這幾年來，國際間教育改革的共同趨勢，除了強調以國際學生能力評量計畫（PISA）與QS世界大學排名為例的國際競爭力訴求，也就是「拔尖」之外，針對弱勢學生所採取的補償教育、課後照顧與補救教學等教育公平主張，也就是「保底」措施，似乎在國際教育改革多變的浪潮中，隱然也站在主導各國教育發展的重要地位。以1965年便已公布的《初等及教育中等法案》（ESEA）為分析核心，ESEA公布迄今已歷經多次修正，最著名的三次便是1994年的《改善美國學校法》（IASA）、2001年的《不讓任何孩子落後法案》（NCLB）與2015年的《每位學生都成功法案》（ESSA）。在2015年12月，現任的總統Obama公布《每位學生都成功法案》（ESSA），強調應先確保每一州都設定高學術標準，針對落後的學生要求各州保持績效責任，授權給各州與學區教育決策者進行各自的教育規劃，維持年度的共同評量，但降低對學生與教師不必要且沒有效度的測驗，且提供更多兒童可以進入高品質的學前教育機構，並設立新資源。本研究以美國弱勢學生與補救教學政策為主要的研究重心，首先探討美國弱勢學生與補救教學政策的沿革，並進一步比較《不讓任何孩子落後法案》（NCLB）和《每位學生都成功法案》（ESSA），藉由美國弱勢學生與補救教學政策的過去、發展現況與阻礙進行系統性的省思，提供我國在思考十二年國民基本教育政策走向時的參考依據。

Over the past few years, two major trends of educational reforms have emerged from all over the world. The first one is highly focused on global competition coming from international educational activities like the test of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and QS World University Rankings, and the other one involves programs developed to care for disadvantaged students, for instance, afterschool program and remedial teaching. The main focus of the research is to analyze the development of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) during the years of 1965 to 2015. The ESEA has been revised in the tides of time; three important revisions of the ESEA include the Improving Americas Schools Act (IASA) in 1994, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001, and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015. The Obama Administration calls on Congress to swiftly enact the ESSA with strong bipartisan support to replace the NCLB in Dec. 2015. According to the ESSA, the current educational policy aims to ensure states set high standards, maintain accountability, empower state and local decision makers, preserve annual assessment and reduce the onerous burden of unnecessary and ineffective testing, provide more children access to high-quality preschool, and establish new resources. The researchers discuss policies concerning remedial teaching in the United States, compare the No Child Left Behind Act and Every Student Succeeds Act, and then provide some implications of the reflection on 12 years basic education in Taiwan.