「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

Role, Legal Foundation, and Implementation Controversy of the NCLB Waiver

10.6209/JORIES.2016.61(1).03

陳成宏(Cheng-Hung Chen)

沒有孩子落後 ； 教育政策 ； 豁免計畫 ； NCLB ； education policy ； NCLB Waiver

教育科學研究期刊

61卷1期（2016 / 03 / 01）

69 - 89

繁體中文

無可諱言，《沒有孩子落後法案》（No Child Left Behind, NCLB）的實施後期疲態漸露，當初反對者的諸多憂慮逐一現形，縱使贊成者勉力提出各項數據加以辯駁，但NCLB 之宣示於2014 年達成數學與閱讀100%精熟的終極挫敗令其不得不黯然低頭。「沒有孩子落後」的政策時程至2014 年證明已然「落後」，但是其相關配套所衍生的問題仍得繼續面對與處理，B. Obama 總統受制於國會兩黨的政治角力，在《初等與中等教育法案》（Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA）的再授權暫時無解之下，遂改弦易轍推出NCLB 豁免計畫（NCLB Waiver）因應。NCLB豁免計畫因有助學區學校脫離辦學不力的惡名，以及逃開隨之而來的各種懲罰措施，對於各州無疑具有極大的吸引力，至今已有多達48州進行規劃和申請交換豁免。鑑於NCLB 豁免計畫的特殊背景與重要性，以及延續近10 餘年來國內對於NCLB 的相關研究，本研究目的乃從廣受關注的NCLB 豁免計畫入手，深入探討其角色定位、法理基礎與實施爭議。根據研究結果，本研究有三點歸結：一、豁免計畫的角色定位雙重，既在為NCLB解套，亦在替「邁向巔峰」計畫（Race to the Top, RTT）配套；二、豁免計畫的法源基礎有所本亦具模糊解釋空間；三、豁免計畫的實施爭議牽涉不同面向。另本研究提出五點建議：一、精準引用與正確解釋教育變革政策的法理；二、整體考量教育變革政策的制度與地域統合問題；三、謹慎處理教育變革政策的政治干預與對立問題；四、全面規劃教育變革政策的策略配套與滑順接軌；五、正視因應教育變革政策的優質卓越與社會正義。

The performance of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has decreased gradually as the concerns of its opponents have been realized. Although NCLB’s advocates have painstakingly collected data for its defense, they are highly frustrated by the fact that NCLB’s ultimate goal of all students reaching 100% proficiency in reading and math in 2014 has failed. To address the problems of NCLB, President Obama proposed the NCLB Waiver in response to congressional partisanship, which has prevented the Elementary and Secondary Education Act from being reauthorized. Because the NCLB Waiver provides states the flexibility for circumventing the flawed provisions of NCLB, nearly all states would apply for the waiver for evading NCLB’s sanctions. The results of this study revealed that the dual purpose of the NCLB Waiver is releasing states from the mandates of NCLB and matching NCLB with Race to the Top; NCLB’s legal foundation is Section 9401 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; and NCLB’s implementation controversy is multidimensional. Finally, this paper proposes five recommendations: (1) precisely citing and interpreting the legal foundation for education change policy; (2) comprehensively considering the integration of enactment and region of education change policy; (3) cautiously coping with the political intervention with and confrontation over education change policy; (4) systematically planning the strategic matching and transition in education change policy; and (5) addressing the quality and social justice of education change policy.

1. 吳清山、蔡菁芝(2006)。英美兩國教育績效責任之比較分析及其啟示。師大學報：教育類，51(1)，1-21。
   連結：
2. 陳佩英、卯靜儒(2010)。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。當代教育研究季刊，18(3)，1-47。
   連結：
3. National Education Association. (2014). No Children Left Behind Act (NCLB)-ESEA. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/NoChildLeftBehindAct.html
4. Legal Information Institute. (2011). 20 U.S. Code §7861(b)(c)(d)-Waivers of statutory and regulatory requirements. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/7861
5. Legal Information Institute. (2014). U.S. Constitution. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei
6. Legal Information Institute. (2011). 20 U.S. Code §7861(a)-Waivers of statutory and regulatory requirements. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/7861
7. The Advocacy Institute. (2013). ESEA flexibility: Issues for students with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.advocacyinstitute.org/ESEA/AdvocacyInstitute-ESEA.Flexibility.Issues.for.SWDS.pdf
8. U.S. Department of Education. (2013). ESEA flexibility. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexi bility/index.html
9. The Associated Press. (2014). Washington: State loses control of some school funds. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/us/washington-state-loses-control-of-some-school-funds.html?_r=0
10. Burke, L. (2012). States must reject national education standards while there is still time. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/04/states-must-reject-national-educationstandards-while-there-is-still-time
11. Severson, K., & Blinder, A. (2014). Test scandal in Atlanta brings more guilty pleas. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/education/test-scandal-in-atlanta-brings-more-guilty-pleas.html?_r=0
12. Center on Education Policy. (2012). Major accountability themes of second-round applications for NCLB Waivers. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org
13. Center on Education Policy. (2012b). Accountability issues to watch under NCLB Waivers. Retrieved from http://file:///C:/User/user/Downloads/KoberRiddle_Report_AccountabilityIssuesWaiver_100212.pdf
14. Black, D. (2013). Effective teachers for disadvantaged students no longer part of NCLB Waiver process. Retrieved from http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/education_law/2013/11/effectiveteachers-for-disadvantaged-students-no-longer-part-of-nclb-waiver-process.html
15. Carnoy, M.,Loeb, S.(2002).Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,24(4),305-331.
16. Cavanagh, S.(2012).Some states still wary about NCLB Waiver offer.Education Week,31(17),1-14.
17. Center for American Progress(2012).,未出版
18. Dee, T.,Jacob, B.(2011).The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement.Journal of Policy and Management,30(3),418-446.
19. Eitel, R. S.,Talbert, K. D.(2012).The road to a national curriculum: The legal aspects of the common core standards, race to the top, and conditional waivers.The Federalist Society,13(1),1-24.
20. Figlio, D. N.(2006).Testing, crime, punishment.Journal of Public Economics,90(4-5),837-851.
21. Harris, D. M.(2012).,未出版
22. Klein, A.(2014).Loss of NCLB Waiver puts Washington state on uncertain ground.Education Week,33(30),28-33.
23. Klein, A.(2012).California hopes to go its own way on NCLB Waiver.Education Week,31(31),23-24.
24. Klein, A.(2014).Minority-group lawmakers slam NCLB Waivers' impact.Education Week,33(21),22.
25. Ladd, H. F.,Lauen, D. L.(2010).Status versus growth: The distributional effects of school accountability policies.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,29(3),426-450.
26. Lohman, J.(2010).OLR research reportOLR research report,未出版
27. Martin, V.,Lazaro, L. M.(2011).The race to educational reform in the USA: The race to the top.Language and Education,25(6),479-490.
28. McEachin, A.,Polikoff, M. S.(2012).We are the 5%: Which schools would be held accountable under a proposed revision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act?.Educational Researcher,41(7),243-251.
29. Michele, M.(2011).Waiver plans would scrap parts of NCLB.Education Week,31(13),1-28.
30. Michele, M.(2012).States punch reset button with NCLB Waivers.Education Week,32(8),1-25.
31. Montalto, S. A.(2013).,未出版
32. Morgan, C. K.(2014).Executive action in the face of congressional inaction: Education waivers circumventing the legislative process.Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal,2,347-366.
33. Nancy, K.,Wayne, R.(2012).,未出版
34. Nichols, S. L.,Berliner, D. C.(2008).Why has high-stakes testing so easily slipped into contemporary American life?.The Education Digest,74(4),41-47.
35. Onosko, J.(2011).Race to the top leaves children and future citizens behind: The devastating effects of centralization, standardization, and high stakes accountability.Democracy and Education,19(2),1-11.
36. Polikoff, M. S.,McEachin, A. J.,Wrabel, S. L.,Duque, M.(2013).The waive of the future: School accountability in the waiver era.Association for Education Finance and Policy Annual Conference,New Orleans, LA:
37. Reback, R.(2007).NBER Working PaperNBER Working Paper,未出版
38. Riley, B.(2012).Waive to the top: The dangers of legislating education policy from the executive branch.American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research,1,1-6.
39. Sims, D. P.(2013).Can failure succeed? Using racial subgroup rules to analyze the effect of school accountability failure on student performance.Economics of Education Review,32,262-274.
40. U.S. Department of Education(2010).A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
41. Wayne, R.(2012).,未出版
42. 顏國樑(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。

1. 陳成宏、張文權、范熾文(2017)。國民中學校長績效責任領導困境與策略之研究：質性分析取徑。教育科學研究期刊，62(3)，57-93。
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. (2016)。教育制度中的社會正義理論分析⎯⎯多元觀點與比較基礎建構。臺灣教育社會學研究，16(2)，29-63。