期刊專區/ Periodical Section

高等教育政策工具之探析：大學評鑑結果與政府經費分配之連結

An Analysis of Policy Instruments for Higher Education:The Connection between the Results of University Evaluation and the Allocation of Funding

所屬期刊：	第9卷第3期 「教育政策與制度」 主編：輔仁大學教育領導與發展研究所兼任教授 吳明清
系統編號：	vol034_02
主題：	教育政策與制度
出版年份：	2013
作者：	劉秀曦
作者(英文)：	Hsiu-Hsi Liu
論文名稱：	高等教育政策工具之探析：大學評鑑結果與政府經費分配之連結
論文名稱(英文)：	An Analysis of Policy Instruments for Higher Education:The Connection between the Results of University Evaluation and the Allocation of Funding
共同作者：
最高學歷：
校院名稱：
系所名稱：
語文別：
論文頁數：	28
中文關鍵字：	高等教育;政策工具;大學評鑑;經費分配
英文關鍵字：	higher education;policy instrument;university evaluation;allocation of funding
服務單位：	國家教育研究院教育制度及政策研究中心助理研究員
稿件字數：	19552
作者專長：	高等教育、教育財政
投稿日期：	2013/4/30
論文下載：
摘要(中文)：	為促使大學回應社會大眾對績效責任的要求，西歐國家與我國政府近年所推動的高等教育財政改革政策，皆出現一種以大學評鑑結果作為政府經費分配基礎的趨勢。此種作法雖可激勵大學對其表現負起責任，有助於高等教育品質之確保與提升；但若實施不慎，也可能導致政府過度干預高等教育運作，戕害大學自主與多元發展。爰此，本研究以大學評鑑結果與政府經費分配之連結為題，分別就西歐主要國家與我國之實施現況，與遭受批評進行文獻分析與討論。此外，並 透過焦點團體座談會議的召開，瞭解利害關係人對於兩政策工具相互連結之看法，最後根據研究發現提出以下結論：（一）大學評鑑與競爭經費皆為政府政策工具，惟其中蘊含政府意志，恐有礙大學自主與創新發展；（二）將評鑑結果與獎懲機制連結雖具有爭議，但仍被各國政府視為是對大學遠端調控的重要工具之一；（三）將評鑑結果與經費分配連結，西歐國家多採取間接方式，然在我國已有法源依據並付諸行動。
摘要(英文)：	To respond to the growing public demand for the accountability of higher education, the Taiwanese government, along with Western Europe, tends to allocate funding according to the results of university evaluation. This trend can be captured from the recent educational policy reforms. This way of allocating funding, however, still has its pros and cons. Namely, it has drawn much attention to the responsibility of universities in terms of education quality improvement, but university autonomy, as a possible trade-off, would be threatened and/or undermined due to government intervention. Given the situation, this study analyzes the connection between the results of university evaluation in Taiwan and some major western European countries and the allocation of their educational funding. In addition, by adopting the method of focus group interview, this study also aims to understand the perspectives of the policy stakeholders on the aforementioned issue in Taiwan. Based on the findings, some suggestions for policy makers are provided.
參考文獻：	王如哲（2005）。高等教育品質管理機制之國際經驗。臺灣教育，632，21-29。 吳清山、黃美芳、徐緯平（2002）。教育績效責任研究。臺北：高等教育。 李允昌、丘昌泰（2003）。政策執行與評估。臺北：元照。 周祝瑛（2012）。「破除五化 重修大學法 ：大學評鑑與政府補助脫鉤」連署聲明。取自http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~iaezcpc/C_news.html 侯永琪（2007）。誰才是研究型大學？美國佛羅里達中心「全美頂尖研究大學」排名。評鑑雙月刊，5，46-51。 施能傑（1999）。美國政府人事管理。臺北：商鼎。 高等教育評鑑中心（2006a）。中心簡介—歷史沿革。取自http://www.heeact.org.tw/ 高等教育評鑑中心（2006b）。95年度大學校院系所評鑑實施計畫。取自http://www.heeact.org.tw/ 教育部高教司（2004）。大學校務評鑑實施計畫。取自http://ua.twaea.org.tw/ 教育部高教司（2012）。102年度教育部獎勵私立大學校院校務發展計畫要點暨作業手冊。臺北：作者。 陳振遠、樊國恕、蘇國瑋、何希慧、侯永琪、陳振宇、許文瑞（2011）。發展國際一流大學及頂尖研究中心計畫之評估研析。研考雙月刊，35（3），84-96。 楊國賜（2006年4月）。新世紀高等教育的分類、定位與功能。「大學分類、評比與品質保證學術研討會」發表之論文，新北市淡江大學。 詹盛如（2010）。台灣高等教育治理政策之改革—新管理主主義的觀點。教育資料與研究雙月刊，94，1-20。 監察院（2010）。監察院公報，第2720期。取自http://www.cy.gov.tw/AP_Home/Op_Upload/eDoc/%A4%BD%B3%F8/99/0990000392720.doc Atkinson-Grosjean, J., & Grosjean, G. (2000). The use of performance models in higher education: A comparative international review. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n30.html Ball, R., & Wilkinson, R. (1994). The use and abuse of performance indicators in UK higher education. Higher Education, 27, 417-427. Bleiklie, I. (1998). Justifying the evaluative state: New public management ideals in higher education. European Journal of Education, 33(3), 299-316. Bruijn, H. A., & Hufen, A. M. (1998). A traditional approach to policy instruments. In B. G. Peters, F. K. M. van Nispen (Eds.), Public policy instruments: Evaluating the tools of public administration (pp. 11-32). Northampton, England: Edward Elgar. Cave, M., Hanney, S., & Kogan, M. (1997). The use of performance indicators in higher education: The challenge of the quality movement. London, England: Jessica Kingsley. Chalmers, D., Lee, K., & Walker, B. (2008). International and national quality teaching and learning performance model current in use. Australia: Center for the advancement of teaching and learning. Darling-Hammond, L. (1992). Educational indicators and enlightened policy. Educational Policy, 6(3), 235-265. Dill, D. D. (1998). Evaluation the ‘evaluative state’: Implications for research in higher education. European Journal of Education, 33(3), 361-377. Dill, D. D. (2007). ‘Doing a Neave’: Reflections on the evaluative state, academic standards, and blind mice. In CHEP (Ed.), Towards a cartography of higher education policy change: A festschrift in honour of Guy Neave (pp.119-124). Enschede, the Netherlands: Center for Higher Education Policy Studies. El-Khawas, E., & Massy, F. M. (1996). Britain’s performance-based system. In William F. Massy (Ed.) Resource allocation in higher education ( pp.223-242). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. ENQA (2005). Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European higher education area. Finland: European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. ENQA (2008). ENQA history. Retrieved from http://www.enqa.eu/history.lasso Eurydice European Unit (2008). Higher education governance in Europe: Policies, structures, funding and academic staff. Retrieved from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/ressources/eurydice/pdf/0_integral/091EN.pdf Ewell, P. T., & Jones, D. P. (1996). Indicators of “good practice” in undergraduate education. Boulder, CO: National Centre for Higher Education Management Systems. Harman, G. (1998). Quality assurance mechanisms and their use as policy instruments : Major international approaches and the Australian experience since 1993. European Journal of Education, 33(3), 331-348. HEFCE (2011). Funding higher education in England: How HEFCE allocates its funds. England: HEFCE. Henkel, M., & Little, B. (1999). Introduction/Concluding remarks. In M. Henkel & B. Little (Eds.), Changing relationships between higher education and the state (pp.9-22). London, England: Jessica Kingsley. Hughes, O. E. (1994). Public management and administration. New York, NY: St. Martin’s. Jongbloed, B. (2004). Funding higher education: options, trade-offs and dilemmas. Retrieved from http://www.utwente.nl/cheps/documenten/engpap04fundinghe.pdf Jongbloed, B. (2010). Funding higher education: A view across Europe. Twente, the Netherland: Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies. Jongbloed, B., de Boer, H., Enders, J., & File, J. (2010). Progress in higher education reform across Europe: Funding reform. Twente, the Netherland: Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies. Lei?yt, L. (2007). Higher education in the United Kingdom. Twente, the Netherlands: Center for Higher Education Policy Studies. Liefner, I. (2003). Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems. Higher Education, 46(4), 469-489. Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1998). The study of policy instruments: Four schools of thought. In B. G. Peters & F. K. M. van Nispen (Eds.), Public policy instruments: Evaluating the tools of public administration (pp. 33-45). Northampton, Mass: Edward Elgar. Neave, G. (1988). On the cultivation of quality, efficiency and enterprise: An overview of recent trends in higher education in Western Europe, 1986-1988. European Journal of Education, 23(1/2), 7-23. Neave, G. (1998). The evaluative state reconsidered. European Journal of Education, 33(3), 265-284. Neave, G. (2004). The temple and its guardians: An excusion into the rhetoric of evaluating higher education. The Journal of Finance and Management in Colleges and Universities, 1, 211-227. Noland, B. (2006). Changing perceptions and outcomes: The accountability paradox in Tennessee. New Directions for Higher Education, 135, 59-67. Orr, Dominic (2005). Can performance-based funding and quality assurance solve the State vs. market conundrum? Higher Education Policy, 18, 31-50. Pennington, D. (1998). Managing quality in higher education institutions of the 21st century: A framework for the future. Australian Journal of Education, 42(3), 256-266 Peters, B. G. (1989). The politics of bureaucracy. New York, NY: Longman. Peters, B. G. (2002). The pocitics of tool choice. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance (pp.552-564). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Salamon, L. M. (2002). The new governance and the tools of public action: An introduction. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance (pp.1-47). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Savas, E. S. (1987). Privatization: The key to better government. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House. Schwarz, S., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2007). Accreditation in the framework of evaluation activities: A comparative study in the European higher education area. In S. Schwarz & D. F. Westerheijden (Eds.), Accreditation and evaluation in the European higher education area (pp.1-41). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Tapper, T., & Salter, B. (2004). Governance of higher education in Britain: the significance of the research assessment exercises for the funding council model. Higher Education Quarterly, 58(1), 4-30. Valimaa, J. (1999). Managing a diverse system of higher education. In M. Henkel & B. Little (Eds.), Changing relationships between higher education and the state (pp. 23-41). London, England: Jessica Kingsley. Van Vught, F. (1994). Western Europe and North American. In A. Craft (Eds.), International developments in assuring quality in higher education (pp.3-17). London, England: Falmer. Woodside, K. B. (1998). The acceptability and visibility of policy instruments. In B. G. Peters & F. K. M. van Nispen (Eds.), Public policy instruments: Evaluating the tools of public administration (pp. 162-184). Northampton, England: Edward Elgar.