校務評鑑工作壓力探究-以特殊教育學校為例

Abstract

近年來廢除評鑑聲浪遍地烽火而起，不時充斥著各級教育現場，並將評鑑歸類為是拖垮教育現場沉重壓力，也因廢除評鑑口號延燒，使得校務評鑑這項政策更被放大檢視，逐步要求簡化減量及停止辦理。研究者仍認為校務評鑑存在必定有其良窳，因此本研究旨在探討校務評鑑工作壓力，在面臨評鑑時其壓力來源及成因，或者所認為衍生評鑑合理與不合理之壓力，據以綜整相關問題，期許以解決校務評鑑之困境。本研究先探討校務評鑑之意涵、理論基礎，其次分析歷年特教學校校務評鑑著重之處，藉以綜整整體評鑑之用意，並歸納評鑑所帶來之合理效益。然而有正即有反，並再藉由學校執行評鑑狀況來分析評鑑所帶來之問題，最後以教師常見工作壓力及評鑑相關壓力，歸納出執行評鑑時可能所衍生壓力情況，並以「特殊教育學校校務評鑑」為例，運用訪談法蒐集實證資料，受訪學校數共計12所，受訪人員計18名，其中包含校長、一級主管、組長、特殊教育相關專業人員、教師等，橫跨學校各階層之心聲。 研究結果發現如下： 一、壓力來源及成因部分為1.評鑑準備工作：如領導及分工協調失衡、評鑑期間衍生額外工作、指標設計不當、爭取校內配合及評鑑設計未考量學校條件不一。2.評鑑結果壓力：如自我要求成績期待及上級成績要求上壓力。3.不可控制壓力：如政策朝令夕改、簡化減量政策未能奏效、評鑑過於頻繁衍生學校壓力及行政大量輪替造成銜接斷層。 二、合理壓力在於：評鑑讓學校持續保持動態與精進、協助學校發現問題以符應規定、展現學校辦理歷程及成果、可讓學校借力使力要求內部改善、實際帶來合理且正面助益、成績肯定學校、可作為改善學校問題提升績效及主管機關運用評鑑來合理督促辦學狀況。 三、不合理壓力在於：檢視資料所呈現角度不同、評鑑共識不一致時增添校方負擔、不合理時間安排難以呈現學校辦學、評鑑者對學校熟稔程度將影響客觀性、評鑑者要考量因地制宜特殊性或建議可行性、建議與追蹤評鑑不同調、單方面證據即決定此學校辦學良窳、錯誤展現評鑑用意、教師對校務評鑑認知不清、不明確指令與不合理分工。 最後，依據結果及訪談之相關建議，綜整提出對評鑑制度、主管機關及學校端之建議。

In recent years, there have been repeated calls to abolish school evaluation on all levels of the education scene while evaluation is categorized as the detrimental pressure that wallops the education scene, and given the inundated calls for abolishing evaluations, the school evaluation policy has come under scrutiny for gradual simplification, and ultimately, termination. The researcher believes that the presence of school evaluation indeed has its pros and cons; therefore, this research is aimed at studying the work-related pressure in school evaluation, and the source and the cause of the pressure when facing with evaluation work, or the consequent reasonable and unreasonable pressured stemmed from the evaluation work, before consolidating relevant issues, in the hope of resolving the dire situation of school evaluation.This research first studies the meaning and the theoretical foundation of school evaluation before analyzing the emphasis of school evaluation in special education schools over the years to consolidate the intention behind the overall evaluation, hence compile the reasonable benefits brought about by evaluation. However, adversely, through the implementation of school evaluation, problems generated by the evaluations are analyzed, and lastly, the possible sources of pressures from implementedevaluations are induced, and with the case study of “The School Evaluation of Special Education School,” interview methods are adopted to collect empirical data from 18 interviewees of 12 schools, comprised of feedback from different levels of school staffs such as principals, senior supervisors, department leaders, special-education professionals, and teachers, etc.The findings from the research result are as follows:

The sources and causes of the pressure are, firstly, evaluation preparation work such as an imbalance in leadership and workload assignment coordination, additional workload stemmed from the evaluation period, improper design of the indicators, school support, and evaluations designed with the oversight of varying conditions within the school, and secondly, The pressure from evaluation results, such as expectations for individual grades and grading by standards set by the supervisors, and thirdly, The pressure beyond individual control, such as constant policy shifts, ineffective simplification, and load-reducing policy, pressure from overly frequent evaluations, and transition gaps due to massive administration turn-over rate.The rational/(reasonable) pressure stems from the fact that evaluations allow schools to maintain their positive dynamics and pursuit of excellence, assist schools to discover problems for protocol compliance, articulate schooling process and results, allow schools to leverage for internal improvements, and actually bring rational yet positive benefits and grades to reaffirm the excellence of the school, as an effective mean to improve school problems by elevating performance, as well as for administrative authority to use evaluations to monitor school operations rationally.The irrational/(unreasonable) pressure stems from the difference of angles presented by data inspected, the lack of consensus in evaluations which add loads to the school, irrational time arrangement doing no justice to the integrity of school operations, the objectivity compromised by the level of familiarity of the evaluating officials with school operation, the need for evaluating officials to consider the particular local conditions and recommendation feasibility, the different viewpointsbetween recommendations and follow-up evaluations, one-sided sampling evidence in determining the merit of the school operation, misrepresentation of the intended purposes of the evaluations, teachers’ lack of understanding of school evaluation, unclear instructions, and unreasonable assignment of responsibilities.Lastly, the recommendations based on the findings and interview results are consolidated and raised as recommendations for the evaluation policy, governing authority, and school.