An Analysis of the Central Governments’ Evaluation of Local Governments Administrative Performance in Special Education

Chin-Shu Chang

所屬期刊: 第3卷第3期 「教育政策與制度」
系統編號: vol010_07
主題: 教育政策與制度
出版年份: 2007
作者: 張金淑
作者(英文): Chin-Shu Chang
論文名稱: 中央對地方特殊教育行政績效評鑑之評析
論文名稱(英文): An Analysis of the Central Governments’ Evaluation of Local Governments Administrative Performance in Special Education
語文別: 中文
論文頁數: 32
中文關鍵字: 特殊教育;行政績效評鑑;特殊教育評鑑
英文關鍵字: special education;the evaluation of administrative performance;the evaluation of special education.
服務單位: 教育部特教小組專門委員
稿件字數: 20347
作者專長: 教育行政、評鑑、特殊教育行政
投稿日期: 2007/5/27
論文下載: pdf檔案icon
摘要(中文): 本文旨在分析我國、美國與英國中央對地方特殊教育行政績效評鑑的作法,並評析與展望評鑑機制。採取文獻分析法,分析我國、美國與英國重要相關文獻,結果發現我國已於91年、93年、95年實施的中央對地方特殊教育行政績效評鑑,彰顯九項優點或特色:(1)評鑑目的能顧及瞭解、檢討、改善、提升與觀摩等功能。(2)委託中華民國特殊教育學會承辦,立場超然且具公信力。(3)評鑑委員的專業素養與公平客觀深受肯定。(4)評鑑項目採取CIPP模式與外貌模式,充分顧及理想面與實踐面,選取具鑑別力的細項,並減輕地方政府的評鑑負擔。(5)各項評鑑項目細項評分指標均有明確之量化標準或質化標準,促使評鑑更為公平、客觀、一致。(6)評鑑實施進度、書面評鑑流程與適當納入網路資料,均頗為適切。(7)評鑑結果兼顧等級、文字敘述與進步狀況,結果呈現方式甚佳。(8)評鑑結果指定領域之人力資源領域簡化為四級,其餘指定領域與自選領域分為通過與否兩類,評鑑結果逐漸精簡化。(9)評鑑結果的處理除給予業務承辦人員充分獎勵外,更與經費補助充分結合,處理頗周延。然為求日臻完善,參酌美、英特殊教育評鑑作法,提出「建置更完善的定期檢核機制」、「建立平時預警機制」等兩項展望。
摘要(英文): The study provides an overview and analysis of the different approaches, taken by the central government of Taiwan, the U.S and England, used to evaluate local government administrative performance in special education. It was conducted through literature review. The results show that Taiwan has done evaluations in 2002, 2004, and 2006, and indicated nine advantages or specialties:
(1) The evaluation served the functions of “understanding,” “reviewing,” “improving,” “elevating,” and “emulating.” (2) The evaluations conducted by The Society of Special Education of R.O.C. were objective and trustworthy. (3) Evaluation committees were acknowledged to be professional, proficient and objective. (4) Evaluation items were decided by CIPP and countenance models. Both idealism and reality were taken into consideration. Items with high discriminant values were selected, alleviating the burden on local governments. (5) Indices for all item scores were clearly quantified or qualified. (6) The evaluation progress, the process of paper work, and the posting of information on the internet were all appropriate. (7) The outcomes of the evaluation were well presented, covering not only the ranks, but also the statements of improvement. (8) Evaluation outcomes were simplified to include four levels for human resources in specified fields, and two levels (pass/fail) for appointed and self-chosen fields. (9) The evaluation not only offered sufficient rewards to the responsible faculty, but also fully integrated with funding system. With expectations to improve the current system, the methods of the U.S. and England serve as references to provide two propositions: establish better routine review mechanisms and set up a routine alarm mechanism.
參考文獻: 中華民國特殊教育學會(2002)。91年教育部對地方政府特殊教育行政績效評鑑:評鑑報告。台北:作者。
李慶良(2002)。美國一九九七年 IDEA 修正案的研究。特殊教育論文集,57-114頁。國立台中師範學院。
林宏熾(2005)。美國身心障礙學生轉銜服務之相關理論與哲學。特殊教育季刊,97期,1-9 頁。Retrieved May 7, 2007, from http://www.ylcr.gov.tw/ylsw/knowgirl26.pdf
Jones, N. L. & Apling, R. N. (2005), “The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Overview of P.L. 108-446”. Retrieved May 3, 2007, from http://price.house.gov/issues/uploadedfiles/education5.pdf.
LSU Health Sciences Center (February 10, 2006). General supervision of IDEA: Measuring the implementation of a State’s Accountability System (Revised May, 2006). Retrieved, February 9, 2007, from http://www.monitoringcenter.lsuhsc.edu/Focusedmonitoringinformation.htm.
National Early Childhood Transition Center (2005). “Overview of IDEA and changes related to transition in 2004”. Retrieved May 7, 2007, from http://www.ihdi.uky.edu/NECTC/idea2004/files/idea2004AndTransition.pdf
NCATE(1995). Standards, procedures, and policies for the accreditation of professional education. Washington, DC: Author.NCATE(2001). Standards, procedures for the accreditation schools, colleges, and departments of education. Washington, DC: Author.
Newsletter Society for the History of Children and Youth No. 8 (2006). “Using a historical perspective to understand current policy on education placements for students with disabilities”. Retrieved May 3, 2007, from http://www.history.vt.edu/Jones/SHCY/Newsletter8/lre-griffith.html
Podemski, R. S., Marsh II G. E., Smith, T. E. C., & Price, B. J. (1995). Program evaluation: comprehensive administration of special education (2nd ed.), 183-206. New Jersey:Prentice-Hall.
Podewmski, P.S, Price, B.J, Smith, T.E.C & March Ⅱ , G.E, (1984). Comprehensive administration of special education. Rockville,Maryland:Aspen Publishers, Inc.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1983). The CIPP model for program evaluation. In Madaus, G. F., Scriven, M. S., Stufflebeam, D. L. (Eds.), Evaluation models. MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.
TEAC(2000). Prospectus for a new system for the accreditation of programs in teacher education. Washington, DC: Author.
The Office of her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools in conjunction with the Audit Commission(2002, December). Managing special education needs: A self-review handbook for local education authories. Retrieved, March 13, 2007, from http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/reports/CURRENT-PROJECT-TEXT.asp?CategoryID=ENGLISH^576^SUBJECT^539^COMMISSION^730&ProdID=8ECDC6C6-B119-44F4-9279-D03C38E32B42
The Office of her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools in conjunction with the Audit Commission(2004).Framework for the Inspection of local education authorities(2004) Retrieved, March 13, 2007, from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications/index.cfm?fuseaction=pubs.summary&id=3449
U. S. Department of Education (2000). Program-funded activities for fiscal year 1999:IDEAs that work. Washington, DC:U. S. Department of Education.
Western Regional Resource Center(1997). Profiles of State Monitoring System. Office of special education and rehabilitative service. Wasgington, DC:Western Regional Resource Center(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 423643)
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Special Education Team ( 2007). Part B state performance plan for schools years 2005-2006 through 2010-2011. Retrieved, February 16, 2007, from http://dpi.state.wi.us/sped/spp.html.