臺北市推動優質學校教育政策之研究

Abstract

本研究旨在探討臺北市優質學校教育政策之推動情形。本研究之目的為:一、探討優質學校與優質學校教育政策之意涵。二、瞭解臺北市推動優質學校教育政策之過程。三、分析臺北市推動優質學校教育政策之相關問題。四、根據研究結果,提出相關建議,供有關單位及人員之參考。 為達上述研究目的,本研究採用問卷調查法與訪談法進行研究,首先,蒐集與研讀相關文獻,建立本研究的理論架構,編製「臺北市推動優質學校教育政策現況調查問卷」,作為調查研究工具,對臺北市高中職、國中、國小的校長、處室主任與處室組長進行調查,採分層隨機抽樣方式,抽取70所學校,共發出700份問卷,回收問卷計445份,問卷回收率達63.57%,剔除填答不全等無效問卷後,有效問卷為432份,有效問卷回收率為61.85%。本研究以 SPSS for Windows 11.01統計套裝軟體進行資料登錄與分析;其次,以自編之半結構訪談大綱,對一位臺北市政府教育局行政主管、兩位教師研習中心人員、三位教育研究發展委員會人員、一位專家學者、高中職、國中、國小校長各一位,共計十位進行訪談。 綜合文獻探討、調查研究與訪談研究發現,獲得下列十一項結論: 一、臺北市優質學校教育政策制訂過程符合教育政策制訂的原則。 二、整體而言,臺北市各級學校對於推動優質學校教育政策的現況知覺屬於中度水準。 三、不同學校屬性學校成員對優質學校教育政策推動現況之角色知覺並無顯著差異。 四、不同的性別、職務、服務年資、教育程度、學校類別、學校規模學校成員對優質學校教育政策推動現況之角色知覺有顯著差異。 五、校長知覺優質學校教育政策的現況高於處室主任、處室主任知覺情形又高於處室組長。 六、國小之學校成員知覺優質學校教育政策的現況高於高中職之學校成員。 七、各級學校推動優質學校教育政策面臨的主要困難為「無法正確認知優質學校教育精神與內涵」、「同仁業務繁重,無暇從事優質學校教育的推展工作」、「教師沒有足夠的時間參與優質學校經營的研討」。 八、各級學校推動優質學校教育政策面臨的困境,處室組長知覺情顯著高於校長與處室主任。 九、各級學校推動優質學校教育政策主要因應策略為「協助學校辦理優質學校教育相關活動」、「建立同仁推行優質學校教育政策的共識」、「鼓勵教師參與優質學校教育的相關研習活動」。 十、各級學校推動優質學校教育政策之因應策略,校長知覺情顯著高於處室主任與處室組長。 十一、各級學校推動優質學校教育政策之因應策略,公私立學校知覺情形有所不同。
The objectives of this research are: first, to explore the meaning of Quality School and the educational policy of Quality School; second, to understand the process of the educational policy of Quality School; third, .to analyze the problems in the executing educational policy of Quality School; and finally, to provide suggestions for improving implementing the education policy of quality school. The methods adopted for the research was questionnaire survey and interview. First, based on the results drawn from the literature review, a questionnaire named “The questionnaire for implementing the education policy of quality school “was developed. Questionnaires were delivered to 70 schools in Taipei City in the form of multistage sampling, each school for ten samples. 432 out of the 700 questionnaires sent out were effective. The statistics software tool used for the questionnaire analysis was the SPSS for Windows version 11.01. Second, six administrators were chosen to be interviewed in the way of semi-structure interview, including one professor and three principals. The conclusions derived from the literature review, the questionnaire survey, and interview on implementing the educational policy of Quality School are as follows: 1. The process of implementing the educational policy of Quality School in Taipei City corresponds to the principles resulting from the educational olicy-making. 2. Generally speaking, staffs’ role perception of implementing the educational policy of Quality School in Taipei City shows medium-leveled quality. 3. There is no significant difference toward the role perception of implementing the educational policy of Quality School between the staffs from public school and those from private schools. 4. There is significant difference toward the role perception of implementing the educational policy of Quality School between the staffs’ gender, current position, seniority, education level, school level and school scale, and their role perception of implementing the educational policy of Quality School. 5. Principals’ perception of implementing the educational policy of Quality School is higher leveled than division directors’, and division directors’ perception is higher than section leaders’. 6. Elementary school staffs’ perception of the implementing the educational policy of Quality School is higher leveled than the staffs’ from senior high school and vocational high school. 7. The main dilemmas confronted by all levels of school toward implementing the educational policy of Quality School are “Be unable to recognize the essence and meaning of educational policy of Quality School”, “The staff are too overburdened to execute the process of Quality School”, and “The teachers don’t have enough time to engage in the research of Quality School Management.” 8. As to the dilemmas confronted by all levels of school toward implementing the educational policy of Quality School, the crisis perception of section leaders is higher leveled than that of division directors, or of principals. 9. The main measures of dealing with the crises are “Assist the school to execute the process of Quality School”, “Establish the consensus to carry out the policy of Quality School”, “Encourage teachers to participate in the workshop of Quality School”. 10. As to perceiving the measures of dealing with the crises, the perception of principals is higher leveled than that of division directors, or of section leaders. 11. There is no significant difference toward perceiving the measures of dealing with the crises between the staff of public school and those of private school.

Description

Keywords

優質學校, 優質學校教育政策, Quality School, educational policy of Quality School

Citation

Collections