Journal directory listing - Volume 61 (2016) - Journal of Research in Education Sciences【61(1)】March
Directory
Role, Legal Foundation, and Implementation Controversy of the NCLB Waiver
Author: Cheng-Hung Chen(Department of Education Administration & Management, National Dong Hwa University)
Vol.&No.：Vol. 61, No. 1
Date：March 2016
Pages：69-89
DOI：10.6209/JORIES.2016.61(1).03
Abstract：
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.
Keywords：NCLB, education policy, NCLB Waiver
《Full Text》
References：
- 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。doi:10.3966/2073753X2006045101001【Wu, C.-S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2006). A comparative analysis of educational accountability in the UK and USA. Journal of National Taiwan Normal University: Education, 51(1), 1-21. doi:10.3966/2073753X2006045101001】
- 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。doi:10.6151/CERQ.2010.1803.01【Chen, P.-Y., & Mao, C.-J. (2010). Accountability for quality and equity: The challenges and responses of NCLB Act. Contemporary Education Research Quarterly, 18(3), 1-47. doi:10.6151/CERQ.2010.1803.01】
- 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。doi:10.3966/168063602013020226009【Yen, K.-L. (2013). The implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act in American: Achievement, debate, implication. Journal of Educational Research, 226, 130-147. doi:10.3966/168063602013020226009】
- 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/effective- teachers-for-disadvantaged-students-no-longer-part-of-nclb-waiver-process.html
- 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-education- standards-while-there-is-still-time
» More
- 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。doi:10.3966/2073753X2006045101001【Wu, C.-S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2006). A comparative analysis of educational accountability in the UK and USA. Journal of National Taiwan Normal University: Education, 51(1), 1-21. doi:10.3966/2073753X2006045101001】
- 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。doi:10.6151/CERQ.2010.1803.01【Chen, P.-Y., & Mao, C.-J. (2010). Accountability for quality and equity: The challenges and responses of NCLB Act. Contemporary Education Research Quarterly, 18(3), 1-47. doi:10.6151/CERQ.2010.1803.01】
- 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。doi:10.3966/168063602013020226009【Yen, K.-L. (2013). The implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act in American: Achievement, debate, implication. Journal of Educational Research, 226, 130-147. doi:10.3966/168063602013020226009】
- 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/effective- teachers-for-disadvantaged-students-no-longer-part-of-nclb-waiver-process.html
- 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-education- standards-while-there-is-still-time
- Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305-331. doi:10.3102/016237370 24004305
- Cavanagh, S. (2012). Some states still wary about NCLB Waiver offer. Education Week, 31(17), 1-14.
- Center for American Progress. (2012). No Child Left Behind Waivers. Retrieved from http://cdn. americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/07/pdf/nochildwaivers.pdf
- Center on Education Policy. (2012a). Major accountability themes of second-round applications for NCLB Waivers. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org
- 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
- Dee, T., & Jacob, B. (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy and Management, 30(3), 418-446. doi:10.1002/pam.20586
- 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.
- Figlio, D. N. (2006). Testing, crime, punishment. Journal of Public Economics, 90(4-5), 837-851. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.01.003
- Harris, D. M. (2012). Leveraging change via competition: The promise and limitations of race to the top. Retrieved from http://nau.edu/uploadedFiles/Academic/COE/About/Projects/Leveraging %20Change%20Via%20Competition.pdf
- Klein, A. (2012). California hopes to go its own way on NCLB Waiver. Education Week, 31(31), 23-24.
- Klein, A. (2014a). Loss of NCLB Waiver puts Washington state on uncertain ground. Education Week, 33(30), 28-33.
- Klein, A. (2014b). Minority-group lawmakers slam NCLB Waivers’ impact. Education Week, 33(21), 22.
- 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. doi:10. 1002/pam.20504
- Legal Information Institute. (2011a). 20 U.S. Code §7861(a)-Waivers of statutory and regulatory requirements. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/7861
- Legal Information Institute. (2011b). 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
- Legal Information Institute. (2014). U.S. Constitution. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/ constitution/articlei
- Lohman, J. (2010). Comparing No Child Left Behind and race to the top (OLR research report). Retrieved from http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-r-0235.htm
- 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. doi:10.1080/09500782.2011.596280
- 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. doi:10.3102/0013189X12453494
- Michele, M. (2011). Waiver plans would scrap parts of NCLB. Education Week, 31(13), 1-28.
- Michele, M. (2012). States punch reset button with NCLB Waivers. Education Week, 32(8), 1-25.
- Montalto, S. A. (2013). Standards and assessment: Why race to the top is the preeminent alternative to No Child Left Behind. Retrieved from http://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/law/centers/ childlaw/childed/pdfs/2013studentpapers/montalto.pdf
- 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.
- Nancy, K., & Wayne, R. (2012). Accountability issues to watch under NCLB Waivers. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED535955
- National Education Association. (2014). No Children Left Behind Act (NCLB)-ESEA. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/NoChildLeftBehindAct.html
- 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.
- 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.
- Polikoff, M. S., McEachin, A. J., Wrabel, S. L., & Duque, M. (2013, March). The waive of the future: School accountability in the waiver era. Paper presented at the Association for Education Finance and Policy Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA.
- Reback, R. (2007). Teaching to the rating: School accountability and the distribution of student achievement (NBER Working Paper No. WP0602). Retrieved from http://www.hernando.cl/ educacion/Bibliografia/Accountability%20y%20Financiamiento/Reback_JPE2008.pdf
- 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.
- 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
- 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. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.12.003
- 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
- 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
- U.S. Department of Education. (2010). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/ leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf
- U.S. Department of Education. (2013). ESEA flexibility. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/ elsec/guid/esea-flexi bility/index.html
- Wayne, R. (2012). Major accountability themes of second-round state applications for NCLB Waivers. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED531861