期刊專區/ Periodical Section

課程：誰發起？誰決定優先順序？誰負責所發生的？澳洲的經驗

Curriculum: Who initiates? Who determines priorities? Who is responsible for what happens? Lessons from Australia

所屬期刊：	第1卷第1期 「課程與教學」 主編：國立台北教育大學 課程與教學研究所 莊明貞教授
系統編號：	vol001_04
主題：
出版年份：	2005
作者：	Colin J. Marsh
作者(英文)：
論文名稱：	課程：誰發起？誰決定優先順序？誰負責所發生的？澳洲的經驗
論文名稱(英文)：	Curriculum: Who initiates? Who determines priorities? Who is responsible for what happens? Lessons from Australia
共同作者：
最高學歷：
校院名稱：
系所名稱：
語文別：
論文頁數：	0
中文關鍵字：
英文關鍵字：	Curriculum initiatives; Curriculum priorities; Curriculum implementation; Responsibility for curriculum
服務單位：
稿件字數：
作者專長：
投稿日期：
論文下載：
摘要(中文)：	澳洲的課程決定大多取決於州以及國家（聯邦）層級。雖然教育屬於州層級的職責，但最近幾年聯邦政府對課程決定已有越來越多的影響，並以多元的方式施加影響，誠如藉由贊助或籌設新的計畫方案、提供誘因給學校、以及靠著扣押或不允准特定計畫方案的經費來提供對州層級教育體制的障礙因素／誘因。 　　政治協商沒有極神聖規則。為了解某些過程，研究一般常被詢問有關課程決定的四個高度政治問題是中肯的。而這四個問題與發起（initiating）、決定（determining）、落實課程（implementing curriculum）、責任歸屬（who has responsibility）有關聯。 　　聯邦政府持續主動致力於發動新的計畫方案，如國家課程、國家閱讀寫作能力指標、國家規範。然而背後的政策決定似乎不甚清楚。雖然聯邦局透過他們的財政誘因或者障礙因素試圖施加影響，但是州層級教育體制的理事仍然保有對課程架構、品質標準、和評量方面主要決定的權利。教師和學校校長仍舊是負責課程實施的主要人員；課程方面的責任則涉及學校層級人員和監控學生成就的體制層級人員。 　　這四個問題幫助我們解開些許課程決定的複雜性。然而並非所有課程方面的決定都總是合理的或甚至是明智的。雖然許多已作出的決定是曇花一現，但是仍然也有持續了數十年的決定，最後反而變成很難去推翻。
摘要(英文)：	Curriculum decisions in Australia are largely the result of education decisions made at state and national (federal) levels. Although education is a state responsibility, in recent years the federal government has had a growing influence. It exerts influence in various ways such as by sponsoring or creating new programs, providing incentives for schools and providing disincentives/incentives for state education systems by withholding or not granting funds for particular programs. Political bargaining has no sacrosanct rules. It is pertinent to examine four highly political questions commonly asked about curriculum decision-making to understand some of the processes. The four questions relate to initiating, determining, implementing curriculum and who has responsibility. The federal government continues to take initiatives to develop new programs such as a national curriculum, national literacy and national benchmarks. The determination of policies is less clear. Although federal agencies attempt to wield influence through their financial incentives or disincentives, the directors of state education systems are still able to make major decisions about curriculum structures, quality standards, and assessment. Teachers and school principals continue to be the major persons responsible for the implementation of curricula. Responsibility for curricula can involve personnel at school-level and at system-level who monitor student achievements. These four questions help us to unpack some of the complexities of curriculum decision-making. Not all decision-making in curriculum is ever reasonable or even wise. Many decisions are made which turn out to be short-lived but then others persist which continue for many decades and in turn become very difficult to overturn.
參考文獻：	Apple, M.W. (1990) Ideology and Curriculum (2nd ed.), Routledge, New York Apple, M. W. (1998) The culture and commerce of the textbook, in L.E.Beyer and M. W. Apple (eds) The Curriculum: Problems, Politics and Possibilities (2nd ed.), SUNY press,Albany, New York Burnett, P. C. and Meacham, D. (2002) Measuring the quality of teaching in elementary school classrooms, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 30, 2, 141 - 154 Caldwell,B.J. (1998) Strategic leadership, resource management and effective school reform, Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego Danielson, C.(2001) New trends in teacher evaluation Educational Leadership 58, 5, 12-15 Dawkins, J. (1988) Strengthening Australia’s Schools, AGPS, Canberra Donmoyer, R.(1990) Curriculum, community and culture: Reflections and pedagogical possibilities. In J. T. Sears and J. D. Marshall (eds) Teaching and thinking about the curriculum, Teachers College Press, New York Down,B Chadbourne,R Hogan, C (2000) How are teachers managing performance management? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 28, 3, 213-222. Easthope,C and Easthope, G. (2000) Intensification, extension and complexity of teachers, workload, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21, 1, 43-56 Education Victoria (1998) Schools of the Third Millennium: Self-Governing Schools, Education Victoria, Melbourne Fullan, M. G. (1991) The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.) Cassell, London Fullan, M. G. (1993) Change Forces, Falmer, London Fullan, M. G. (2000) The three stories of education reform, Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 8, 581 -584 Glatthorn, AA Jailall, J. (2000) Curriculum for the new millennium. In R.S.Brandt (ed) Education in a New Era, ASCD, Alexandria, Virginia Grove, K. F. (2002) The invisible role of the central office, Educational Leadership, 59, 8, 45-60 Hargreaves, A (1998) The emotional politics of teaching and teacher development with implications for educational leadership, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 35, 4, 315-336 Kennedy, K. and Hoppman, S. (1992) Curriculum policy structures in federal systems of government: The cases of Australia and Germany. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Kliebard, H. (1986) The struggle for the American Curriculum, 1893-1958, Routledge and Kegan Paul, Boston Lawton, D. (1980) The politics of the school curriculum, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London Marsh, C.J. (1984) Producing a national curriculum, Allen and Unwin, Sydney McMahon, A.(1994) Teacher appraisal in England and Wales. In L. Ingvarson and R. Chadbourne (eds) Valuing teachers work: new directions in teacher appraisal, ACER, Melbourne Nelson, J. L. Palonsky SB McCarthy M. (2004) Critical issues in education: dialogues and dialectics (5th ed.), McGraw-Hill, Boston Ornstein, AC, Hunkins, F. (2004) Curriculum foundations: principles and theory (4th ed.), Allyn and Bacon, Boston Smyth,J, McInerney, P, Hattam, R Lawson, M. (1998) Teacher learning: the way out of the school restructuring miasma, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1,2, 95-110 Tanner,D, Tanner L. N. (1995) Curriculum development (3rd ed.), Macmillan, New York Weekend Australian (1997) National English Literacy survey results, September 20, p.16 Louden, W. (2000) Standards for standards: the development of Australian professional standards for teaching, Australian Journal of Education, 44, 2, 118-134 Wragg, E. C. (1987) Teacher appraisal: a practical guide, Macmillan education, London.