政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/112417

政大典藏 > College of Education > Graduate Institute of Educational Administration and Policy > Theses > Item 140.119/112417

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/112417

Title:	臺灣偏鄉小學辦理學校型態實驗教育校務行政變革之個案研究 Case Study of School Administration Reform on Public Experimental Elementary Schools
Authors:	謝秉蓉 Hsieh, Ping Jung
Contributors:	陳榮政 Robin J. Chen 謝秉蓉 Hsieh, Ping Jung
Keywords:	學校型態實驗教育偏鄉小學校務行政變革 School-based experimental education Rural elementary schools School administration reform
Date:	2017
Issue Date:	2017-08-31 12:25:05 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	隨著實驗教育三法的通過，公立學校發展實驗教育的新型態─「學校型態實驗教育」為偏鄉學校提供另類轉型的契機與出路。在《學校型態實驗教育實施條例》中，明文規定辦理此類實驗教育之學校可針對學校部分校務行政事項進行實驗，不受一般教育法規的限制。本研究旨在探討原本在面臨困境的臺灣公立偏鄉小學，在辦理實驗教育後在校務行政的運作有何實際的轉變與改進，並藉此了解學校型態實驗教育政策的內涵。本研究透過深度訪談及田野調查之質性研究方法，探究偏鄉小學辦理學校型態實驗教育之校務行政變革與挑戰，得到的研究結論如下：（一）主管機關針對學校型態實驗教育政策無明確發展之目標；（二）辦理學校型態實驗教育之偏鄉小學行政業務量整體而言不減反增；（三）偏鄉小學部分行政業務並沒有因為辦理實驗教育而得到彈性發展的空間；（四）偏鄉小學因辦理學校型態實驗教育逐漸活絡校內課程討論與教學經驗分享的氛圍；（五）學校行政人員與教師在使用特定理念的教學方法時，面臨許多實際面上執行的困境，與主管機關所期望之理想情況有落差；（六）家長不夠清楚實驗教育的內涵，容易對實驗教育抱有過高的期望。最後，針對這些上述歸納之研究結論，提出對於主管機關實施學校型態實驗教育政策以及未來學校型態實驗教育相關研究的建議。 As the Three-type acts of experimental education passed, the new type of experimental education for public schools－" Enforcement Act for School-based Experimental Education" encourages rural schools to change and transform. In "Enforcement Act for School-based Experimental Education," the act also expressly indicates that some administrative affairs of these school-based experimental schools could be experimented, not confined to normal education legislation. The aim of this study was to explore how school administration of Taiwan public rural elementary schools, which originally faced with challenges, actually change and improve, and to understand the school-based experimental education policy. Qualitative research method including an in-depth interview and field work were adopted to collect the data and to investigate how school administration change and what challenges they face. The conclusion of this study are as follow: (a) the authorities have no clear developmental aim on school-based experimental education policy, (b) on the whole, the amount of administration affairs for school-based experimental schools isn`t less than before, is much more than before, rather, (c) part of administration affairs still have no flexible room for development, (d) the atmosphere of curriculum discussion and teaching experience share become more active, (e) specified teaching method used by school administrators and teachers is practically difficult, and doesn`t meet expectations of the authorities, (f) parents who don`t clearly comprehend the content of experimental education, tend to highly overestimate it. Finally, suggestions are given to the authorities and future researchers to improve the school-based experimental education according to conclusions above.
Reference:	壹、中文文獻王雅惠（2007）。覺醒與爭權的社會行動--另類學校家長教育選擇權意識之個案研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立政治大學，臺北市。王慧蘭（2017）。偏鄉與弱勢？法規鬆綁、空間治理與教育創新的可能。教育研究集刊，63(1)，109-119。王耀生（1997）。新制度主義。臺北市：揚智文化。伍振鷟、林逢祺、黃坤錦、蘇永明（2014）。教育哲學。臺北市：五南。吳清山（1994）。學校行政。臺北市：心理。吳清山（2015）。「實驗教育三法」的重要內涵與策進作為。教育研究月刊，258， 42‒57。吳清山、林天祐（2011）。教育e辭書。臺北市：智勝。吳清山、蔡菁芝（2006）。英美兩國教育績效責任之比較分析及其啟示。教育科學研究期刊，51(1)，1-21。李寶琳（2014）。美國《不讓任何孩子落後》法案政策之績效責任探討與省思。臺北市立大學學報，45(1)，1-20。汪子錫（2012）。憲政體制與人權保障。桃園：中央警察大學。林玉体（1999）。西洋教育史。臺北市：師大書苑。林志成、陳文進（2005）。教改思潮下學校組織發展與管理之因應。中華技術學院學報，33，157-175。林佩璇（2004）。學校本位課程─發展與評鑑。臺北市：學富文化。林佳誼（2014）。以新制度主義分析學校組織、組織行動者與組織環境關係之個案研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。林奎燮（2003）。新制度主義及其在中國大陸研究上的意義。展望與探索，1(11)，94-111。唐宗浩（2006）。關於台灣的另類教育。載於唐宗浩、李雅卿、陳念萱（主編），另類教育在臺灣（19-38頁）。臺北市：唐山。孫本初（2011）。新公共管理。臺北市：一品。徐宗林、周愚文（1997）。教育史。臺北市：五南。徐宗國（2005）。質性研究概論。臺北市：巨流圖書。秦夢群（2013）。教育領導理論與應用。臺北市：五南。秦夢群（2015）。教育選擇權研究。臺北市：五南。馬廣亨（1973）。教育上的新觀念－績效責任（Accountability）。師友月刊，77，23-24。張明輝 (1997)。美國磁性學校計劃與中小學學校教育革新，載於磁性中學學術研討會手冊（頁56-67）。臺北市：國立臺灣師範大學。張明輝 (1998)。學校行政革新專輯。臺北市：師大。張明輝（1999）。學校教育與行政革新研究。臺北市：師大。張添洲（2005）。學校本位課程實務。臺北市：五南。張慶勳（2014）。ㄧ所新創民主教育理念小學的個案研究，教育研究月刊，241，16-33。教育部（2015）。偏鄉教育創新發展方案。取自https://goo.gl/9Z7fnr 教育部（2016）。偏遠地區學校振興條例草案總說明。取自https://goo.gl/25W821 梁福鎮(2013)。比較教育學：起源、內涵與問題的探究。臺北市：五南。郭碧祝、陳秀婷（2009）。提升國小四年級學生過程技能的主題式教學活動。屏東教育大學學報：教育類，33，365-396。陳世聰（2016）。學校型態實驗教育品質確保與績效評估。教育研究月刊，268，39-53。陳向明（2009）。社會科學質的研究。臺北市：五南。陳幸仁、王雅玄（2007）。偏遠小校發展社區關係與組織文化之優勢：以一所國中為例。臺東大學教育學報，18(2)，1-30。陳俞均（2007）。主題教學的合作學習在「表現技法」課中之教學設計與成果分析。臺北市立教育大學學報，38(1)，71-96。陳建銘（2004）。學校組織變革及其因應策略。學校行政雙月刊，32，43-55。陳惠邦（2003）。華德福學校教育學的現代意義，載於藝術與人文領域教學理論與實務學術研討會手冊。新竹市：國立新竹師範學院。陳雅慧（2017）。實驗教育大爆發。親子天下，87，72-75。陳聖謨（2012）。偏鄉人口結構變化與小學教育發展關係：以雲林縣濱海鄉鎮為例。教育資料與研究，106，23-56。陳錫珍（2002）。學校領導與學校本位經營之生態觀─理論與實務之反思。載於陳伯璋、許添明（主編），學校本位經營的理念與實務（83-104頁）。臺北市：高等教育。彭煥勝（2009）。美國羅德島州公立學校教育體系的源起與H. Barnard的教育作為（1800-1849）。教育研究集刊，55(3)，29-65。程方平、畢誠（1996）。中國教育史。臺北市：文津。程晏鈴（2015年8月28日）。275所小學的小校保衛戰。天下雜誌。2017年3月3日，取自http://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5070399 馮朝霖（2006）。另類教育與二十一世紀改革的趨勢。研習資訊，23(3)，5-12。黃克先（譯）（2011）。自由之夏（原作者：Doug McAdam）。新北市：群學。黃秋鳳（譯）（2007）。圖解世界近現代史(原作者：宮崎正勝)。臺北市：易博士文化。楊振昇（2009）。教育行政組織變革與發展。載於張鈿富（主編），教育行政：理念與創新（1-23頁）。臺北市：高等教育。葉坤靈（2010）。美國進步主義教育運動（1919-1955）與中等教育改革之影響。教育資料集刊，46，137-162。詹志禹、吳璧純（2015）。偏鄉教育創新發展。教育研究月刊，258，32-45。劉佳宜（2011）。非學校型態實驗教育機構辦學現況之研究－以臺灣中部四所實驗教育機構為例（未出版之碩士論文）。淡江大學，新北市。潘淑滿（2003）。質性研究：理論與應用。臺北市：心理。鄭玉卿（2015）。近代英國新教育運動的重要發展與特色。教育學刊，44，1-36。鄭同僚（2008）。偏遠地區小學再生之研究。教育部國民教育司研究報告（PG9607-0031）。臺北市：國立政治大學教育系。賴映潔、曾采薇、王世傑、蕭堯、許韋婷、黃崇祐、韓必忠、柯緯倫（2010）。圖解政治學。臺北市：易博士文化、城邦文化。薛曉華（譯）（2002）。學習自由的國度─另類理念學校在美國的實踐(原作者：R. E. Koetzsch)。臺北市：高等教育。(原作者出版年：1997) 謝文豪（2006）。學校組織變革動力的意義及影響因素。教育研究月刊，144，35-45。謝傳崇、曾煥淦（2016）。偏鄉公立學校之轉型新路？解析《學校型態實驗教育實施條例》。學校行政雙月刊，106，157-177。簡宗德（2016）。小型學校整併之政策分析。臺灣教育評論月刊，5(4)，33-38。顏秀如（2003）。論新公共管理(NPM)及其對台灣中小學教育改革之啟示。教育政策論壇，6(1)，93-108。顏國樑（2013）。美國《不讓一位孩子落後法》政策執行：成效、爭議與啟示。教育研究月刊，226，130-147。顧瑜君（2002）。學校本位課程與教師專業成長。載於陳伯璋、許添明（主編），學校本位經營的理念與實務（229-253頁）。臺北市：高等教育。貳、外文文獻 Ambrosio, J. (2013). Changing the subject: Neoliberalism and accountability in public education. Educational Studies, 49(4), 316-333. doi:10.1080/00131946.2013.783835 Apple, M. W. (2010). Global crises, social justice, and education. New York, NY: Routledge. Armenakis, A. A. & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25, 293-315. Aron, L.Y. (2006). An overview of alternative education. The Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411283_alternative_education.pdf Ashley, M. (2009). Education for freedom: The goal of Stiner/ Waldorf schools. In Woods, P. A., & Woods, G. J. (Eds.), Alternative education for the 21st century. (pp. 209-225). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Baker, S. (2015). Desegregation, minimum competency testing, and the origins of accountability: North Carolina and the nation. History of Education Quarterly, 55(1), 33-57. doi:10.1111/hoeq.12091 Bickman, M. (2003). Minding American education: Reclaiming the tradition of active learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Blok, H., & Karsten, S. (2011). Inspection of home education in European countries. European Journal of Education, 46(1), 138-152. Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, E. (2005). The new spirit of capitalism. London, England: Verso. Bolstad, R. (2004). School based curriculum development: Redefining the term for New Zealand schools today and tomorrow. Retrieved from http://www.nzcer.org.nz/pdfs/13514.pdf Both, K. (2002). Jenaplanschools in the Netherlands and their international relationships: An overview – JUNE 2004 (draft-version). Retrieved from http://jenaplan-heute.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/mat40-Jenaplanschools-in-the-Netherlands...international.pdf Bowen, J. (2003). A history of western education. New York, NY: Routledge. Cable, K. E., Plucker, J. A., & Spradlin, T. E. (2009). Alternative schools: What`s in a name? Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED510969) Cassebaum, A. (2003, April). Revisiting Summerhill. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(8), 575-578. Conner, C. J., & Bohan, C. H. (2014). The Second World War`s impact on the progressive educational movement: Assessing its role. Journal of Social Studies Research, 38(2), 91-102. doi:10.1016/j.jssr.2013.10.003 Cremin, L. A. (1965). The genius of American education. Pennsylvania, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57-74. Flynn, N. (2000). Managerialism and public service: Some international trends. In Clarke, J., Gewirtz, S & McLaughlin, E. (Eds.), New managerialism, new welfare? (pp. 27-44). London, Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE. Green, D. (2014). Freedom schools for the twenty-first century. Western Journal of Black Studies, 38(3), 163-176. Gruening, G. (2001). Origin and theoretical basis of new public management. International Public Management, 4, 1-25. Hale, J. N. (2011). The freedom schools, the Civil Rights movement, and refocusing the goals of American education. Journal of Social Studies Research, 35(2), 259-276. Harris, M. M., & Miller, J. R. (2005). Needed: Reincarnation of national defense education act of 1958. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(2), 157-171. doi:10.1007/s10956-005-4419-1 Hess, F.M., & Petrilli, M. J. (2006). No child left behind primer. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Hodgman, M. (2016). The history of youth academy within the context and history of alternative schooling. Journal of Unschooling and Alternative Learning, 10(19), 28-47. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3-19. Ilica, A. (2016). On John Dewey’s philosophy of education and its impact in contemporary education. Journal Plus Education, 14(1), 7-13. Jeremy, R., Danielle, B., & Stacey, B. (2016). Homeschooling in the United States: 2012. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016096.pdf Jolly, J. L. (2009). The national defense education act, current STEM initiative, and the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 32(2), 50-53. Koops, W. (2012). Jean Jacques Rousseau, modern developmental psychology, and education. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(sup1), 46-56. doi:10.1080/17405629.2012.730996 Koretz, D. (2008). The pending reauthorization of NCLB: An opportunity to rethink the basic strategy. In Sunderman, G. L. (Eds.), Holding NCLB accountable: Achieving accountability, equity, & school reform (pp. 9-26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Korzenik, D. (1984). Francis Wayland Parker`s vision of the arts in education. Theory into Practice, 23(4), 288-292. Lange, C. M., & Sletten, S. J. (2002). Alternative education: A brief history and synthesis. Retrieved from http://alternatyvusisugdymas.lt/uploads/2009/12/alternative_ed_history.pdf Lehman, D. (1994). Public alternative schools and program. In Mintz, J., Solomon R., & Solomon, S. (Eds.), The handbook of alternative education. (pp. 12-14). New York, NY: Macmillan. Leiding, D. (2008). The hows and whys of alternative education. Maryland, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Leithwood, K., & Menzies, T. (1998). A review of research concerning the implementation of site-based management. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(3), 233–285. Lillard, A. S. (2007). Montessori: The science behind the genius. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Linick, M., & Lubienski, C. (2013). How charter schools do, and don`t, inspire change in traditional public school districts. Childhood Education, 89(2), 99-104. Little, T. (2013). 21st century learning and progressive education: An intersection. International Journal of Progressive Education, 9(1), 84-96. Lynch, K, (2012). On the market: Neoliberalism and new managerialism in Irish education. Social Justice Series, 12(5), 88-102. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1984). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. The American Political Science Review. 78(3), 734-749. Marsh, C., Day, C., Hannay, L., & McCutcheon, G. (1990). Reconceptualising school-based curriculum development. London: The Falmer Press. Meyer, H. D., & Rowan, B. (2006). Institutional analysis and the study of education. In Meyer, H. D., & Rowan, B. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education. (pp. 1-13). New York, NY: State University of New York Press, Albany. Monica, C. (2015). Teacher training models for the Jena plan. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 774-779. Ng, P. T., & Chan, D. (2008). A comparative study of Singapore’s school excellence model with Hong Kong’s school-based management. The International Journal of Educational Management, 22(6), 488–505. OECD. (2012). Inventory case study: The Jenaplan school of Jena. Thuringia: OECD, Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. Okoro, C. O., & Okoro, C. U. (2016). Teachers’ understanding and use of thematic approach in teaching and learning of social studies in rivers state. International Journal of Education, Learning and Development, 4(3), 64-69. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Ostrom, V. (1975). Public choice theory: A new approach to institutional economics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57(5), 844-850 Owens, R. G., & Valesky, T. C. (2011). Organizational behavior in education: Leadership and school reform. Boston, MA: Pearson. Power, E. J. (1991). A legacy of learning: A history of western education. New York, NY: SUNY Press. Raywid, M. A. (1994). Alternative schools: The state of the art. Educational Leadership, 52(1), 26-31. Rivero, L. (2008). The homeschooling option. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Rowan, B. (2006). The new institutionalism and the study of educational organizations: Changing ideas for changing times. In Meyer, H. D., & Rowan, B. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education. (pp. 15-32). New York, NY: State University of New York Press, Albany. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Seldin, T. (1994). My children taught me how to teach them: Montessori schools. In Mintz, J., Solomon R., & Solomon, S. (Eds.), The handbook of alternative education. (pp. 12-14). New York, NY: Macmillan. Sliwka, A. (2008, May). The contribution of alternative education. Paper prepared for the conference on learning in the 21st Century: Research, innovation and policy, OECD, Paris. Schmitt, N. C. (2010). Francis Wayland Parker’s morning exercise and the progressive movement. American Educational History Journal, 37(1/2), 109-127. UNESCO. (2013). Practical tips for teaching multigrade classes. Bangkok: UNESCO, Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education. Vogt, M. E. (1997). Cross-curricular thematic instruction. Retrieved from http://www.eduplace.com/rdg/res/vogt.html. Vries, J. (2010). “Is new public management really dead?” OECD Journal on Budgeting, 1, 1-5. Weilera, M. (1984). The rhetoric of neo‐liberalism. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(4), 362-378. Wells, A. S. (2009). “Our children’s burden”: A history of federal education policies that ask (now require) our public schools to solve societal inequality. In Rebell, M. A., & Wolff, J. R. (Eds.), NCLB at the crossroads: Reexamining the federal effort to close the achievement gap. (pp. 1-42). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Yilmaz, D., & Kilicoglu, G. (2013). Organizational change process: A study in Turkish primary public schools. Educational Planning, 21(2), 19–39. Zuckerman, M. (2012). Rousseau, the enlightenment and early American education. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(sup1), 18-31.
Description:	碩士國立政治大學教育行政與政策研究所 103171009
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1031710091
Data Type:	thesis
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute of Educational Administration and Policy] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Size	Format
009101.pdf	2688Kb	Adobe PDF2	475	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...