dc.contributor.advisor | 吳政達 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author (Authors) | 洪燈旭 | zh_TW |
dc.creator (作者) | 洪燈旭 | zh_TW |
dc.date (日期) | 2008 | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 9-Dec-2010 09:43:38 (UTC+8) | - |
dc.date.available | 9-Dec-2010 09:43:38 (UTC+8) | - |
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 9-Dec-2010 09:43:38 (UTC+8) | - |
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) | G0094911022 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri (URI) | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/49803 | - |
dc.description (描述) | 碩士 | zh_TW |
dc.description (描述) | 國立政治大學 | zh_TW |
dc.description (描述) | 學校行政碩士在職專班 | zh_TW |
dc.description (描述) | 94911022 | zh_TW |
dc.description (描述) | 97 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 本研究主要探討國內家長學校選擇權發展情形及實施現況,並深入瞭解臺北縣公立國中現行之學區分發入學制度,以建構臺北縣公立國中開放學區入學的決策準則。研究方法部分,先以文獻分析歸納臺北縣開放學區決策準則五大構面與二十四項準則項目,再以模糊德菲術問卷進行調查。模糊德菲術調查樣本為三十八位教育行政官員、校長、教師及家長代表,本研究透過三角模糊數整合專家對準則重要性之看法並以適切性篩選準則項目,最後以歸一化之方式求得各構面以及各項目權重,完成臺北縣開放學區決策準則建構。根據研究之結果與分析,歸納主要結論如下:1. 「開放學區」是臺北縣公立國中學區制度未來發展可行且具重要性的政策。2. 臺北縣實施「開放學區」的五項第一層級決策準則構面依序為:「學校因素」、「配套措施」、「交通因素」、「教育設施」、「地理環境」。3. 「校園安全」、「交通安全」、「學校招生過多或不足的解決方式」、「學生學業成績表現」、「降低班級學生數」是臺北縣實施「開放學區」優先考慮的五項第二層級決策準則項目。4. 改變現行學區劃分制度,仍需民間單位及家長提出更多家長選擇 權的需求。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract (摘要) | The purpose of this study is to construct a set of standards for the decision-making of open enrollment in Taipei County. To achieve this purpose, this study adopts three methods, including literature analysis, questionnaires investigation and Fuzzy Delphi method. First, the literature review is used to obtain initial indicators; then Fuzzy Delphi method is used to collect opinions from experts in open enrollment, which are to examine the degree of importance and suitability of initial indicators. The practical decision criteria suitable for open enrollment are therefore produced.The conclusions of this study are as follows:1. Open enrollment policy is feasible and important for the development of school district system of public senior high schools in Taipei County. 2. The decision criteria of open enrollment include five areas : school, supplementary measure, traffic, facilities and environment.3. The most important five indicators for decision-making of open enrollment are: safety in campus, traffic safety, the solution of shortage of students or over, academic performance, reducing the number of students in a class.4. It needs parents to bring up the demand of “parents’ choice” to change current school district system. | en_US |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 目次.....................................................I表次....................................................III圖次......................................................V第一章 緒論..............................................1第一節 研究背景與動機................................1第二節 研究目的與待答問題............................7第三節 名詞釋義......................................9第四節 研究範圍與限制...............................11第二章 文獻探討.........................................13第一節 學校選擇權之理念與內涵.......................13第二節 英、美開放學區的實際作法.....................20第三節 芝加哥市開放學區入學政策.....................32第四節 臺北縣學區制度施行現況與決策準則分析.........42第三章 研究設計.........................................60第一節 研究對象.....................................60第二節 研究工具.....................................66第三節 研究方法.....................................68第四節 研究流程.... .... .... ......................82第五節 實施程序.....................................85第四章 研究結果與討論.... ..............................87 第一節 開放學區決策準則之篩選.......................87 第二節 訂定開放學區決策準則之權重...................94 第三節 研究結果討論................................106第五章 結論與建議......................................118 第一節 結論........................................118 第二節 建議........................................125參考文獻...............................................130附錄...................................................141附錄一、「臺北縣立公立國中開放學區決策準則建構之研究」調查問 卷 ................................................... 141附錄二、臺北縣96學年度國中學區一覽表.....................144附錄三、臺北縣政府辦理國民中學學區劃分標準作業程序......160 | zh_TW |
dc.format.extent | 63853 bytes | - |
dc.format.extent | 64668 bytes | - |
dc.format.extent | 68031 bytes | - |
dc.format.extent | 65783 bytes | - |
dc.format.extent | 66534 bytes | - |
dc.format.extent | 154032 bytes | - |
dc.format.extent | 339984 bytes | - |
dc.format.extent | 260591 bytes | - |
dc.format.extent | 302325 bytes | - |
dc.format.extent | 83817 bytes | - |
dc.format.extent | 163649 bytes | - |
dc.format.extent | 69416 bytes | - |
dc.format.extent | 201367 bytes | - |
dc.format.extent | 81002 bytes | - |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
dc.language.iso | en_US | - |
dc.source.uri (資料來源) | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0094911022 | en_US |
dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 學校選擇權 | zh_TW |
dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 開放學區 | zh_TW |
dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 決策準則 | zh_TW |
dc.subject (關鍵詞) | open enrollment | en_US |
dc.subject (關鍵詞) | school choice | en_US |
dc.subject (關鍵詞) | decision criteria | en_US |
dc.title (題名) | 臺北縣立公立國中開放學區決策準則建構之研究 | zh_TW |
dc.title (題名) | A study on constructing the decision criteria of open enrollment in Taipei County | en_US |
dc.type (資料類型) | thesis | en |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 壹、 中文部份 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 台北縣政府教育局(2007)。臺北縣九十六年度國中學區一覽表。台北: 台北縣教育局。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 台北縣教育局網站(2008)。 http://www.tpc.edu.tw/_file/2052/SG/25532/39347.html | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 李奉儒 (1996) 。英國教育改革機構、法案與報告書。輯於黃政傑:各國教育改革動向。(77-106)。台北:師大書苑。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 阮亨中、吳柏林(2000)。模糊數學與統計應用。台北:俊傑。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 林天祐 (1997) 。美國1990 年代「標準本位」的教育政策。國教月刊,43,5,(15- 20)。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 林天祐(1998)。特許學校-公立學校組織再造的新機制。國教月刊,45(1),(46-54)。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 林孟皇(2000)。家長之公立學校選擇權。國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 屈書杰(1999)。在家上學-美國教育新景觀透視。外國中小學教育,1, (40-42)。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 吳政達(1999)。國民小學教師評鑑指標體系建構之研究---模糊德菲 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 術、模糊層級分析法與模糊綜合評估法之應用。國立政治大學教育 研究所博士論文,未出版,台北市。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 吳政達 (2004) 。教育政策分析-概念、方法與應用,台北:高等教育文化事業有限公司。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 吳清山、黃久芬(1995)。美國教育選擇權之研究。初等教育學刊,4,1-26。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 吳清山、林天祐(1997)。教育選擇權。教育資料與研究,16,82。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 吳清山、林天祐(1998)。特許學校。教育資料與研究,22,73。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 吳明清(1998)。「學區制問題探討」座談紀實。中等教育,49,(3),39。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 吳育偉 (2002) 。家長教育選擇權之研究-以花蓮縣為例。慈濟大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮市。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 吳清山(1999)。臺北市國民中小學實施「公辦民營」之可行性分析。教育政策論壇,2(1),(157-179)。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 馬信行、于卓民、歐進士和周志宏(1996)。國民教育公辦民營之可行性研究。教育部國民教育司委託研究報告。臺北市:國立政治大學教育學系。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 唐印星(1999)。採購績效衡量關鍵因素之研究—以台灣電子、汽車、 鋼鐵、機械等產業為例。國立雲林科技大學工業工程研究所碩士論文,未出版, 雲林縣。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 黃嘉雄(1998)。學校本位管理政策下的教育機會均等策略–以英國為例。中華民國比較教育學會主編:社會變遷中的教育機會均等。台北:揚智,(43-180)。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 黃嘉雄(1998)。析評芝加哥學校再造政策。國民教育,39(2),(19-26)。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 黃嘉雄(1999)。芝加哥與肯塔基學校本位管理模式之比較研究。國立臺北師範學院學報,12,(197-224)。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 陳正益(2000)。國民學校公辦民營之研究。國立台灣師範大學公民訓育研究所碩士論文,未出版, 台北市。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 陳正恩 (2001) 。國小教育人員對家長學校選擇權的態度及學校因應策略之研究。國立臺南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版, 台南市。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 陳明德(2000)。國民小學實施家長教育選擇權可行性研究。國立台北師範學院國民教育所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 陳靜嬋(2000)。美國特許學校之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育學系碩士論文,未出版,台北市。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 陳韻竹 (2004) 。美國學區接管機制之分析研究。國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 教育部 (1995) 。中華民國教育改革報告書—邁向二十一世紀的教育遠景。台北:教育部。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 張志明 (1999) 。公立學校改革新途徑。發表於迎向千禧年教育研討會。國立中正大學,未出版,嘉義。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 張明輝(1998)。美國磁力學校計畫及其相關研究。比較教育第45 期, 61-71 。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 張炳煌 (1997) 。國中生家長學校選擇權之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 張雪娥(2003)。台中市國民小學實施家長教育選擇權之研究。國立台中師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台中市。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 張淑惠(1997)。國小學區之地理研究-以臺北縣為例。國立臺灣師範大學地理學系碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 張鈿富 (1996) 。教育政策分析:理論與實務。台北:五南。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 張德銳 (1998) 。學校選擇權政策的實施經驗與啟示—以美國為例。教育政策論壇創刊號,1,1,(86-100)。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 張德銳(1999)。教育選擇對教育機會均等的影響。現代教育論壇, 4,(46-53)。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 張德銳 (1999) 。教師在重建學校運動中應加強的專業角色。教師天地,98 期, (17-22)。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 許朝信(2001)。教育基本法中家長教育選擇權對公立學校國小經營之啟示。教育研究資訊,9(1),(107-120)。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 國語日報 (2007) 。小校新生掛零裁併與否拉鋸 2007, 6, 11 國語日報網站, http://www.mdnkids.com/info/news/adv_listdetail.asp?serial=50817 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 楊 瑩 (1996) 。一九九八年後英國的教育改革。輯於黃政傑:各國教育改革動向。台北:師大書苑,(107-134)。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 楊 瑩 (1998) 。當前台灣地區教育機會均等問題的探討。中華民國比較教育學會主編:變遷中的教育機會均等。台北:揚智文化。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 鄭新輝(1997) 。家長教育選擇權的可行性分析。初等教育學報,10 期,(389-415)。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 鄧振源、曾國雄(1989)。層級分析法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用(上),中國統計學報,27(6):(6-22)。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 鄧振源、曾國雄(1989)。層級分析法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用(下),中國統計學報,27(7):(1-19)。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 廖仁智(2001)。美國芝加哥教育改革模式發展的現況與問題-學校本 位管理成功案例的分析與啟示。教育研究資訊雙月刊,9(5),(17-38)。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 葉牧青(1989)。AHP 層級結構設定問題之探討,國立交通大學管理科學研究所碩士論文,未出版,新竹。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 葉雅惠(2001)。高雄市國民中學學區演變與影響因素之研究。國立高 雄師範大學地理學系教學碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 蔡佳霖(1998)。國民小學階段實施在家自行教育之研究。台北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 蕭芳華(1999)。幼兒教育券政策分析之研究。中國行政評論,9 , 1 ,(135-176)。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 盧延根(2002) 。臺北縣國民中學學區制度規劃與執行之研究。台北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 貳、英文部分 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Asher, C. (1982). Alternative schools—Some answers and questions. Urban | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Review,14, 65-89. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Bierlein, L.A. (1993). Controversial issues in education policy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Bomotti, S.(1996). Why do parents choose alternative schools?. Educational Leadership, 54(2), 30-3. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Boyd, W.L.(1996). The politics of choice and market-oriented school reform in Britain and the United States:Explaining the differences. In J.D. Chapman, W.L. Boyd,R. Lander, & D. Reynolds(Eds.)The Reconstruction of Education—Quality andControl. London: Cassell. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Bradley, A. (1995a). Inspector’s report blasts Chicago district’s ‘lack of | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | accountability’. Retrieved February 12, 2004, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/ew_printstory.cfm?slug=16chic.h14 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Bradley, H. (1996). Parental choice of school in an area containing grant | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | -maintained schools. School Organization, 16(1),59-70. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement for Teaching(1992).School choce. New Jersey: Carnegie Foundation. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Catalyst. (1997, September). Law, policy changes dilute LSC power. Retrieved 185 January 07, 2003, from http://www.catalyst-chicago.org/09-97/097law.htm | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Chen, S. J., & Hwang, C. L.(1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods and application. New York:Springer-Verlag. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Chester E. F. & Jr. Rebecca L Gau (1998). New ways of education. Public Interest,130, 79-92. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Chubb, J. E. &Moe, T. M(1990). Washington, D.C.The Brookings Institution. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Cookson, P. W. Jr(1994). School Choice: the Struggle for the | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Cox, S. M. (1999). An Assessment of an Alternative Education Program for At-Risk Deliquent Youth. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 36(3), 323-335. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Cookson, P. W. Jr., & Shroff, S. M. (1997). Recent experience with urban school choice plans. Retrieved May 6, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed413388.html | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Cooper, B. S.(1993). Educational Choice: Competing Models | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | and Meanings . in S. L. Jacobson & R. Berne(Eds.).Reforming Education- The Emerging Systemic Approach. Thousnd Oaks, CA: Corwin. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Coulson, A. J. (1999). Are public schools hazardous to public education?. Education Week, 18(30), 36-64. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Douzenis, C. (1994). Evaluation of magnet schools : Methodological issues and concerns. Clearing House, 68(1), 15-22. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Elmore, R. F. & Fuller, B. (1996). Emperical research on educational choice: What are the implications for policy-makers. In B. Fuller & R. F. Elmore(Eds.), Who choose? who loses?- Culture, institutions, and the unequal effects of schools choice (pp. 187-201). New York: Teachers College Press. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Finn Jr, C. E. & Gau, r. L. (1998). New ways of xperimen. Public Interest, 36(3), 323- 335. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Forte, L. (1995). School ‘crisis’ policy sparks debate. Retrieved February 13, 2004,from http://www.catalyst-chicago.org/11-95/115crisis.htm | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Forte, L. (1996). Inspector general cites $19 million ‘loss’. Retrieved February 13,2004, from http://www.catalyst-chicago.org/02-96/026upd83.htm | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Good, T. L., & Braden, J. S. (2000). The great school debate: Choice, vouchers, and charters. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoicates. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Green, A.(1993). Magnets Schools, Choice and the Politics of Policy Borrowing. Oxford Studies in Comparative Education, 3(1), 83-103. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Hanus, J.(1996).Public education:Two misconceptions. In J. Hanus & P. W.Cookson:Choosing Schools-Vouchers and American Education.Washington D. C. :American University Press. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Henig, J. R. (1994). Rethinking school choice.:limits of the market | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | metaphor. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Jacob, B. (2003). High stakes in Chicago. Retrieved February 11, 2004, from http://www.educationnext .org/20031/66.html | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Kirst, M. W. (2002). Mayoral influence, new regimes, and public school governance. Retrieved August 13, 2003, from http://www.ecs.org/ | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Lenz, L. (1995). The new law. Retrieved February 12, 2004, from http://www.catalyst-chicago.org/09-95/095upd82.htm | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Lenz, L. (1997). Punching up reform. Retrieved February 12, 2004, from http://www.catalyst-chicago.org/11-97/117punch.htm | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Levin, B., &Riffel, J. A. (1997). School system responses to external change : Implications for parental choice of schools. In R. Glatter, P.A. Woods & C. Bagley(Eds.), Choice and diversity In school, (pp. 44-58). London : Routlege. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Mossberger, K. (2001) . Policy Entrepreneurs and School Choice. The American Political Science Review, 95 (2), 482-483. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Nathan, J.(Eds.) (1989). Public school by choice. St. Paul : The institute | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | for Learning and Teaching. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Nelson, J. L., Carlson, K. &Palonsky, S. B.(3d Eds.) (1994). Critical | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | issue in education:A dialectic approach. New York:McGraw-Hill. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Olson, L. (1992, November 4). Open-enrollment survey finds modest effects in Minn. Retrieved August 29, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.edweek.org/ew/1992/09minn.h12 | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Peterson, P. E. (2001). Choice in American education. In T. M. Moe (Ed.), A primer on America’s schools (pp. 249-283). Stanford, CA: The Hoover Institution. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Pflepsen, A. (1999). LSCs lose 182 members who didn’t complete training.Retrieved March 12, 2004, from http://catalyst-chicago.org/05-99/059upd85.htm | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Powers, J.M. &Cookson, P. W. (1999). The politics of school choice research : Facts, fiction, and statistics. Education policy, 13(1), 104-122. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Raywid, M.A.(1988).Excellence and choice : friends or foes?Urban Review, 19(1), 39. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Reilly, D. H.,& Reilly, J. L.(1983). Alternative schools: Issues and directions. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 10, 89-98. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Reza, K. ,& Vassilis, S. M.(1988). Delphi hierarchy process(DHP): A methodology for priority satting derived from the Delphi method and analytical hierarchy process. European Journal of Operattional Research, 37, 347-354. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Rubenstein, M. C. (1992). Minnesota’s open enrollment option. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED353686) | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Tooley. H. (1997). Choice and diversity in education:A defence. Oxford Review Of Education,23(1), 103-115. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | U. S. Department of Education (1994). Magnet schools assistance program (CFDA No. 84.165). Washington D. C.:U. S. Department of Education. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | U. S. Department of Education (1997). Goals 2000:Educate America act. (on-line 1999/12/11)Available:http://www.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/The Act/ | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Walford, G. (1994). Choice and equity in education. London:Cassell. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Walford,G. & Carroll, S. (1996). The child’s voice in school choice, Educational. Management and Administration. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Walford, G.(1997). Diversity, Choice, and selection in England and Wales. Educational administration. 33(2), 158-169. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Weaver, T. (1992, June). Controlled choice: An alternative school choice plan. Retrieved May 5, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed344342.html | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Weiss, S. & Ziebarth, T. (2001). School-based management: Rhetoric vs. reality. Education Commission of States, 2(5). | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Whitty, G. & Edwards, T.(1998). School choice polities in England and the United States: An exploration of their origins and significance. Comparative Education, 34(2), 211-227. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | White, P. (1998).The new right and parental choice. Journal of Philosophy | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | of Education, 22(2), 195-200. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Wronkovich M. (2000). Will Character Schools Lead to a Systemic Reform of Public Education? American Secondary Education, Summer, 2000, 3-7. | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Wong, K. K. (2003). The big stick. Retrieved February 09, 2004, from http://www.educationnext.org/20031/44.html | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Young, T. W &Clinchy, E. (1992). Choice in public education.New York: | zh_TW |
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Columbia University. | zh_TW |