臺北市優質學校評選機制之研究

Abstract

本研究旨在探究臺北市政府教育局於推動優質學校評選過程中，規劃研擬之相關辦法，並經由評選委員會之組成及初審、複審與決審選出優質學校，舉行頒獎典禮，及舉辦經驗分享研討會等實際運作機制。本研究之目的為：一、探討優質學校與優質學校評選之意涵。二、了解主要國家及地區之優質學校評選機制。三、探究臺北市優質學校評選機制之現況不同差異及其相關問題。四、根據研究結果，提出相關結論與建議，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、文件分析法及訪談法進行研究。首先，蒐集與研讀相關文獻，建立本研究的理論架構，編製「臺北市優質學校評選機制調查問卷」，作為調查研究工具，對臺北市公私立高中、高職、國中、國小之校長、主任、組長、教師進行調查，採多階段分層隨機抽樣方式，抽取101所學校，共計發出790份問卷，回收問卷計513份，問卷回收率達64.9％，剔除填答不全等無效問卷後，有效問卷為490份，有效問卷回收率為62％。本研究以SPSS for Windows 13.0版統計套裝軟體進行資料登錄，並於問卷回收後以描述統計分析、t考驗、單因子變異數分析、單因子多變量分析等統計方法進行資料分析；其次，以自編之半結構式訪談大綱，對五位教師研習中心人員、一位國中主任及一位國中校長，共計七位進行訪談。

綜合文獻探討、調查研究與訪談研究發現，獲得下列十四項結論： 一、不同教育程度、職務、學校性質、學校層級、服務年資及學校規模之學校 成員，對優質學校評選現況的認識、態度與行為之角色知覺有顯著差異存 在。 二、不同教育程度、職務、學校層級、服務年資及學校規模之學校成員在參與 優質學校評選相關具體作法之角色知覺有顯著差異存在。 三、不同職務、學校性質、學校層級、服務年資、學校規模及學校歷史的學校 成員在優質學校評選滿意程度之角色知覺有顯著差異存在。 四、參加優質學校評選的佐證資料以三年至四年為適宜。 五、參與優質學校評審委員，應以「專家學者」、「曾經獲得教育部卓越領導 獎的校長」、「教師會代表」等人員擔任主要的評審委員。 六、方案評選之評分標準維持現有評分標準為宜。 七、複審採取實地訪查可更為深入了解與觀摩學校的實際情形；決審採取學校 現場公開發表方案內容可更進一步了解各校之優質經驗。 八、優質學校評選向度與指標內容能引導學校校務規劃與遠景發展。 九、對於進入決審但未獲獎之參選方案可發給獎狀以資鼓勵。 十、對於未參選及未能獲獎之學校應持續鼓勵其參與並協助其改進。 十一、各校參與優質學校評選所遭遇的主要困難為：「同仁欠缺參與優質學校 評選活動的動機」、「無法明確掌握優質學校指標的意涵」及「欠缺外 部資源（如家長、社區）的協助」等。 十二、各校參與優質學校評選，在行政作業所遭遇的困難主要為「業務繁重， 無暇參與優質學校評選活動」、「學校無法提供參與優質學校評選的相 關誘因」及「學校人力不足無法參與優質學校評選」等。 十三、各校參與優質學校評選，在教師方面所遭遇的困難主要為「教師沒有足 夠時間參加優質學校評選的相關研討」、「教師欠缺參與優質學校評選 的熱忱」及「教師欠缺優質學校評選的專業知能」等。 十四、各校參與優質學校評選的配套措施，主要為「獎勵參與優質學校評選有 功人員以激勵其參與意願」、「配合校務評鑑進行準備工作」及「辦理 相關研習活動以提升成員專業知能」等。

根據本研究所獲得之結論，研究者針對教育行政機關、學校以及未來研究者提出相關建議。Abstract

The objectives of this research are: first, explored the meaning of Quality School and mechanism of evaluating Quality School; second, explored mechanism of evaluating Quality School of the main countries and areas; third, explored the current differences and problems in mechanism of evaluating Quality School ; and finally, based upon the research findings and conclusions, suggestions would be offered to the concerned authorities for reference.

The methods adopted for the research was questionnaire survey, document analysis and interview. First, based on the results drawn from the literature review, a questionnaire named “ The questionnaire for mechanism of evaluating Quality School in Taipei City” was developed. Questionnaires were delivered to 101 schools in Taipei City in the form of multistage sampling, each school for ten samples. 490 out of the 790 questionnaires sent out were effective. The statistics software tool used for the questionnaire analysis was the SPSS for Windows version 13.0. Second, seven people were chosen to be interviewed in the way of semi-structure interview, including five administrators , one principal and one director-general .

The conclusions derived from the literature review, the questionnaire survey, and interview on mechanism of evaluating Quality School are as follows:

1. There is significant difference toward the role perception on mechanism of evaluating the Quality School between the staffs’ evaluation level, current position, school character, school level, seniority and school scale and their role perception on mechanism of evaluating the Quality School. 2. There is significant difference toward the role perception on mechanism of evaluating the Quality School between the staffs’ evaluation level, current position, school level and school scale and their role perception on participating of evaluating the Quality School. 3. There is significant difference toward the role perception on mechanism of evaluating the Quality School between the staffs’ current position, school character, school level, seniority, school scale and school history and their role perception on the agreement of evaluating the Quality School. 4. It is proper that the projects’ effective time of Quality School’ evaluation needs three to four years. 5. The main evaluating Committee of the Quality School are professional scholars, being rewarded for excellent principals’ leadership of Ministry of Education, and teachers on behalf of teacher’s association. 6. It is proper that rating standard of the Quality School’s evaluation maintain the current rating standard. 7. Conducting the projects through interview can comprehend the practical situation ; besides, in final censorship, each school delivers the projects in public can help grasp each school’s excellent experience. 8. The dimensions and indicators of Quality School’s evaluation can conduct school administration plans and vision developments. 9. Each school which does not pass the final censorship can give a certificate of excellence. 10. Toward the schools which never participate and could not be rewarded should continue encouraging and assisting their improvements. 11.The main dilemmas confronted by all levels of school toward participating evaluation of Quality School are “ Be deficient in the motivation of participating evaluation of Quality School”, “The staffs can not grip the meaning of Quality School’ indicator.”, and “ Be deficient in the assistant of outside resources ( for example: parents and community ).” 12. The main dilemmas confronted by all levels of school toward participating evaluation of Quality School are “ The Staffs are too overburdened to participate Quality School’s evaluation.”, “ Schools can not afford inducements to participate Quality School’s evaluation.”, and “ Schools don’t have enough colleagues to participate Quality School’s evaluation.” 13. The main dilemmas confronted by all levels of school of teachers toward participating evaluation of Quality School are “ The teachers don’t have enough time to engage in the research of Quality School’ evaluation.”, “ The teachers lacked for enthusiasm of participating the Quality School’s evaluation.”, and “ The teachers lacked for professional cognition of the Quality School’s evaluation.” 14. The main measures of dealing with the crises are “Reward the staffs of participating the evaluation of Quality School thus inspire the willing of participation.”, “Cooperate with school evaluation.”, and “ Execute the process of Quality School to move up the staffs’ professional cognition.”

Based on the findings, several conclusions and recommendations were made for Taipei government authorities, schools and further researchers.