미국 교육격차해소법(NCLB)의 법적 고찰
Legal Study on No Child Left Behind Act(NCLB) in the United States
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
교육에 있어서의 격차의 해소는 쉽게 해결될 수 없는 국가적 문제이다. 정치적 사회적 경제적 여건과 국민적 인식에 따라 교육격차의 의미가 달라지며 모든 국민 특히 취학아동의 평등한 결과성취의 추구는 자칫 공허한 국가목적으로 전락할 수 있다. 우리나라의 경우를 보면 교육기본법상의 교육의 기회균등(제4조), 교육재정(제7조), 의무교육, 사회교육 등 조항과 도서벽지교육진흥법, 지방교육재정교부금법, 평생교육법, 각종 교육진흥법 등이 사회적 소외계층이나불우한 가정의 학생들을 위하여 다양한 지원계획을 세우며 상호 일정한관계를 맺고 법체계를 이루고 있지만 교육격차해소에는 큰 기여를 하지못하고 있다. 이 논문은 다양한 사회속의 구체적 교육양극화 해소 및 교육안전망 구축이라는 차원하에 사회의 소외계층에 대한 지속적인 교육정책의 변화를추구하고 있는 미국의 교육현황의 핵심인 교육격차해소법(No Child Left Behind Act)을 검토함으로써 국내의 교육격차해소정책방향에 대하여 헌법적 의미와 자율성과 공공성에 기초한 구체적인 제도의 보완에 대한 시사점을 제공하여 정책개선에 도움을 주고자 하는 데 그 목적이 있다.
Abstract
The Problem of the educational gap is the substantial issue which every government in the world should solve with people's agreement. On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act(NCLB) into law. NCLB reauthorized and amended federal educational programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), the main source of federal legislation and funding for public schools. NCLB brought accountability measures and increased budgets to states and local educational agencies, leading to an unprecedented expansion of federal influence over education policy. The United States has traditionally considered education a state and local issue. NCLB's language appears to protect states' control over education by preventing the federal government from imposing an unfunded mandate. However, state officials from both political parties have nonetheless expressed federalism concerns over NCLB requirements. Many conservatives believe that NCLB is a “federal intrusion” into public schools, whereas many liberals believe that NCLB focuses too greatly on standardized tests that states must report to ED. Furthermore, many states claim that NCLB's usurpation of local control over education policy produces rigid federal guidelines that do not fit local needs and are not economically feasible to implement. States have raised these federalism concerns since the moment NCLB was introduced, leading some to believe that federal partisan politics stifled debate and led both houses of Congress to pass NCLB over local objection. NCLB needs more deliberation to revise for coping with diverse voices from local schools and student's parents.
참고문헌 (34)
- Amit R. Paley, "‘No Child’ Needs to Expand Beyond Tests, Chair Says, Wash. Post, July 31", ~ (2007)
- Benjamin Michael Superfine, "Using the Courts to Influence the Implementation of No Child Left Behind", Cardozo L. Rev., 28, pp.781~ (2006)
- Is the NCLB working?, Policy Analysis for Cal. Educ., "Bruce Full", ~, pp.Working Paper NO. 06-1 (2006)
- Charles Murray, "Editorial, Acid Tests: No Child Left Behind is Beyond Unimformative. It is Deceptive., Wall St. J., July 25", ~ (2006)
- Colin Baker, "Foundations of bilingual Education and Bilingualism 261, 4th ed" (2006)
- Dan Lips, "Focus on education Policy: The Next Chapter in the Tragic History of Federal Education Policy", The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, 6 (2008)
- George W. Bush, "President, Remarks on Signing NCLB Bill before Hamilton High School, 38 WEEKY COMP.PRES. DOC.26, January8", ~ (2002)
- Jay P. Heubert, "Six Law-Driven School Reforms: Developments, Lessons, and Prosects", Law and School Reform: Six Strategies for Promoting Educational Equity, 2 (1999)
- John Macbeath, "Improving School Effectiveness 4" (2001), Open University Press
- No child Left Behind: Where do we go from here?, in BACKGROUNDER, "Krista Kafer", ~, pp.Heritage Found., No. 1775 (2004)
- Kristina P. Doan, "NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND WAIVERS: A LESSON IN FEDERAL FLEXIBILITY OR REGULATORY FAILURE?", ADMLR, 60, pp.214~215 (2008)
- Michael A. Rebell, "Moving Every Child Ahead:From NCLB Hype to Meaningful educational Opportunity 3", ~ (2008)
- Michael A. Rebell, "Ambach :Special Education Reform in New York City. in: Justice and school systems : The Role of the Courts in Education Litigation 29" (1990)
- Michael Heise, "The Political Economy of Educational Federalism", Emory L.J., 56, pp.125~ (2006)
- National Center For Education Statistics, "National Assessment of Educational Progress, Assessment Results", ~ (2005)
- National Center For Education Statistics, "National Assessment of Educational Progress, Assessment Results", ~ (2006)
- Paolo Annino, "The Revised IDEA: Will it Help Children with Disabilities?", Mental & Physical Dsability L. Rep., 29, pp.11~ (2005)
- Paul E. Peterson, "No Child Left Behind? : The Politics and Practice of School Accountability38", ~ (2003)
- Richard D. Kahlenberg, "Socioeconomic School Integration", N.C.L. Rev., 85, pp.1545~ (2007)
- Rothstein, Jacobson, "Proficiency for all, An Oxymoron 5", ~ (2006)
- Sam Dillon, "Some Rich Districts Get Richer as Aid is Rushed to Schools, N.Y. Times, Mar22", ~ (2009)
- Sandra Cortes, "A Good Lesson for Texas: Learning How to Adequately Assist Language Minorities Learn English", TEX. WESLEYAN L. REV., 13, pp.95~ (2006)
- Stephen A. Rosenbaum, "A Renewed IDEA and the Need for More Ardent Advocacy", HUM.RTS., 32, pp.121~ (2005)
- "Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 495", ~ (1954)
- "Valeria v. Davis, 307 F.3d 1036(9th Cir. 2002)", ~ (2002)
- "Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476", ~ (1957)
- "New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262", ~ (1932)