Journal directory listing - Volume 61 (2016) - Journal of Research in Education Sciences【61(1)】March

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


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》 檔名

  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。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】
  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。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】
  3. 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】
  4. Black, D. (2013). Effective teachers for disadvantaged students no longer part of NCLB Waiver process. Retrieved from teachers-for-disadvantaged-students-no-longer-part-of-nclb-waiver-process.html
  5. Burke, L. (2012). States must reject national education standards while there is still time. Retrieved from standards-while-there-is-still-time
» More
APA Format
Chen, C.-H. (2016). Role, Legal Foundation, and Implementation Controversy of the NCLB Waiver. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 61(1), 69-89. doi:10.6209/JORIES.2016.61(1).03