Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/95348| 題名: | 中央對地方政府特殊教育行政績效評鑑制度之研究 A Study of the Central Government’s Evaluation of Local Governments’ Administrative Performance in Special Education |
作者: | 張金淑 Chang, Chin-Shu |
貢獻者: | 秦夢群<br>羅清水 張金淑 Chang,Chin-Shu |
關鍵詞: | 特殊教育 行政績效評鑑 特殊教育評鑑 special education the evaluation of administrative performance the evaluation of special education |
日期: | 2009 | 上傳時間: | 9-May-2016 | 摘要: | 本研究旨在探討美國、英國及我國中央對地方政府特殊教育行政績效評鑑的狀況，運用特殊教育通報網篩選檢核指標，編製地方政府特殊教育行政績效調查問卷，發展平時檢測與定期實地評鑑機制，以建置平時與定期兼顧的特殊教育行政績效評鑑制度，供教育行政機關實施之參考。\r\n 採用文獻分析、訪問、焦點座談、問卷調查及團體深度訪談等五種方法。採取「特殊教育通報網運用調查問卷」、「地方政府特殊教育行政績效調查問卷」、「地方政府特殊教育行政績效實地評鑑調查問卷」及三問卷之訪問大綱為研究工具，以特殊教育行政人員、學者專家及特教教師與家長為研究對象。本研究自2006年10月至2009年5月為期兩年餘，研究發現有五：\r\n 一、美國積極推動中央對地方政府特殊教育行政績效評鑑，採取法制化、發展督導系統、委託全國特殊教育績效監督中心評鑑、評鑑委員多元化、檢測各州績效體制成效表、以及實施指標強調與一般學生比較等作法。英國教育標準署明訂特殊教育之分項視察項目、明列三層面九向度的特殊教育需求檢核標準、明列每項鑑定標準的等級標準、以及鑑定標準納入地方教育局改善的能力等作為，兩國上述作法均可供參酌。\r\n 二、評析我國2002年、2004年、2006年及2008年對地方政府特殊教育行政績效評鑑，發現評鑑制度已日漸完善。但目的宜強化輔導、資源調配與管理、相互觀摩與交流；評鑑委員宜再納入縣市特殊教育行政人員代表；評鑑項目依其性質宜分為指定領域、自選領域、複評領域及免評領域四類；辦理方式除書面評鑑外，應納入實地評鑑。\r\n 三、基於文獻分析、訪問、調查及團體深度訪談結果，我國中央對地方政府特殊教育行政績效評鑑有必要「建置平時與定期(或專案)兼顧的特殊教育行政績效評鑑制度」。此制度含括平時檢測機制、定期實地評鑑機制、地方政府自我評鑑及專案訪視機制四部分，並具體轉化為實施計畫，然本研究僅探討前兩部分。\r\n 四、以適切擴充特殊教育通報網篩選出量化客觀的關鍵與核心指標予以初檢，再以地方政府特殊教育行政績效調查結果的主觀感受進行複檢，以建構平時檢測機制，並具體轉化為實施子計畫。\r\n 五、以2008年特殊教育行政績效評鑑為基礎，依據訪問、調查及團體深度訪談結果來發展以督導、輔導、檢討、改善、資源調配與管理、相互觀摩與交流為目的之定期實地評鑑機制，並以三年為一週期，分年完成25縣市之實地評鑑，且具體轉化為實施子計畫。 This study provides an overview and analysis regarding the central government’s evaluation of local governments’ administrative performance in special education in the U.S, England and Taiwan. By applying the Special Education Transmit Net（SETNET） to set the examining indicators, and by working out special education administrative performance questionnaires, the purpose of this study is to develop a mechanism, including a routine review and a periodical evaluation, and eventually to submit some practical suggestions to the Ministry of Education regarding special education in Taiwan.\r\n This study was undertaken for two and half years starting from October, 2006. It was conducted through literature review, interviews, focused forum, questionnaire survey and group depth interview methods. The results and conclusions are as follows:\r\n （1）The U.S actively promotes a sound system to evaluate local government administrative performance in special education in the areas of legislation, monitoring mechanisms, supporting The National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM), and Measuring the Implementation of a State’s Accountability System etc. The Office for Standards in Education in England has linked inspection judgments about special education to the grade criteria of the inspection of special educational needs and investigates improvements the LEA has made since the last inspection. All the above mentioned are good paradigms for Taiwan.\r\n （2）An overview of evaluations which Taiwan has carried out in 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008 reveal gradual improvements. However, the aims should emphasize guidance and assistance, resources allocation and management, emulation and communication. Local special education administrators should be subsumed into evaluation committees.The evaluation items should include assignation domain, option domain, reevaluation domain and exempt domain. The evaluation procedure should also include on-site visiting.\r\n （3）Based on the study results, Taiwan needs to establish a local performance evaluation system which looks after both routine and periodicity. The system should contain a routine review mechanism, a periodical on-site evaluation, self evaluations of local governments and special task inspection.\r\n （4）The SETNET should be expended further to select some objective key indicators and nuclear indicators for the initial examination, then the survey results of “Local government’s administrative performance in special education questionnaire” for reviewing can be adopted to accomplish the routine review.\r\n （5）On the basis of the evaluation in 2008 and the study results, Taiwan could develop a periodical on-site evaluation every three years as a cycle to complete the evaluation of 25 counties. |
參考文獻: | 壹、中文部分\r\n中華民國特殊教育學會(2002)。91年教育部對地方政府特殊教育行政績效評鑑：評鑑手冊報告。臺北市：作者。\r\n中華民國特殊教育學會(2004)。93年教育部對地方政府特殊教育行政績效評鑑：評鑑手冊。臺北市：作者。\r\n中華民國特殊教育學會(2006a)。95年教育部對地方政府特殊教育行政績效評鑑：評鑑手冊。臺北市：作者。\r\n中華民國特殊教育學會(2006b)。95年教育部對地方政府特殊教育行政績效評鑑：評鑑報告。臺北市：作者。\r\n中華民國特殊教育學會(2008)。97年教育部對地方政府特殊教育行政績效評鑑：評鑑手冊。臺北市：作者。\r\n中華民國特殊教育學會(2009)。97年教育部對地方政府特殊教育行政績效評鑑：評鑑報告。臺北市：作者。\r\n毛連塭(1992)。特殊教育行政。臺北市：五南。\r\n王文科、蕭金土、張昇鵬、李乙明(1999)。我國特殊教育指標建構之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學系第四屆特殊教育「課程與教學」學術研討會，163-202頁。\r\n王天苗、邱上真、莊妙芬、鄭麗月、葉瓊華、孫淑柔、鄒啟蓉(1997)。特殊教育法修正草案評估報告。臺北市：臺北立法院立法諮詢中心。\r\n王天苗、黃俊榮、邱筑君(2007)。國內縣市特殊教育行政績效評鑑實施之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育評鑑與發展研究中心期末報告(編號：95E0012-B-03)。臺北市：國立臺灣師範大學。\r\n王振德(2004)。我國特殊教育評鑑及相關研究。教育資料集刊，29，341-357。\r\n立法院（2009）。立法院第7屆第3會期教育及文化委員會第25次全體委員會議議事錄。臺北市：作者。\r\n吳明隆（2009）。SPSS操作與應用：問卷統計分析實務（二版）。台北市：五南。\r\n吳美麗(2000)。特殊教育評鑑方案之規劃與設計。國立臺北師範學院特殊教育學系碩士班碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。\r\n吳清山(1991)。學校行政。臺北市：心理。\r\n李慶良(1999)。美國1997年IDEA修正案的研究。特殊教育論文集， 56-113。2007年5月7日，取自： http://www.ntcu.edu.tw/spc/ebook/pdf/9101/5.pdf\r\n李慶良(2002)。美國1997年IDEA修正案的研究。特殊教育論文集，57-114。國立臺中師範學院。\r\n林宏熾(2005)。美國身心障礙學生轉銜服務之相關理論與哲學。特殊教育季刊，97，1-9。2007年5月7日，取自： http://www.ylcr.gov.tw/ylsw/knowgirl26.pdf\r\n社團法人臺灣評鑑協會(2004)。中央對地方政府特殊教育行政績效評鑑規劃與實施計畫(教育部委託專題計畫)。臺北市：教育部。\r\n香港教育統籌局(2005)。特殊學校成效探究報告。香港教育統籌局評鑑報告。港島：作者。\r\n孫淑柔(1998)。從教育指標的觀點談特殊教育成效評鑑。中華民國特殊教育學會（主編），中華民國特殊教育學會年紀念專刊（65-98頁）。臺北市：中華民國特殊教育學會。\r\n孫淑柔(2000)。身心障礙學生學習成果評鑑之研究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育學系博士論文，未出版。\r\n桃園縣政府教育局(2004)。桃園縣九十二學年度特殊教育評鑑報告。桃園縣：桃園縣特殊教育學生鑑定及就學輔導委員會。\r\n秦夢群(1997)。教育行政：實務部分。臺北市：五南。\r\n財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會(2006)。大學校院系所評鑑實施計畫九十五年度評鑑手冊。臺北市：作者。\r\n財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會(2007)。大學校院系所評鑑實施計畫九十六年度(96年5月14日增訂版) [公告]。臺北市：作者。2009年7月17日，取自：http://www.heeact.org.tw/\r\n張金淑(2005)。大學校務評鑑的展望。教育研究月刊，138，130-141。\r\n張金淑(2006)。師資培育中心評鑑之分析。當代教育研究，14(1)，25-54。\r\n張金淑(2007)。中央對地方特殊教育行政績效評鑑之評析。教育研究與發展期刊，3(3)，165-196。\r\n教育部(1998)。特殊教育法施行細則。臺北市：作者。\r\n教育部(2002)。大學校院教育學程評鑑作業要點。臺北市：作者。\r\n教育部(2005)。94年度大學校院師資培育中心評鑑規劃與實施計畫。臺北市：作者。\r\n教育部(2006a)。教育部補助試辦教師專業發展評鑑實施計畫。中華民國95年4月3日台國(四)字第0950039877D號令訂定。\r\n教育部(2006b)。大學校院師資培育評鑑作業要點。臺北市：作者。\r\n教育部(2008a)。特殊教育統計年報。臺北市：作者。\r\n教育部(2008b)。中華民國教育統計。臺北市：作者。\r\n教育部特殊教育工作小組(2002)。91年教育部對地方政府特殊教育行政績效評鑑實施計畫。臺北市：作者。\r\n教育部特殊教育工作小組(2004)。93年教育部對地方政府特殊教育行政績效評鑑實施計畫。臺北市：作者。\r\n教育部特殊教育工作小組(2005)。特殊教育通報系統運作狀況簡報。臺北市：作者。\r\n教育部特殊教育工作小組(2006)。95年教育部對地方政府特殊教育行政績效評鑑實施計畫。臺北市：作者。\r\n教育部特殊教育工作小組(2008a)。97年教育部對地方政府特殊教育行政績效評鑑實施計畫。臺北市：作者。\r\n教育部特殊教育工作小組(2008b)。教育部97年度統合視導統計資料，未出版。\r\n教育部高教司(1997)。86學年度地方政府綜合評鑑試辦計畫評鑑手冊。臺北市：教育部。\r\n許媛翔(2006)。強調學生學習的形成性新興評鑑法躍居評鑑主流，評鑑雙月刊，4，44-45。\r\n郭昭佑(2001)。學校本位評鑑。臺北市：五南。\r\n黃光雄(1989)。教育評鑑的模式。臺北市：師大書苑。\r\n劉維琪(2007)。維基式評鑑。評鑑雙月刊，9，6-7。\r\n鄭友泰(2000)。桃園縣身心障礙班特殊教育評鑑實施現況之調查研究。國立臺北師範學院特殊教育學系碩士班碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。\r\n謝文全、林新發、張德銳、張明輝(1995)。教育行政學。臺北縣：國立空中大學。\r\n簡明建、邱金滿(2000)。特殊教育的發展與指標。載於林寶貴（主編），特殊教育理論與實務(102-110頁)。臺北市：心理。\r\n焦點團體：理論與實務（歐素汝譯）（2000）。臺北市：弘智。（原著出版年：1990）\r\n\r\n \r\n貳、西文部分\r\nAtkins, M. (2002). The impact of the RAE on the strategic management of universities. In TW-UK workshop on research assessment exercise. National Taiwan University.\r\nBarak, R. J. & Berdahl, R. O.(1978). State level academic： Within and without. Colorado: Education Commission of Colorado. \r\nBelanger, C. H. & Tremblay, L.(1982). A methodological approach to selective cutbacks. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 12,325-335.\r\nBerdahl, R.(1976). Criteria and strategies for program discontinuance and institutional closure. Battle, MI：Kellogg Foundation.\r\nBogue, E. G. & Saunders, R. L.(1992). The evidence for quality. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.\r\nCalifornia Department of Education (2007, March 6). Data collection & reporting: California special education management information system. Sacramento, CA Retrieved March 21, 2007, from: http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/ds/\r\nCorrallo, S.(1991). Quality in higher education and the national education goals. In M. Nugent & J. L. Ratcliff(Eds.) \"Measurements of quality in higher education (pp. 10-16)\", Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.\r\nDivision of Exceptional Learners, Indiana Department of Education (2007). Continuous improvement monitoring process: Indiana state performance plan. Retrieved, March 5, 2007, from: http://www.doe.state.in.us/exceptional/speced/monitoring.html\r\nGriffith, C.A. (2006). Using a historical perspective to understand current policy on education placements for students with disabilities. Society for the History of Children and Youth, 8. Retrieved May 3, 2007, from: http://www.history.vt.edu/Jones/SHCY/Newsletter8/lre-griffith.html\r\nGuba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.\r\nGuba, E. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.\r\nIndividual with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1400 (1997).\r\nJones, N. L. & Apling, R. N. (2005). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Overview of P.L. 108-446（Order Code RS22138）. Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress. Retrieved May 3, 2007, from: http://price.house.gov/issues/uploadedfiles/education5.pdf.\r\nKells, H. R. (1992). Self-regulation in higher education: A multinational perspective on collaborative systems of quality assurance and control . London: Jessica KingsIey.\r\nKells, H. R.(1995). Self-study processes: A guide to self-evaluation in higher education(4th ed.). New York: American Council on Education.\r\nKogan, M.(1989). The evaluation of higher education. In M. Kogan (Eds.) \"Evaluating Uglier education (pp. 11-25)\". London: Jessica Kingsiey.\r\nLSU Health Sciences Center (2006). General supervision of IDEA: Measuring the implementation of a state’s accountability system (Revised May, 2006). Retrieved, February 9, 2007, from: http://www.monitoringcenter.lsuhsc. edu/Focusedmonitoringinformation.htm.\r\nMarcus, L. R.(1983). The path to excellence: Quality assurance in higher education. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.\r\nNational Early Childhood Transition Center (2005). Overview of IDEA and changes related to transition in 2004. Retrieved May 7, 2007, from: http://www.ihdi.uky.edu/NECTC/idea2004/files/idea2004AndTransition.pdf\r\nNCATE(1995). Standards, procedures, and policies for the accreditation of professional education. Washington, DC: Author.\r\nNCATE(2001). Standards, procedures for the accreditation schools, colleges, and departments of education. Washington, DC: Author.\r\nPeterson, M. W.(1980). Improving academic management. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass. \r\nPlomp, T., Huijsman, H., & Hluyfhout, E.(1992). Monitoring in educational development projects: The development of a monitoring system. International Journal Educational Development, 12, 65-73.\r\nPodemski, R. S., Marsh II G. E., Smith, T. E. C., & Price, B. J. (1995). Program evaluation: comprehensive administration of special education (2nd ed ). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.\r\nProvus, M. (1971).Discrepancy evaluation. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.\r\nSallis, E. & Hingley, P.(1991). College quality assurance assurances. England, Blagdon: Further Education Staff College, England.\r\nStake, R. E.(1967). The countenance of educational evaluation. Teachers College Record, 68 , 523-540.\r\nStufflebeam, D. L. (1983).The CIPP model for program evaluation. In Madaus, G. F., Scriven, M. S.& Stufflebeam, D. L. (Eds.). Evaluation models. MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.\r\nStufflebeam, D. L.(2000). Foundational models for 21st century program evaluation. In Madaus, G. F.& Stufflebeam , D. L.(Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (2nd ed). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhof.\r\nStufflebeam, D. L.(2001). Evaluation models. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.\r\nStufflebeam, D. L., Foley, W. J., Gephart, W. J., Guba, E. G., Hammond, R. L.,Merriman, H. O.&Provus, M. M., et al(1971). Educational evaluation and decision making. Itasca, IL: Peacock.\r\nStufflebeam, D. L., & Webster, W. J.(1980). An analysis of alternative approaches to evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2(3), 5-20.\r\nTEAC(2000). Prospectus for a new system for the accreditation of programs in teacher education. Washington, DC: Author.\r\nThe Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation(1994).The program evaluation standards: How to assess evaluations of educational programs. London: Sage.\r\nThe Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation.(1981). Standards for evaluation of educational programs, projects, and materials. New York: McGraw-Hill.\r\nThe Office of her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools in conjunction with the Audit Commission(2002, December). Managing special education needs: A self-review handbook for local education authorities. Retrieved March 13, 2007, from: http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/reports/CURRENT- PROJECT-TEXT.asp?CategoryID=ENGLISH^576^SUBJECT^539^COMMISSION^730&ProdID=8ECDC6C6-B119-44F4-9279-D03C38E32B42.\r\nThe Office of her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools in conjunction with the Audit Commission(2004).Framework for the inspection of local education authorities(2004). Retrieved March 13, 2007, from: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications/index.cfm?fuseaction=pubs.summary&id=3449\r\nTyler, R.(1942). General statement on evaluation. Journal of Educational Research , 35, 492-501.\r\nU. S. Department of Education (1994). To assure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities. Washicngton, DC: U. S. Department of Education.\r\nU. S. Department of Education (2000). Program-funded activities for fiscal year 1999: IDEAs that work. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.\r\nWestern Regional Resource Center(1997). Profiles of state monitoring system. office of special education and rehabilitative service. Wasgington, DC: Western Regional Resource Center(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 423643)\r\nWisconsin Department of Public Instruction (2007a). Wisconsin council on special education (Modified, 2006). Retrieved May 14, 2007, from: http://dpi.wi.gov/sped/council.html\r\nWisconsin Department of Public Instruction (2007b). Wisconsin council on special education membership requirements (Modified, 2005). Retrieved May 15, 2007, from: http://dpi.wi.gov/sped/ceembrrq.html\r\nWisconsin Department of Public Instruction Special Education Team (2007). Part B state performance plan for schools years 2005-2006 through 2010-2011. Retrieved February 16, 2007, from: http://dpi.state.wi.us/sped/spp.html.\r\nWise, A. E. (2000). Standards and teacher quality. Phi Delta Kappan. 81(8), 612-621. | 描述: | 博士 國立政治大學 教育學系 94152506 |
資料來源: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0094152506 | 資料類型: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | 學位論文 |
Files in This Item:
| File | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|
| index.html | 115 B | HTML2 | View/Open |
Google ScholarTM
Check
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.