連續兩年以上未能達到標準者，將被列入「亟需改善」之名單，學區和州政府得要求學校提改善計畫、協助學生轉學、提供補充教學、進行課程改革、替換部分或全數教職員、轉型為公立或私人經營的特許學校，甚至由學區或州政府接管學校。從該法的內容來看，美國政府是以教育平等（educational equity）為名，動員全國力量，藉由提升教師素質和學校辦學之績效責任，達到縮小學習弱勢與一般學生之成就差距，進而提升美國未來人力之競爭力。為了達到成果門檻的平等，聯邦與地方政府有責任提供學區適足的經費與資源，使學校做到縮短學生的表現差距；並以經費的分配與改善機制和績效責任連結，規定續效連續兩年未達標準的學校即被取消經費補助。然而多年來，各學區和州之教育主管、教育學者、教師、家長與民間團體對此法案都表示疑慮，有些學區和州政府甚至對聯邦政府提出訴訟、抵制《NCLB法》強制責任之要求，甚至聯合起來要求修法。《NCLB法》企圖透過績效責任落實教育品質提升和教育平等，是否可行？該法的落實所引發的主要爭議和矛盾有哪些？本文檢視《NCLB法》之相關文獻，以該法為例，探討藉由績效責任以提升教育品質，同時落實教育平等之可行性和實施所面臨的挑戰與目前修法的方向。

The goals of NCLB (No Child Left Behind) are to improve the performance of American schools by mandating the standards of accountability for states, school districts and schools, as well as empowering parents by choosing better schools for their children to attend. NCLB Act required all American schools to meet AYF targets for proficiency, participation, and other academic indicators. Schools that do not meet AYP targets for two consecutive years or more are identified as ”in need of improvement” and must be subject to a series of sanctions. The sanctions contain that failing schools provide all students the option to transfer to highly performing schools, offer supplemental educational services, take corrective action, restructure school organization, or are taken over by school districts or states, for which the sanctions stiffen each subsequent year.The Bush's administration imposed the NCLB accountability systems on all schools and requested them to achieve provision of 100 percent of highly qualifies teachers by 2006 and close the achievement gap between the advantaged and the disadvantaged groups of students by 2014. Despite the widespread support for NCLB's goals, the growing state and local dissent and law suites against NCLB began to emerge as the public witnessed the law's negative effects on teaching and learning. In order to understand the controversies made by NCLB's interventions, this article looks for implications of the NCLB Act on educational reform in the U.S. Firstly, the paper overviews the initiating and implementing process of NCLB Act. Then the paper discusses key mechanisms and the major disputes resulted from the NCLB's accountability systems. Third, the paper interprets the constraint and possibility of the NCLB Act that has an attempt to integrate equity with accountability for educational policy and practice. And last, by introducing the Obama administration's proposal of revision of NCLB Act, the paper concludes that the current accountability system is in need of being much more comprehensive than the Bush administration thought it was.

1. Hoff, D. (2009). The latest news on the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind act. Retrieved January 30, 2009, from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/NCLB-ActII/
2. Weinstein, A. (2009). Obama on No Child Left Behind. Retrieved September 9, 2009, from http://www.education.com/magazine/article/Obama_Child_Left_Behind/
3. U.S. Department of Education.(2009). Teacher quality enhancement program: Grantee level analysis (2005-06 Data) for partnership and state grants. Retrieved April 8, 2010, from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/heatqp/tqeanalysis0506.pdf
4. Hoff, D.(2008). The latest news on the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind act. Retrieved March 22, 2008, from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/NCLB-ActTI/2008/03/antincib_bills_advance_in_ariz.html#trackback
5. Bracey, G. W. (2004). The seven deadly absurdities of No Child Left Behind. Retrieved July 23, 2009, from http://nochildleft.com/2004/oct04absurd.html
6. White House. (2002). President signs landmark education bill. Retrieved July 9, 2007, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020108-1 .html
7. California Teacher Association. (2007). Erase, rewrite, and reauthorize! Reauthorizing ESEA/NCLB fact sheer. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://www.cta.org/NR/rdonlyres/31310D9B-7793-4EOFBBD69A60392426A9/0/3 ESEAFrequentlyAskedQues tionsFINAL4l907.doc.http://www.cta.org/NR/rdonlyres/31310D9B-7793-4EOFBBD69A60392426A9/0/3 ESEAFrequentlyAskedQues tionsFINAL4l907.doc
8. McNeil, L. M., Coppola, E., Radigan, J. & Heilig, J. V. (2008). Avoidable losses: High stakes accountability and the dropout crisis. Retrieved March 20, 2008, from http://centerforeducation.rice.edu/Research/Avoib1eLosses.htm
9. U.S. Department of Education.(2004a). New No Child Left Behind flexibility: Highly qualified teacher. Retrieved July 7, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/teachers/hqtflexibility.pdf
10. U.S. Department of Education. (2010). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Retrieved June 1, 2010, from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf
11. Spellings, M.(2006). Key policy letters signed by the education secretary or deputy secretary. Retrieved January 4, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/060905.html
12. EPE Research Center.(2008a). Schools-Adequate yearly progress and improvement status under NCLB. Retrieved January 30, 2009, from http://www.cdweek.org/media/l6ayp-schools.pdf
13. NSBA.(2008). Obama's position on education. Retrieved September 1, 2009, from http://www.cabe.org/uploaded/Convention_Handouts/Obama's_position_on_Education_9_08.pdf
14. EPE Research Center. (2008b). Schools and districts-Stages of improvement under NCLB. Retrieved january 30, 2009, from http://www.edweek.org/media/l6ayp-schools.pdf
15. Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. (2007). Educations counts. Retrieved July 14, 2007, from http://www2.edweek.org/rc/edcounts/
16. Emerick, S., Hirsch. E. & Berry, B.(2004). Does highly qualified mean high-quality? Retrieved July 27, 2007, from http://hub.mspnet.org/index.cfm/11940
17. U.S Department of Education. (2009). National Assessment of Educational Progress. Retrieved June 1, 2010, from http://nationsreportcard.gov/math_2009/
18. Apple, M. W.(2007).Ideological success, educational failure? On the politics of No Child Left Behind.Journal of Teacher Education,58(2),108-116.
19. Azzam, A. M.(2008).Left behind-By design.Educational Leadership,65(4),91-92.
20. Barton, P. E.(2006)."Failing "or "succeeding" schools: How can we tell?.Washinton, DC:American Federation of Teachers.
21. Borkowski, J. W.,Sneed, M.(2006).Will NCLB improve or harm public education?.Harvard Educational Review,76(4),503-525.
22. Bourque, M.(ed.),Byrd, S.(ed.)(2000).Student performance standards on the National Assessment of Educational Progress: Affirmation and improvements.Washington, DC:National Assessment Governing Board.
23. Branch-Brioso, K.,Powell, C. T.,Roach, R.(2008).Bush to Obama: Education in transition.Diverse: Issues in higher Education,25(23),8-12.
24. California Department of Education(2007).,未出版
25. Carey, K.(2007).,未出版
26. Center on Education Policy.(2007).,未出版
27. Dietz, S.(2010).,未出版
28. Dillon, S.(2009).Sluggish Results Seen in Math Scores.The New York Times,2011/4/7
29. Dillon, S.(2010).Obama Calls for Major Change in Education Law.The New York Times,2011/4/7
30. Elmore, R. F.(2002).Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for professional development in education.Washington, DC:Albert Shanker Institute.
31. Epstein, N.(ed.)(2004).Who's in charge here? The tangled web of school governance and policy.Washington. DC:Brookings.
32. Fetler, M.(2007).NCLB blue: An essay review.Education Review,10(9)
33. Field, S.,Kuczera, M.,Pont, B.(2007).No more failures: The steps to equity in education.
34. Guisbond, L.,Neill, M.(2004).Failing our children: No Child Left Behind undermines quality and equity in education.Cambridge:The National Center for Fair and Open Testing.
35. Haney, W. M.(2006).Evidence on education under NCLB (and How Florida Boosted NAEP Scores and Reduced the Race Gap).Broad Seminar for K-12 Reporters,New York City:
36. Hardy, L.(2008).The second tier.American School Board Journal,195(11),20-24.
37. Harris, D. N.,Herrington, C. D.(2006).Accountability, standards, and the growing achievement gap: Lessons from the past half-century.American Journal of Education,112,209-238.
38. Hess, F. M.,Petrilli, M. J.(2006).No child left behind, Primer.New York:Peter Lang.
39. Hoerander, C. M.,Lernke, R. J.(2006).Can no child left behind close the gaps in pass rates on standardized tests?.Contemporary Economic Policy,24(1),1-17.
40. Jacobson, L.(2008).NCLB restructuring found ineffectual in California.Education Week,27(24),15-17.
41. Leonardo, Z.(2007).The war on schools: NCLB, nation creation and the educational construction of whiteness.Race Ethnicity and Education,10(3),261-278.
42. Lewis. A. C.(2009).Think ahead to red penciling.Phi Delta Kappan,90(5),315-316.
43. Linn, R. L.(2005).Test-based educational accountability in the era of No Child Left Behind.Oakland, CA:The Regents of the University of California.
44. Manna. P.(2006).Control, persuasion, and educational accountability: Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act.Educational Policy,20(3),471-494.
45. Mathis, W. J.(2009).,未出版
46. Meier. D.(ed.),Wood, G.(ed.)(2004).Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act Ls damaging our children and our schools.Boston:Beacon Press.
47. Merier, D.(ed.),Wood, G.(ed.)(2004).Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind ct is damaging our children and our schools.Boston:Beacon Press.
48. National Conference of State Legislatures(2005).Task force on No Child left Behind Final Report.Denver:National Conference of State Legislatures.
49. Noddings, N.(2005).The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education.New York:Teachers College, Columbia University.
50. Olson, L.(2004).Taking root.Education Week,8,S1-S7.
51. Paige, R.(2006).No Child Left Behind: The ongoing movement for public education reform.Harvard Educational Review,76(4),461-473.
52. Ravitch, D.(2010).The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education.New York:Basic Books.
53. Rebell, M. A.,Wolff, J. R.(2008).Moving every child ahead: From NCLB hype to meaningful educational opportunity.New York:Teacher College, Columbia University.
54. Reich, R.(2006).,未出版
55. Sadovnik, A. R.(ed.),O''Day, J. A.(ed.),Bohrnstedt, G. W.(ed.),Borman, K. M.(ed.)(2008).No Child Left Behind and the reduction of the achievement gap: Sociological perspectives on federal educational policy.New York:Routledge.
56. Sadovnik, A. R.,O''Day, J.,Bohrnstedt, G.,Borman, K. M.(2008).No child Left Behind and the reduction of the achievement gap: Sociological perspectives on federal educational policy.New York:Routledge.
57. Saulny, S.(2010).Detroit plan would close 45 schools.The New York Times,2011/4/4
58. Sirotnik K. A.(ed.)(2004).Holding accountability accountable: What ought to matter in public education.New York:Teacher college, Columbia University.
59. Sunderman, G. L.(2006).The unraveling of no child left behind: How negotiated changes transform the law.Cambridge:The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
60. Sunderman, G. L.,Orfield, G.(2006).Domesticating a revolution: No Child Left Behind reforms and state administrative response.Harvard Educational Review,76(4),526-556.
61. Sunderman, G. L.,Tracey, C. A.,Kim, J.,Orfield, G.(2004).,未出版
62. Superfine, B. M.(2005).The politics of accountability: The rise and fall of goals 2000.American Journal of Education,112,10-43.
63. The Economist YouGov Poll.(2009).The Economist Yougov poll September 27-29 2009.The Economist,2011/4/6
64. The Education Trust.(2003).,未出版
65. Tuerk, P. W.(2005).Research in the high-stakes era: Achievemant, resources, and No Child Left Behind.American Psychologist Society,16(6),419-425.
66. U.S. Department of Education(1991).,Washington, DC.:Department of Education.
67. US. Department of Education.(2004).,Washinton, DC.:.
68. Vinovskis, M. A.(2009).From a nation at risk to No Child Left Behind: national education goals and the education of federal education policy.New York:Teachers College, Columbia University.
69. Zimmer, R.,Hamilton, L.,Christina, R.(2010).After-school tutoring in the context of No Child Left Behind: Effectiveness of two programs in the Pittsburgh public schools.Economic of Education Review,29(1),18-28.
70. 吳清山(1994)。美國教育改革焦點—評析「兩千年教育目標法案」之教育目標。教師天地，73，56-59。
71. 周淑卿(1995)。美國公元2000年教育目標法案。教育研究資訊，3(3)，143-147。
72. 張奕華(2004)。從「布朗案」論NCLB政策中績效責任系統之內涵與執行。教育研究月刊，124，139-150。
73. 陳明印(2002)。美國2001年初等及中等教育法案修正法案之分析。教育研究資訊，10(1)，205-228。
74. 楊巧玲(2007)。美國教育政策的發展及其啓示：沒有任何孩子落後。教育資料集刊，36，153-170。
75. 楊慶麟(1996)。美國新聯邦教育政策探討。教育資料文摘，38，148-155。
76. 潘慧玲主編(2008)。教師評鑑理論與實務。臺灣師範大學教育評鑑與發展研究中心=Center for Research on Educational Evaluation and Development, National Taiwan Normal University:臺北=Taipei。

1. 陳成宏(2016)。「沒有孩子落後」之後：NCLB豁免計畫的角色定位、法理基礎與實施爭議之探討。教育科學研究期刊，61(1)，69-89。
2. 洪金英(2020)。區分性教學視導在教師專業發展上的運用與啟示。學校行政，126，1-23。
3. 許添明、張良丞、吳新傑(2016)。國民中學適足教育經費：臺灣偏遠與非偏遠地區學校的比較。教育科學研究期刊，61(3)，43-67。
4. 賴彥全、王麗雲(2014)。地方政府教育課責系統現況與成效探究。教育科學研究期刊，59(3)，97-132。
5. 李寶琳(2014)。美國《不讓任何孩子落後》法案政策之績效責任探討與省思。臺北市立大學學報，45(1)，1-20。
6. 林宜臻(2015)。落實補救教學 確保雙低生學習。教育脈動，3，173-175。
7. (2010)。為卓越而改革的蘇格蘭新課程—Curriculum for Excellence。教育研究月刊，199，123-132。
8. (2011)。美國州層級中等教育政策重要課題剖析。教育資料集刊，50，107-124。
9. (2013)。美國《不讓一位孩子落後法》政策執行：成效、爭議與啟示。教育研究月刊，226，130-147。
10. (2016)。學校教育績效責任之研究：析論美國印第安那州ISTEP+計畫。教育政策論壇，19(1)，73-104。