教育市場化對美國公立中小學教育的挑戰（1980-2017）

Abstract

本研究為歷史研究，探討1980年至2017年教育市場化對美國公立中小學的挑戰。在此期間，1983年《國家在危機中》揭示美國面臨的經濟和教育國際競爭壓力，自由市場理念支持者M. Friedman、R. Budde、A. Shanker、J. Chubb 和T. Moe，建議以教育券和特許學校提升教育品質。考量美國公共教育目追求公義或卓越的衝突，1990年後，聯邦政府遂以「全體卓越」（excellence for all）主張，積極推動市場化教育改革，包括柯林頓政府的《目標2000年：美國教育法》和《改進美國學校法》，小布希政府的《沒有一個孩子落後法》，以及歐巴馬政府的「邁向巔峰」補助方案、「州共同核心標準」、「《沒有一個孩子落後法》豁免計畫」和《每個學生都成功法》。本研究主要的發現可分為三大方面。在理論層面上，以自由市場理念主導的公共教育改革，在30年中逐漸變形，原引入市場機制是為協助公立學校改善，後漸以提供不同選擇、績效責任為由，推動學校私有化和廢除公立學校，有壓縮社會公義空間之慮。在政策層面上，透過分析「學校選擇」、「高素質」和「績效責任」對公立中小學的挑戰，本研究揭示，三屆聯邦政府對義務教育的改革聚焦社會效率，亦即實質強調卓越，公義的維護退居次位，並未達兩者兼顧的理想。最後，除上述理論和政策，富人和企業家資助的「公益創投」，也由私人管道促進學校私有化，其成員的同質性，恐將注重少數而非大眾利益。此種為追求卓越引進市場化及私有化的作法，可能影響社會公義；若我國中小學教育欲引進美國種種教育改革，政府應以此警惕。The aim of this historical study is to explore the challenges of education marketization for public schooling at the elementary and secondary levels in the United States from 1980 to 2017 and then to provide advice for applications in Taiwanese education. In 1983, A Nation at Risk revealed the United States was facing the economic and educational pressure both internationally and domestically. As for domestic pressure in the field of education, free-market advocates, such as M. Friedman, R. Budde, A. Shanker, J. Chubb, and T. Moe, recommended vouchers and charter schools to improve the quality of public education. Fraught with tensions between social efficiency and social justice, the federal government actively promoted market-based education reforms with the initiative of ‘excellence for all’ after 1990, including the Clinton Administration's Goal 2000: The American Education Act and the Improving America's Schools Act, the George W. Bush Administration's NCLB, and the Obama Administration's RTT Grant Program, CCSS, NCLB Waiver Program, and ESSA. The main findings of this study are presented from three dimensions. First, at the theoretical level, the education reform in public schooling led by free-market ideas has gradually evolved over the past 30 years. That is to say, the market mechanism was originally introduced to improvepublic schools, but it turned out to promote privatization of education and abolition of public schools and then was regarded as a risk of hindering social justice. Second, at the policy level, the education reforms by three federal governments focused on social efficiency rather than social justice by analyzing the challenges of the policies of ‘school choice’, ‘high quality’ and ‘accountability’ for public schools. Third, ‘venture philanthropy’ funded by wealthy individuals and entrepreneurs also promoted the privatization of schools through private channels. The wealthy are similar in that they are likely to focus more on their personal good than the common good. If so, introducing marketization and privatization into the public schooling in the United States in pursuit of excellence might negatively influence social justice. If Taiwan introduces such ideas mentioned above into public schooling at elementary and secondary levels, Taiwanese government should be more vigilant.