「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

Abstract

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，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.