Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/15213


Title: 台灣地區近四十年來教育資源之分配情況
Other Titles: The Distribution of Educational Resources Throughout the Recent Forty Years in Taiwan
Authors: 馬信行
Ma,Hsen-Hsing
Date: 1993-10
Issue Date: 2008-12-17 09:49:47 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 本研究用官方教育統計,及賦稅統計為素材,分析我國四十年來教育資源的分配情形。理論上在檢定我國教育資源分配是否依水平均等原則,垂直均等原則,或教育機會均等原則。使用方法是以基尼係數作為均等度的指標,以LOUTUS-123來計算基尼係數。研究結果,重要的發現有:(a).我國教育資源分配最不均等的,則是高等教育學校數。四十年來雖有改善,但基尼係數仍然偏高,而中等教育及以下的校數則有符合垂直均等的現象,(b).在適當指標的尋找方面,教育經費的指標,每校教育經費的指標似乎比每生教育經費的指標為佳。因我國愈都市化的縣市,其每校學生數愈多,故每校教育經費也愈多,(c).我國教育經費的分配原則有80~90%是依學生數為主要考量,故以每生教育經費為指標時,顯出我國在分配教育經費時,是追求水平均等原則,(d).在地方財力指標方面,每生所得稅比每生總稅收及每生教育捐更能顯現各縣市的貧富實況,(e).財力指標對每校教育經費的影響(標準化迴歸係數)比對每生教育經費的影響為大,(f).以每生所得稅、每校教育經費、及各縣市人口加權後的高等教育學校數為變項,投入群集分析,分出高資源區與低資源區。屬於低教育資源區的有14縣,此為我國採垂直均等原則時優先考慮大力補助發展的縣,(g).各縣市平均每校教育經費的排名上,四十年來雖有變動,但高雄市、台北市、基隆市、及台南市皆一直排在前面,而花蓮縣一直排在後面,(h).四十年來每校教育經費與每生教育經費的基尼係數相當穩定。每校教育經費的基尼係數大約在0.22左右,而每生教育經費的約在0.11左右起伏。本研究建議,我國可順應世界先進國家的潮流,在經費補助上,採垂直均等原則,以促進城鄉均衡發展,待教育資源均富後,才回頭採水平均等原則。補助時也要顧到效率,故以專案補助方式代替整批補助方式較佳。如能採配合款方式,鼓勵地方多收教育捐以增加教育支出,則更佳。 This study used official educational, population, and tax statistics as raw data to analyse the distrubution of educational resources in recent forty years. Theoretically it is to test whether the distribution of educational resources in Taiwan followed or is following the principle of vertical equity, of horizontal equity, or of equal educational opportunity. The index of equity used in this study is gini coefficients, which are calculated through the Lotus-123. The important findings are: (a) the most unequally distrubuted resource is the institutions of higher education, they are densely located in the urbanized areas. Although the biased distribution has been improved during the forty years, the gini coefficents are nevertheless too high. Fortunately, the distributions of schools other than the higher educational level are in accordance with the principle of vertical equity, i.e. more schools (weighted through the population) are located in the rural areas, (b) in searching the suitable index for the school finance, it is found that the the averaged expenditure per school is better than that of per pupil. The more urbanized a prefecture is, the larger its schools are, and therefore more expenditure its schools have, (c) the most important factor in the formular of distribution of educational expenditure is the number of pupils. It explains 80-90% of total variance of the educational expenditure in the regressional analysis. It shows that the governments distributed money in accordance with the number of pupils of each school, i.e. they pursue the principle of horizontal equity, (d) in respect of suitable wealth index in each prefecture, it demonstrates that the average income tax per pupil is more suitable than the averaged tatal tax per pupil and averaged educational tax per pupil, (e) the influence of wealth index on the averaged educational expenditure per school is more than on that per pupil, because the former has greater standardized regression coefficients, (f) with averaged income tax per pupil, average educational expenditure per school, and weighted number of instititions of higher education as the variables, using cluster analysis, counties und cities in Taiwan are classified into two categories: 9 high educational resource areas and 14 low ones, according to the principle of vertical equity, the low resource areas have the priority to be granted, (g) the rank orders of the averaged educational expenditure per school of each prefecture are somewhat stable throughout the 40 years; kaushiang city, Taipei city, keelung city and Tainan city have always been well financed and hualien couty has always been near the bottom, (h) the gini coefficients of educational expenditure per school and per pupil throughout the 40 years in Taiwan are to some extent stable, they fluctuate around 0.22 by the former and 0.11 by the latter. This study suggests that in order to promote the evenly development of education in urban und rural areas, the governments can subsidize more to the disadvantaged areas. So far as the efficiency of school financing is concerned, the categorical grant is preferable to the block grant.
Relation: 國立政治大學學報, 67(上),19-56
Data Type: article
Appears in Collections:[教育學系] 期刊論文
[第67期] 期刊論文

Files in This Item:

File SizeFormat
267.pdf3235KbAdobe PDF1550View/Open


All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


社群 sharing