完全中學校務評鑑之研究－以臺北縣為例

Abstract

本研究旨在瞭解臺北縣立完全中學校務評鑑實施現況，進一步分析探討不同背景變項受試者，對於校務評鑑看法之差異情形，並探究造成看法差異的影響因素。 採用問卷調查法，以臺北縣13所完全中學校長、兼職行政人員、一般教師為主要研究對象，採取「普查」（census）及分層隨機抽樣(stratified random sampling)的方式，樣本460人。 問卷調查所得資料採用SPSS for Windows 12.0中文版套裝軟體程式進行統計分析，且以單因子變異數分析(one-way ANOVA)考驗不同背景變項下的差異情形，並以薛費法(scheff’e method)進行事後比較，考驗各組間差異之顯著性。 根據研究結果的分析與討論，本研究獲得以下結論： 壹、有關校務評鑑目的和功能方面 一、不同背景變項之學校教育工作人員認為絶大部分能達成校務評鑑的目的和功 能。 二、年齡愈大之學校教育工作人員，愈肯定能達成校務評鑑的目的和功能。 三、一般教師較不認為校務評鑑可以充分回應社會大眾對完全中學辦學之期望。 四、規模愈小學校對於校務評鑑目的和功能之達成愈肯定。 五、不同背景變項之學校教育工作人員對於作為校長遴選參考之目的和功能皆無 特別的看法。 貳、有關校務評鑑實施過程與方式方面 一、不同背景變項之學校教育工作人員認為校務評鑑實施過程與方式大致符合評 鑑要求及適切。 二、年齡愈大之學校教育工作人員，愈肯定校務評鑑實施過程與方式能達成評鑑 要求及適切。 三、一般教師較不認同校務評鑑實施過程與方式充分達到評鑑要求及適切。 四、規模愈小學校對於校務評鑑實施過程與方式之達到評鑑要求及適切愈肯定。 參、有關校務評鑑內容和指標方面 一、不同背景變項之學校教育工作人員認為校務評鑑的內容和指標大致適切。 二、年齡愈大之學校教育工作人員，愈肯定校務評鑑內容和指標的適切度，惟對 是否達到評鑑要求則無顯著差異。 三、學校行政工作人員皆肯定校務評鑑的內容和指標，尤其主任的認同度最高。 四、規模愈小學校對於校務評鑑的內容和指標愈肯定。 肆、有關校務評鑑結果報告與運用方面 一、不同背景變項之學校教育工作人員，普遍認為校務評鑑結果報告與運用尚能 符合評鑑之要求。 二、年齡愈大之學校教育工作人員，愈肯定評鑑報告能反映學校辦學狀況。 三、一般教師較不認為校務評鑑結果報告與運用能充分達到評鑑之要求。 四、規模愈小學校對於校務評鑑結果報告與運用愈肯定。 五、對於做為經費補助之依據、向社會大眾傳達辦學績效之運用，學校教育工作 人員未予高度之肯定。 六、對於評鑑報告公布前能提供受評學校更正說明機會和實施追蹤輔導，學校教 育工作人員未予高度之肯定。 七、對於評鑑結果作為校長遴選之參考，學校教育工作人員未予特別的認同。 伍、就校務評鑑整體方面來說 一、不同背景變項之學校教育工作人員，對於校務評鑑的實施，一致持正面肯定 的看法。 二、性別、學歷背景變項下的學校教育工作人員，對於校務評鑑實施各面向之看 法，皆無顯著之差異。 三、年齡愈大之學校教育工作人員，對於校務評鑑之實施愈肯定。 四、一般教師對校務評鑑實施的肯定度最低。 五、規模愈小學校對於校務評鑑實施的肯定度愈高。 根據研究所得結論，本研究分別對教育行政機關、受評學校提出下列建議： 壹、對教育行政機關的建議 一、評鑑宜視學校規模，調整評鑑內容過程，增進校務評鑑效能。 二、成立評鑑專責機構，邀請學校主任參與，建構適當評鑑指標。 三、謹慎整理評鑑結果，提供學校更正說明，以求評鑑報告真實。 四、確實運用評鑑報告，協助學校校務發展，回應社會大眾期望。 五、建立追蹤評鑑制度，落實評後持續輔導，完整校務評鑑歷程。 貳、對受評學校的建議 一、宣導評鑑正確觀念，加強一般教師認知，達成評鑑目的功能。 二、規劃評鑑前置作業，強化分工經驗傳承，有助評鑑順利實施。 三、落實學校本位評鑑，提供自我檢思機會，增進自我評鑑效能。 四、建置標準作業程序，資料檔案e化管理，輕鬆準備持續評鑑。 五、虛心檢視評鑑結果，提昇學校教學效能，開創學校教育新局。

This research tends to comprehend the status quo of school administration evaluation (SAE) in complete high schools in Taipei County, and further examine with variables the different viewpoints of the objects that resulted from diverse backgrounds, before locating the factors that affect postures. Questionnaires based on census and stratified cluster random samplings were majorly circulated to 460 persons in 13 complete high schools, targeting principals, pluralistic staff, and teachers in this research. The data obtained from those responded were statistically analyzed through Chinese software version of SPSS for Windows 12.0 and examined with one-way ANOVA the varieties resulted in different background variables before ex post facto comparisons among groups were completed by way of scheffe’ method for conspicuous varieties. After analyses and discussions on the results, this research concludes as below: I. With Regard to Purposes& Functions of School Administration Evaluation 1. Those with different background variables conformably hold that most purposes and functions of SAE may be achieved. 2. Degrees of purpose and function achievements of SAE go with the seniority of the school teachers. 3. General teachers do not presume that school administration evaluation echo the public expectation towards the running of complete high schools. 4. Affirmation degrees against SAE purpose and function achievements go with the smaller scales of schools. 5. No special viewpoints found in taking different background variable as purpose and function references for selection of principals. II. With Regard to Process& Methods of School Administration Evaluation 1. Those of different background variables commonly regard that process and methods of SAE conform to evaluation requirements and appropriateness. 2. The older educational workers answer in more affirmative the process and methods of SAE in achieving the requirements and appropriateness of evaluation. 3. General teachers comparatively deny that process and methods of SAE completely meet requirements and appropriateness of evaluation. 4. Degrees ofaffirmation on achieving SAE requirements and appropriateness of process and methods go oppositely against degradation of school scales. III. With Regard to Contents& Indexes of School Administration Evaluation 1. Those with different background variables commonly deem that contents and indexes of SAE meet roughly levels of adaptability and requirements of evaluation. 2. The older educational staff more appraises the contents of SAV and appropriateness of the indexes, but no clear differences are found regarding whether evaluation requirements are achieved. 3. School administrative personnel approve the contents and indexes of SAE, and prefects especiallytop among which in this regard. 4. Schools of smaller scales affirm the contents& indexes of the SAE better. IV. With Regard to Results & Applications of School Administration Evaluation 1. Those with different background variables commonly think SAE result reports and application of which roughly meet requirements of evaluation. 2. Older educational workers answer more affirmatively that results of evaluation reflect situation of school running better. 3. General teachers comparatively do not deem that result reports of SAE and application of which may fully meet requirements of evaluation. 4. Schools of smaller schools affirm the result reports of SAE and application of which better. 5. School educational staff does not highly approve conducts of applying for expense subsidies, or for transmitting schooling merits to the public based on which. 6. School educational staff does not highly affirm conducts of offering no chances for afterward explanations or tracing counseling to schools being evaluated prior to publish of evaluation reports. 7. School staff does not specially ratify the using of evaluation results as references for selecting principals. V. With Regard to the Evaluation as a Whole 1. Those with different background variables unanimously answer in the affirmative on the implementation of SAZ. 2. No distinct viewpoints towards SAE are found in various spheres among educational workers under variables of genders or school record backgrounds. 3. Affirmation degrees on performance of SAE go up by seniority gradation of school educational workers. 4. General teachers affirm the performance of SAE least. 5. Better affirmation on the performance of SAE goes up against degradation of smaller school scales. According to the conclusions, this research suggests respectively as below: I. Suggestions to Administration Organs 1. For better SAE efficiency, school scales should be considered of, and contents or process evaluations should be adjusted. 2. To establish special organs for evaluation, invite school prefects to join in, and constitute proper evaluation indexes. 3. To discretely manage evaluation results, to offer schools chances for corrections or explanations for authentic evaluation reports. 4. To prudently apply evaluation results for improvement of school administration. 5. To build up evaluation tracing systems, continuously realize post-evaluation counseling, and complete SAE courses. II. Suggestions to Schools Being Evaluated 1. To advocate correct notions of SAE, strengthen teachers cognition, and to achieve purposes and functions of evaluation. 2. To regulate work prior to SAE, intensify labor division and experience impartment to smoothen performance of evaluation. 3. To put into effect school- egoistical evaluation to get self-examination chances and to upgrade self-evaluation efficiency. 4. To frame standard operational procedure, to work on computerized management systems, and to prepare at ease for continuous SAE. 5. To modestly scrutinize evaluation results to promote school efficiency, and to inaugurate new educational prospects for schools.

Key words: school administration evaluation (SAE), evaluation, school efficiency, achievement responsibility, school-based