教育績效責任：「每年適度進步」評鑑制度之啟示

(1)

教育績效責任：

「每年適度進步」評鑑制度之啟示

摘要

美國「帶起每個孩子法案」的績效責任制度，大部分取決於學生閱讀

（語文能力）、數學測驗成績以及自然科學之學業成績。「帶起每個孩子法案」開創了以標準為基礎的教育改革、以結果為導向的教育，而其效能與影響已經引起了熱烈的論辯。本文藉由探討四個重要的問題來深入瞭解「帶起每個孩子法案」的內涵。這四個問題都是關於「誰必須負起績效責任」、「

哪些孩子落後」、「每年適度的進步的優缺點」以及「帶起每個孩子法案的可行性」等議題。「帶起每個孩子法案」的主要訴求在於提升每一位孩子的學業成就，特別是針對「弱勢、文化不利學童」的學業成績做改善。然而，

美國學生在「經濟合作發展組織」所舉辦的「國際學生成就評量」的表現，

卻嚴重落後大部分的已開發國家。「每年適度的進步」之評鑑制度是否可行，及是否可作為評估學校效能的有效依據，必須再藉由進一步的研究與探討後才能瞭解。本文所探討的四個問題，可以幫助瞭解「每年適度的進步」評鑑制度的優缺點，並找出解決問題的方法，以作為未來研究以及我國制定績效責任相關政策之參考。

關鍵詞：帶起每個孩子法案、每年適度的進步、績效責任林俊傑

屏東縣立琉球國民㆗㈻校長

(2)

Abstract

Accountability system of NCLB Act in the United States is largely based on the academic achievements or test scores in reading/language arts, mathematics, and science.

It is NCLB that initiates the standards-based education reform, an outcome-based education, whose effectiveness and influences are hotly debated. In this paper, it is applicable to examine four crucial questions worth asking to understand more of the legislation. The four questions relate to “who has responsibility,” “who is left behind,” “ the appropriateness of AYP,” and “the feasibility of NCLB.” NCLB aims at improving students' academic achievements, especially those of individuals from disadvantaged families. However, U.S. scores are far behind those of most other developed nations in OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment. Whether or not AYP measurement is appropriate for assessing the effectiveness of school districts and schools for accountability purposes requires more discussions and deep insights into the practices of NCLB. The four questions help us find more literature of criticism and help us understand more about the advantages and disadvantages of the AYP measurement and find possible solutions to problems as a basis for further research and consultation for the legislation of educational policies in our country.

Keywords: no child left behind act, adequately yearly progress, accountability

Jing-jai Lin

Principal, Liou-chou Junior High School, Ping-dong County

Educational Accountability:

Lessons from the AYP Measurement

(3)

Introduction

In April 1983, the report, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform, called for the public to demand that educational and political leaders act forcefully and effectively to address educational issues, like low educational attainment (Conyers, 2006). In the beginning of the 21^st century, a significant movement from decentralization to centralization occurs within the educational reform of the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Education (2002), the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which was signed into law on January 8th, 2002 by President Bush, reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Besides, NCLB initiates the standards-based education reform, an outcome-based education, which is based on the belief that setting high expectations and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education (No Child Left Behind Act, 2008, July 10). As we know, educational standards and decisions are usually made by state governments; however, NCLB is a federal legislation that has aimed at increasing the standards of accountability for states, school districts, and schools. The first section of the law is “Title I—Improving The Academic Achievement Of The Disadvantaged,” which shows that the U.S. federal government claims to improve the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools, especially those students from disadvantaged families. NCLB is the latest incarnation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) originally passed in 1965. The purpose of ESEA is to provide equitable educational opportunities for students considered to be disadvantaged (Thomas & Brady, 2005). The main reason why federal legislation is enacted into law (the No Child Left Behind Act) is that the poor performance has pushed public and private efforts to reducing the achievement gap (Education in the United States, 2008, July 11). In accordance with the "accountability for results" principle of NCLB, the law requires states to develop assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, if those states are to receive federal funding for schools (No Child Left Behind Act, 2008, July 10). The effectiveness and influences of NCLB are hotly debated. Some assert that NCLB could reduce effective instruction and student learning because it may cause states to lower achievement goals and motivate teachers to "teach to the test," but some declare that systematic standardized testing provides data that can be made to improve outcomes for all students and reduce the achievement gap for disadvantaged students. According to the Department of Education, AYP is a diagnostic tool that determines how schools need to improve and where financial resources should be allocated (Adequate Yearly Progress, 2008, March 27). Therefore, Adequate Yearly Progress is a measurement that allows the U.S. Department of Education to determine how every public school and school district is performing academically. Actually, AYP has been identified as one of the sources of controversy and conflicts between states and

(4)

the federal government of the United States. Apparently, the federal government in the United States has no absolute authority and control over the elementary and secondary education. As a result, the accountability system, the AYP measurement, is still a forum of dissent and a political arena that stakeholders and policymakers are concerned about.

Considering the complicated influences of the AYP system of NCLB act on the states, districts and schools in the United States, it is significant to look at the following questions commonly asked about educational accountability of the legislation:

1. Who is accountable for academic achievements?

2. No child left behind or many children left behind?

3. Is the AYP appropriate for accountability purposes?

4. No child left behind: a possible vision?

Who is responsible for academic achievements?

No Child Left Behind intends to close the gap between high-and-low-achieving students by holding schools accountable for the academic performance of all students (Block, 2006). California Department of Education (2007) shows that the NCLB Act contains four education reform principles: stronger accountability for results, increased flexibility and local control, expanded options for parents or guardians, and an emphasis on scientifically-based effective teaching methods. We can see that the accountability system of NCLB is an outcome-based education reform. Besides, NCLB mandates that all students tested on statewide assessments in English-language arts and mathematics perform at the proficient level or above by 2014 (California Department of Education, 2007). Accordingly, NCLB act insists that all students ought to to achieve an objective of proficiency on English-language arts and mathematics tests. As Secretary Margaret Spellings says:

We cannot prepare students for the global economy if we don’t get them to grade level first. (U.S. Department of Education, 2008, June 2)

Therefore, Spellings expects to ensure that every young American has the knowledge and skills to succeed in the 21st century. She has worked hard to implement and enforce the No Child Left Behind Act, which aims to bring all students up to grade level or better in reading and math by 2014.

Supporters of NCLB claim the legislation encourages accountability in public schools and helps close the achievement gap between minority and white students (No Child Left Behind Act, 2008, July 12). According to the NCLB Act, accountability in education believes that schools are supposed to be accountable to students’ academic achievements.

Therefore, school leaders and teachers should take charge of students’ scores on tests, especially those of disadvantaged students. As Block (2006) notes:

(5)

NCLB identifies the problem as particular children—disadvantaged children, children with disabilities, children with limited English proficiency, minority and migratory children, and other neglected groups of children—failing to receive an adequate education in our public schools such that there is a gap between high-and low-performing students. (p.70)

Apparently, the NCLB act intends to improve outcomes for all students while reducing the achievement gap for disadvantaged students. The act insists that no child or student is going to be left behind, and we know that NCLB’s attention to minority populations is quite clear, as was written in No Child Left Behind Act (2008, July 12):

1.NCLB seeks to narrow class and racial gaps in school performance by creating common expectations for all.

2.NCLB Requires schools and districts to focus their attention on the academic achievement of traditionally under-served groups of children, such as low-income students, students with disabilities, and students of "major racial and ethnic subgroups".

We can see that not only the low academic achievements of "core academic subjects,"

but the students with disadvantaged backgrounds, force policymakers, government officials, school leaders, to reconsider the importance of accountability and urge for educational accountability.

Now that educational accountability of NCLB asserts that schools should be responsible for students’ academic achievements, especially those of disadvantaged and disabled individuals, it’s clear that policymakers intend to introduce an accountability that includes academic achievement scores, which seems to be the central element in the act. According to No Child Left Behind Act (2007, February 14), NCLB requires States to create an accountability system of assessments, graduation rates, and other indicators;

therefore, we know that the key indicators of NCLB’s accountability are related to the performance of all children. They declare to build up a "accountability" that leaves no child behind.

As Spellings claimed in a January 2007 speech at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce:

Everybody here knows that before this act became law, kids often moved from grade to grade, and nobody knew whether or not they had learned to read, write, add, or subtract. We invested billions of dollars and basically just hoped for the best. The lack of accountability helped create an achievement gap where poor and minority students lagged far behind their peers. Not once in all my travels have I met a parent who didn't want their child learning on grade level now—let alone by 2014. I know I do, and I'm sure every parent in this room agrees. (Margaret Spellings, 2008, July 5)

Competitiveness is a primary concern of the U.S. education accountability. However,

(6)

it is reported that the U.S. national results in international comparisons have often been far below the average of developed countries. A “risk” can be seen in the following quote:

In OECD s Programme for International Student Assessment 2003, 15 year olds ranked 24th of 38 in mathematics, 19th of 38 in science, 12th of 38 in reading, and 26th of 38 in problem solving. In the 2006 assessment, the U.S. ranked 35th out of 57 in mathematics and 29th out of 57 in science. Reading scores could not be reported due to printing errors in the instructions of the U.S. test booklets. U.S.

scores were far behind those of most other developed nations. In addition, many business leaders have expressed concerns that the quality of education given in the US system is generally below acceptable standards, and should be adapted in order to conform to the needs of an evolving world. Bill Gates has famously stated that the American high school is obsolete? (Education in the United States, 2008, July 11)

Although the Department of Education points out that student achievement in reading and math has improved and that some significant changes have been made, in OECD s Programme for International Student Assessment, U.S. scores are far behind those of most other developed nations. The NCLB amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and public schools are challenged to show evidence of student learning and successful education practices through results gained from standardized test scores in the areas of language arts and mathematics (Lee, 2006). Therefore, schools and districts have to take charge and improve students?testing scores under the mandates of NCLB act.

No child left behind or many children left behind?

Title I of the NCLB Act is a set of programs organized by the U.S. Department of Education to distribute funding to schools and school districts with a high percentage of students from low-income families. The act aims at improving students?academic achievements, especially those of individuals from disadvantaged families. Besides, the act expects all children to advance in their academic performance through the following strategies:

NCLB aims to improve the performance of U.S.’s primary and secondary schools by increasing the standards of accountability for states, school districts and schools, as well as providing parents more flexibility in choosing which schools their children will attend. Additionally, it promotes an increased focus on reading and re-authorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA).

NCLB is the latest federal legislation (another was Goals 2000) which enacts the theories of standards-based education reform, formerly known as outcome-based education which is based on the belief that high expectations and setting of goals

(7)

will result in success for all students. (No Child Left Behind Act, 2007, February 14) U.S. Department of Education (2004) declares, under No Child Left Behind, states are working to close the achievement gap and make sure all students, including those who are disadvantaged, achieve academic proficiency. However, there have been praise and criticism of the act since 2002. As supporters claim:

The legislation of NCLB encourages accountability in public schools, offers parents greater educational options for their children, and helps close the achievement gap between minority and white students. NCLB aims to achieve these goals through federally mandated standardized testing. (No Child Left Behind Act, 2007, February 14).

Besides, the Department of Education points to the improved student achievements in reading and math, saying that some significant changes have been made to raise students' scores in standardized testing (No Child Left Behind Act, 2007, February 14).

1.More progress was made by nine-year-olds in reading in the last five years than in the previous 28 years combined.

2.America’s nine-year-olds posted the best scores in reading (since 1971) and math (since 1973) in the history of the report. America’s 13-year-olds earned the highest math scores the test ever recorded.

3.Reading and math scores for African American and Hispanic nine-year-olds reached an all-time high.

4.Math scores for African American and Hispanic 13-year-olds reached an all-time high.

5.Achievement gaps in reading and math between white and African American nine-year-olds and between white and Hispanic nine-year-olds are at an all-time low.

6.Forty-three states and the District of Columbia either improved academically or held steady in all categories (fourth- and eighth-grade reading and fourth- and eighth-grade math).

In accordance with the examples given above, the NCLB act seems to have progressed in its vision of leaving no child behind. Is this actually the case or are there any faults or drawbacks coming along with the advantages of the legislation? As a matter of fact, the effectiveness and desirability of NCLB's measures continue to be a matter of vigorous controversy and some critiques of NCLB can be organized into the following categories (No Child Left Behind Act, 2007, February 14):

1.Failure to fully fund the act Many initial supporters of NCLB have since broken with the Bush Administration over what they claim is the White House’s failure to adequately fund its own programs.

2.Allegations of Corruption—The system of incentives and penalties sets up a strong

(8)

motivation for schools, districts, and states to manipulate test results(to reduce unfavorable statistics).

3.Problems with Standardized Tests—Critics have argued that the overwhelming focus on standardized testing as the means of assessment encourages "teaching to the test".

4.Narrow Curriculum—NCLB’s focus on just math and reading scores is more likely to backfire and have the reverse effect on a generation of students in poorly performing schools, as schools may strip away much of the broad education in order to elevate scores on just two indicators.

5.Limitations on local control—Conservative critics have pointed out that NCLB violates conservative principles by federalizing education. Libertarians and some conservatives further argue that the federal government has no constitutional authority in education.

However, there is still some other criticism of the act not mentioned above, as

Darling-Hammond (2004) points out that students with disabilities and other low-performing students are being “disappeared" from early the early high school grades by being counseled out or otherwise encouraged to drop out. Besides, Meier (2004) also says:

When it comes to children outside the mainstream (children of color, of the poor, those with handicaps, or limited English proficiency), NCLB forces local districts to engage in one-size-fits all practices that ignore the needs of these children.

Districts will be encouraged to push out these so called non-performers in order to protect their movement toward Adequately Yearly Progress or else risk being labeled a failing school. (p.71)

If this is truly the case, then public schools are unable to bring equity as a result of the defect of AYP measurement of NCLB accountability system. Now that NCLB act gives schools that perform well awards and special recognition, it becomes a serious and controversial problem to encourage schools already doing well to push out disadvantaged students. As Block (2006) says:

However, by relying on standardized testing as the only acceptable means for determining the success or failure of public school education, the Act narrows the ability to assess what is going on in a particular district, school, or classroom and sets many students up for failure. (pp. 93-94)

And a bit later,

Critics charge that the negative effects attached to high-stakes testing run counter to education's role to promote democratic equality in the classroom. Differences in high or low test scores also effect how teachers treat students; students who score high on standardized tests receive awards for their performance, while low scores

(9)

result in discrimination in the classroom. (pp. 95-96)

Consequently, the vision of "leaving no child behind" may lead to another "inequality in education" that would definitely damage our children and schools. Who is left behind?

Who is going to be left behind? People begin to reconsider these crucial questions after the implementation of the act.

Is the AYP appropriate for accountability purposes?

NCLB uses Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) as the means to determine if schools are responding to the academic needs of their students and establishes 2014 as the date for all students to demonstrate measurable achievement levels in specific subjects and as the date by which states must bring all students to proficiency Block (2006). The progress of all students will be measured annually in reading and math in grades 3 through 8 and at least once during high school. By the end of the 2007-2008 school year, testing will also be conducted in science once during grades 3–5, 6–9, and 10–12 (Adequate Yearly Progress, 2008, March 27). Apparently, we can see that the AYP measurement is based on students’ academic achievement scores in reading and math proficiency tests. Namely, in NCLB act, the AYP measurement is employed to judge the effectiveness of schools for accountability purposes.

Reeves (2004) argues that in virtually every school system in the world, accountability is little more than a litany of test scores and test scores are the only way to hold teachers accountable. He also tells us that we don’t need to wait for new changes in federal or state legislation about accountability. Therefore, the feasibility or practicability of AYP system becomes one of the key issues related to the legislation. According to Adequate Yearly Progress (2008, March 27), AYP is described as:

A measurement defined by the United States federal No Child Left Behind Act that allows the U.S. Department of Education to determine how every public school and school district in the country is performing academically, and which has been identified as one of the sources of controversy surrounding George W.

Bush administration s legislation.

Under the guidance from the federal government, it is said:

The No Child Left Behind Act, Sec. 1111 (b) (F), requires that "each state shall establish a timeline for adequate yearly progress. The timeline shall ensure that not later than 12 years after the 2001-2002 school year, all students in each group described in subparagraph (C) (v) will meet or exceed the State's standards." (No Child Left Behind Act, 2008, July 10)

One of the major differences between NCLB and its predecessors is its requirement for "equality of result" instead of "equality of opportunity" (Lucas & Paret, 2005).

(10)

According to the Department of Education, AYP is a diagnostic tool that determines how schools perform and need to improve. The NCLB Act requires states use standardized testings in order to measure AYP. It enlarges the importance of standardized measures of academic performance. States must increase student achievement gradually in order for 100 percent of the students to become proficient on state standardized tests by the 2013-14 school year. However, that private schools do not have to make AYP would be ironic to the ideal and vision of “No Child Left Behind” and cause some debate on the measurement for accoubtability purposes because the federal government will not be able to make sure that the quality of education is under their control.

Takanishi (2005) investigates two methods of determining school effectiveness and concludes:

The NCLB method, [AYP], focused on student outcomes, schools were identified as effective if a certain percentage of their students were proficient in reading and mathematics. In contrast, the value-added method acknowledged that certain schools need to expend more energy to raise achievement levels for certain students.

This method [value-added method] yielded fairer judgments about schools’

effectiveness because it estimated the value schools add to their students’ education while holding schools accountable for variables within their control. (p.7)

And after comparing the outcome-based methods of NCLB with the value-added metgod, Takanishi said:

The NCLB method relied on SES while the value-added metgod utilized school processes, after controlling for factors outside schools’ control in making judgments about school effectiveness. The value-added metgod is a fairer way to judge schools’ effectiveness for accountability purposes. (p.8)

The AYP measurement of NCLB as a way for judging schools’ effectiveness has brought about some dissent that accountability may be no more than a list of test scores.

As Wood (2004a) says:

We continue to confuse test scores with quality schooling, even though there is no evidence that high scores on these tests predict anything about a child’s success in life after school. (p.xii)

Test scores are only a list of numbers and a specific indicator included in a "holistic accountability," which is a system that includes not only academic achievement scores, but also specific information on curriculum, teaching practices, and leadership practices (Reeves, 2004). As a quote in Block (2006) says:

For many states, using high-stakes testing creates a problem with curriculum…

NCLB's reliance on standardized assessments leads to a curriculum that is wide but shallow, with teachers expected to cover many subjects but few in-depth.

(p.97)

(11)

Besides, Morocco, Brigham, and Aguilar (2006) also criticize the AYP measurement of students’ academic performance. As They say:

The NLB mandates that every state use a single test in reading and mathematics for school accountability is undoing the thoughtful and varied assessment systems that districts and states developed during the 1990s. (p.2)

Furthermore, there are still some issues related to teachers’ development and students’

real competence other than testing scores. As Lipman (2000) comments:

While education geared to standardized tests degrades the work of the best teachers, it is little help to the weakest teachers, because it does not increase their knowledge, skill, or commitment to richer teaching and learning.

And in the same paragraph,

As test-prep drills replace the curriculum in many low-income and minority schools, teachers report, "Many more students are passing TAAS [Texas Assessment of Academic Skills] 'reading', few of their students are actually readers. Few of them can use reading for assignments in literature, science, or history classes; few of them choose to read; few of them can make meaning of literature or connect writing and discussing to reading.

In addition, Wood (2004b) also comments:

However, there is growing evidence that virtually all the effects of the tactics used to raise test scores have been negative. This includes the pushing out, retention, and dropping out of students who do not test well; the narrowing of the curriculum and classroom practices; and the limiting of the school experiences. (pp. 35-36)

Obviously, a multiple and holistic accountability system seems to be more pertinent and acceptable to those who blame the AYP measurement. Accordingly, whether or not AYP is appropriate for assessing the effectiveness of school districts and schools for accountability purposes requires more discussions and deep insights into the practice of the accountability system of NCLB act.

No child left behind: a possible vision?

In NCLB, schools are to make AYP, which is determined by standardized tests in specific subject areas, including mathematics, reading (language arts), and science. We can understand more about AYP measurement in the following quote:

AYP is an individual state's measure of progress toward the goal of 100 percent of students achieving to state academic standards in at least reading/language arts and math. It sets the minimum level of proficiency that the state, its school districts, and schools must achieve each year on annual tests and related academic indicators. (U.S. Department of Education, 2008, April 29)

(12)

NCLB requires that students’ academic performance is measured by tests, which implies a responsibility that school leaders and teachers have to understand. According to U.S. Department of Education (2008, June 2), the law has led to rising test scores and shrinking achievement gaps in states across the country. It seems to be successful and feasible to the federal government. And some support in favor of NCLB’s AYP measurement can be seen in the following quote:

Some local governments, notably New York State, have voiced support for NCLB provisions, arguing that local standards had failed to provide adequate oversight over special education, and that NCLB would allow longitudinal data to be more effectively used to monitor adequate yearly progress. (No Child Left Behind Act, 2007, February 14)

However, AYP measurement is difficult and impractical to some states, school districts, and schools. As Block (2006) refers to a problem that some students are being appropriately taught but whose disabilities are so significant that they cannot make AYP, which is a crucial issue not acknowledged by the U.S. Department of Education nor by the accountability system. As a result, dissent and difficulties can be seen in the following quote:

On May 3, 2005, Utah governor Jon Huntsman signed a measure into state law that allows that state s districts to ignore provisions of the law that conflict with that state s programs, making it the first state to enact such a law. The Department of Education has threatened to withhold federal education funding as a result. (No Child Left Behind Act, 2007, February 14)

Besides, schools and districts are always working under pressure. As Feldon (2006) says:

As a consequence, NCLB and its sanctions increase the pressure on schools and districts to demonstrate sustained improvement for students, achieving proficiency for all students by 2014. (p.6)

It is the primary concern of the United States that the federal government is working to ensure that every young American has the knowledge and skills to succeed in the 21st century. With the legislation of NCLB, schools are supposed to bring all students up to grade level or better in reading and math by 2014. However, whether AYP measurement is laudable in achieving its goals remains uncertain. As Wood (2004a) says:

The problem is that by limiting all school success measures to one test score the quality of schools will actually decline. (p.xii)

With the mandates of NCLB, schools are forced to meet tests standards. If they fail to meet the standards, they are going to be taken over ultimately. Test scores as a measure of education merely provide a list of numbers to prove students’ academic performance on some core subjects and ignore other achievements that make a sound education.

Traditionally, schools are funded and run locally. As Wood (2004a) says, "Historically, we

(13)

have relied on a system of local accountability and local trust." Above all, NCLB assumes that neither children, their families, their teachers, nor their communities can be trusted to make important decisions about their schools (Meier, 2004).

Finally, that the act is not adequately funded causes difficulties and challenges to enforce the law. As Lee (2006) notes:

Much of what schools are trying to accomplish is not supported by the fiscal requirements of the law. Strategies and attempts to fulfill the law have left a burden on districts to solve financial constraints with budgets already strapped by inadequate funding. (p.2)

Wood (2004b) also notes that the lack of appropriate funding have created negative consequences in schools that serve numbers of economically disadvantaged students. And tensions have been created between federal government and localities, as Conyers (2006) says that the National Education Association (NEA) has filed a lawsuit in efforts to force the U.S. Department of Education to fully fund the law’s mandates and prevent the federal government from denying educational funds to states. In addition, Conyers also notes that the State Legislature in Utah voted on April 20, 2005 to challenge obedience to the No Child Left Behind Act.

Therefore, the application of standardized testing as a measure for accountability purposes is impractical to a sound education and the goal that "no child should be left behind" seems unattainable under the mandates of the legislation. Things must be changed and funds are indispensable to support the mandates of NCLB.

Concluding comments

NCLB aims to leave no child behind, and beyond the act is the vision that every child makes progress. NCLB re-authorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and aims to improve the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools by increasing the standards of accountability for states, districts, and schools, through standardized testing, which is recognized as a high-stakes accountability system. Inequality in the outcomes of education has been a significant issue in America, which is not changed under NCLB, even though has aimed at improving students’ academic achievements. What generates a wider achievement gap in the United States is not only the "inequality in the provision of education," but also a "social system" that makes many families live in poverty. Therefore, the system that produces child poverty is a much stronger force that it is difficult for inadequately funded public schools to handle. Inequality in the outcomes of education is also a problem caused by the social, political, and economic system. In sum, the government needs to be accountable and take measures to solve the problems. In addition, NCLB requires 95% of students (including disadvantaged students) within a school to

(14)

reach the same state standards in reading and mathematics by 2014. However, some students are simply unable to perform at the level for their age, no matter how good the teacher is or how effective the school is. There have been a large number of organizations signing proposals calling for changes to the federal law since 2004, and the central message of proposals for reform is to shift from applying sanctions for failing to raise test scores to holding states and localities accountable for student achievement.” Otherwise, many children will be actually left behind. We understand that AYP’s mission is clear, but it lacks a very persuasive argument to prove its validity. The vision of AYP is quite significant in calling for educational accountability, however, things need to be changed to help schools, principals, teachers, parents and students themselves for a practical and realistic system that will really improve student achievement. And the appropriate way to help public schools may be like something as Wood (2004b) comments that by offering alternatives rather than castigate the system of public education there might be a way to leave no child, school, family, or community behind. Hence, some accommodations must be made to reach a ideal, feasible and holistic accountability system. How to help every child learn and make progress adequately at their own pace is the key factor in making

"No Child Left Behind" a possible vision.

References

Adequate Yearly Progress. (2008, March 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

Retrieved July 11, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adequate_Ye arly_Progress&oldid=201350225

Block, J. (2006). Benefits or harms of No Child Left Behind. Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia.

California Department of Education. (2007). 2007 Adequate Yearly Progress Report.

Retrieved November 3, 2007, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/documents/infogui de07.pdf

Conyers, J. E. (2006). The impact of No Child Left Behind on charter school legislation and practices: Policy implications. Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). From "Separate but Equal" to "No Child Left Behind": The collision of new standards and old inequalities. In D. Meier ＆ G. Wood (Eds.), Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools (pp. 3-32). Boston: Beacon Press.

Education in the United States. (2008, July 11). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

Retrieved July 11, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Education_in _the_United_States&oldid=224941010

(15)

Eisenhart, M. & Towne, L. (2003). Contestation and change in national policy on

"scientifically based" education research. Educational researcher, 32(7), 31-38.

Feldon, D. F. (2006). Where Should We Draw the Lines? Critiquing NCLB s Disaggregation of Data by Race and Sex. Retrieved July 16, 2008, from http://www.e d.sc.edu/feldon/papers/Feldon2006-SCEPUR.pdf

Lee, E. J. (2006). The effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on three schools. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.

Lipman, P. (2000). Bush's Education Plan, Globalization, and the Politics of Race.

Cultural Logic 4, no.1.

Lucas, S. R., & Paret, M. (2005). Law, race, and education in the United States. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 1, 203-231.

Margaret Spellings. (2008, July 5). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Spellings&oldid=

223670019

Meier, D. (2004). NCLB and democracy. In D. Meier ＆ G. Wood (Eds.), Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools(pp. 66-78). Boston: Beacon Press.

Morocco, C. C., Brigham, N., and Aguilar, C. M. (2006). Visionary Middle School. New York: Teacher’s College, Columbia University.

No Child Left Behind Act. (2007, February 14). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

Retrieved July 14, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Child_L eft_Behind_Act&oldid=108127209

No Child Left Behind Act. (2008, July 10). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

Reeves, D. B. (2004). Accountability for learning: How teachers and school leaders can take charge. Alexandria, VA : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Takanishi, S. M. (2005). A multilevel analysis estimating schools' likelihood of meeting NCLB academic targets: A comparison of two models of effectiveness. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii, Manoa, Hawaii.

(16)

Thomas, J. Y. & Brady, K. P. (2005). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act at 40:

Equity, accountability, and the evolving federal role in public education. Review of Research in Education, 29, 51-67.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved July 11, 2008, from http://answers.ed.gov/cgi-bin/education.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid

=4&p_created=1095255813&p_sid=MojwlFli&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3 NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD0xMTUmcF9wcm9kcz0mcF 9jYXRzPSZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PSZwX3BhZ2U9MQ**&p_li=&p_topview=1 U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Four Pillars of NCLB. Retrieved July 15, 2008,

from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/4pillars.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2008, April 29). Adequate Yearly Progress. Retrieved July 16, 2008, from http://answers.ed.gov/cgi-bin/education.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.

php?p_faqid=6&p_created=1095256734&p_sid=biCz1Gli&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmN oPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD0xMTUmcF9wcm9k cz0mcF9jYXRzPSZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PSZwX3BhZ2U9MQ**&p_li=&p_topview=1 U.S. Department of Education. (2008, June 2). Margaret Spellings, U.S. Secretary of

Education—Biography. Retrieved July 14, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/news/staff/b ios/spellings.html

Wood, G. (2004a). Introduction. In D. Meier ＆ G. Wood (Eds.), Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools (pp. vii-xv). Boston: Beacon Press.

Wood, G. (2004b). A view from the field: No Child Left Behind’s effects on classrooms and schools. In D. Meier & G. Wood (Eds.), Many children left behind. How the No Child Left behind Act is damaging our schools (pp.33-50). Boston: Beacon Press.

教育績效責任：「每年適度進步」評鑑制度之啟示