No Child Left Behindと教育の再生産 : マイノリティと貧困層の児童・生徒への影響 No Child Left Behind and Reproduction of Education : The Influence on Minority and Poor Students
アメリカ合衆国で2002年に成立したNo Child Left Behindは,学習スタンダードを設定し,合衆国の全児童生徒が2014年までにそれを達成することを目標とする教育政策で,それを達成できない学校には厳しい行政上の措置がとられることになる。しかし,その達成度を測るのにはスタンダード基準のテストが用いられるが,それが,教育の質の低下を招くと懸念されている。さらに,財政の不足によりこの教育政策が実際に機能するのかどうかも疑問視されている。さらに,Regents Action Planの分析から,コア教科の強化だけでは,全児童生徒が一様に成績を上げるわけではないことが浮かび上がってくる。また,州の間でもその財源の豊かさにより国内差異が生まれることなど,様々な問題点がNo Child Left Behindには内在していることがわかる。一方で,学校の再人種分離化傾向など,もともと恵まれた教育環境にないマイノリティと貧困層の児童生徒の教育環境は近年,さらに悪化していっている。彼らにとって,No Child Left Behindは,この教育環境の差異化を是正する有効な手段となりうる。No Child Left Behindが様々な困難の中,効果的に機能するためには,彼らに対する支援に比重を置き,それに国民の理解を得ることが必要となるであろう。そうでなければ,No Child Left Behindは,逆に,教育の差異化を強化することになりかねない。
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which is the latest revision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, was signed into law on January 8, 2002. The overall purpose of the law is to ensure that each child in America is able to meet the high learning standards of the state where he or she lives. The specific goals of the law are: -All students will reach high standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading and mathematics by 2013-2014. -Annual testing of all students against state standards in reading and mathematics in grades 3-8 (including once in high school) by 2005-2006. -Technical assistance and then sanctions for schools, districts and a state for failure to make "adequate yearly progress" (AYP). -Highly qualified teachers in core academic subjects by 2005-2006. The standards-based reform will bring reinforcement of core curriculum and stress upon test prep class to schools. Thereupon, Nicola A. Alexander's studies of the Regents Action Plan, which was implemented in New York State in 1984 with the aim of making standards higher by increasing the credits of obligatory core academic subjects, is consulted in order to examine how such reform influenced minority and poor students. The findings show that just a leaning to core curriculum is not a cure-all for improvement in educational conditions of minority and poor students. How much No Child Left Behind will function in effect depends on the budget; however, most of the states have financial difficulties complying with the law because of the high cost of fulfilling it. On the other hand, a few states such as New York State can calculate on enough contributions from the local economic world. Yet the federal subsidies are of no effect on the gap between the poor states and the rich states. Not a few show apprehension about ill effects of No Child Left Behind. Monty Neil maintains that, under standards-based curriculum and standardized tests, the present education, which ensures a high quality academic and social experience for students, will deteriorate. According to him, while the children of the affluent can continue to receive the high quality education even under the standardsbased curriculum, low-income children will suffer from not being taught many attributes for success in college and life that cannot be measured by tests. Nevertheless, under the actual circumstances, minority and poor students have been unable to receive even 'low quality' education of test prep; therefore, No Child Left Behind is a revolutionary approach to the issue of the association between the socioeconomic statuses and educational outcomes as long as there are no prospects of their enjoying high quality education. Some data in Educational Statistics 2001 indicates that the educational environments of minority students are becoming worse. A report released by the Civil Rights Project in 2003 describes that the trend toward desegregation in public schools turned to school resegregation in 1991. The data shows that seventy percent of African American students and seventy-six percent of Hispanic students go to schools where the majority of the students are minorities. The trend toward resegregation might bring about concentration of educational resources on whites. The case of Mount Veron proves that enough budget and splendid leadership can disconnect students from the association between socioeconomic backgrounds and educational outcomes, whereas some states lowered their standards allopathically so as to conceal failure students. These facts mentioned above show that there are some points for No Child Left Behind to succeed. First of all, when core curriculum is imposed on all the students, minority and poor students' socioeconomic disadvantage must be taken into consideration. Secondly, the federal government should exercise strong leadership in estimation of standards and distribution of subsidies in order to check states' unjustly lowering standards. In addition, the government ought to meet criticism about No Child Left Behind, which is concerned little with the present state of minority and poor students. However, if these points are not regarded, there might be a risk that No Child Left Behind will expand the gap between minority and poor students and others.
早稲田教育評論 18(1), 85-96, 2004-03-31