カリフォルニア州のオルタナティブ学校評価制度に関する一考察

—ASAMの課題と展望—

抄録

The U.S. state of California is attempting to protect school education by building a safety net in the form of the alternative schools system, through stratification of public schools according to the special educational needs and risk levels of students faced with problems in areas such as academic performance, physical and mental health, and behavior or at risk of socially unacceptable behavior such as truancy, drug use, and violence and students who have suffered harmful experiences such as abuse or bullying.

However, as expressed in their characterization as a "School to Prison Pipeline" these alternative schools have been criticized as serving to exclude at-risk students from schools and the community. Under such conditions, in an effort to operate alternative schools in ways that would realize their ideals and objectives research is being conducted in California to assess the quality of education conducted at such schools, in an effort to establish an accountability system. Focusing on the State of California’s Alternative Schools Accountability Model（ASAM）, a system for assessment of alternative schools, this paper aims to verify the results of the alternative schools system and elucidate the limitations of and future prospects for this assessment system by describing the background of its establishment and the actual facts of operation of its assessment activities.

This paper employs the following structure: First, as a systemic overview of California’s alternative schools it will take an overview of four types of school systems and elucidate the distinguishing systemic features of each. Second, while outlining the standards-based educational reforms that have been promoted in the United States since the 1980s and identifying the position of the series of initiatives to assess alternative schools within the context of these systemic reforms, it will describe the ASAM framework in detail. In particular, ASAM efforts can be broken down into the two main categories of Phase 1 efforts conducted during the period from the 2001—2002 through the 2008—2009 school years and Phase 2 efforts during the period from the 2010—2011 through the 2012—2013 school years, and this paper will analyze the impact of reforms to ASAM assessment indicators while also looking at large-scale changes in assessment indicators and accountability. Third, based on consideration of the above matters it will examine the limitations of and prospects for the alternative schools assessment system for atrisk students.