跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.229.117.123) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/08/12 18:10
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:涂巧玲
論文名稱:以專家判斷法決定國民小學教育經費充足---一個方法的試探
指導教授:許添明許添明引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立花蓮師範學院
系所名稱:國民教育研究所
學門:教育學門
學類:綜合教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2002
畢業學年度:90
語文別:中文
論文頁數:277
中文關鍵詞:教育經費財政充足國民小學
外文關鍵詞:Educational ExpenseFinancial AdequacyElementary School
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:15
  • 點閱點閱:648
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:142
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
本論文目的在檢討我國決定教育經費的方式,並參酌國外決定教育經費充足的方法,找出適合我國決定教育經費充足的方法,以作為我國編制教育預算的基礎。
為達上述目的,本研究首先進行文獻探討,發現專家判斷法能清楚的讓人明暸決定教育經費的理由,且適合於沒有標準化成就測驗的地方,因此決定以專家判斷法為藍本,並以得懷術問卷調查國內學者專家的意見,修正成適合於我國決定教育經費充足的方法。
本研究發現以專家判斷法決定我國教育經費充足的方法,應有以下七個步驟:一、組成顧問團與選取兩組教育專家;二、顧問團提出教育方針供專家設計小學範本的參考;三、顧問團根據兩組專家提供的資源要素與數量,計算出每生的單位成本;四、依據學生與地區特性差異調整成本;五、調整規模不經濟;六、調整物價指數;七、經由上述的步驟,最後可能得出公式=每生單位成本×學生數(一般學生數+特殊需求學生數×權重)+地區差異調整+規模不經濟調整+物價指數調整。
關鍵字:教育經費,財政充足,國民小學
This research is reviewing the existing approach of budgeting education expenses in Taiwan and deliberating upon the system of education adequacy in the U.S. Thus trying to find out the niche resolution for deciding on the education adequacy in Taiwan which can be adopted as the basis of allocating educational budget.
The conceptual framework of this research comes from literatural eviews. It clearly shows that Experts’ Judgement Aapproach can allow people to fully understand the reasons of determining educational expense. Besides, it is specifically appropriate to areas without a standardized accomplishment test. As the result, we decided to modify Experts’ Judgement Approach, considering domestic experts’ opinions collected by Delphi questionnaires, to the method best appropriately determine education adequacy expense in Taiwan.
There are seven procedures included in this research:
Step 1: Constitute one group of consultants and two groups of educational
experts.
Step 2: The consultants submit the educational budget principle so that the experts may refer and design them for primary school.
Step 3: In accordance with necessity resource components and amount, the consultant group can aggregate the student’s individual cost.
Step 4: Adjust the cost according to the characters of student’s and area’s diversity.
Step 5: Adjust as per the scale of diseconomy.
Step 6: Adjust according to the index of price.
Step 7: Through the steps above, at length, I might possibly obtain the formula: The individual cost of each student multiple the number of the students which consider the average need of the general students plus the extra need of the handicap students. Then add in the adjustments of area differences, the adjustments of diseconomy scale, and then the adjustments of price indicators.
Key words: Educational Expense, Financial Adequacy, Elementary School
目 次
第一章 緒論...………………………………………………………....1
第一節 研究動機與目的…………………………………….…….1
第二節 名詞釋義…………………………………………….…….7
第三節 研究範圍與研究限制……………….…………………….8
第四節 論文結構……………………….………………………….9
第二章 文獻探討..…….………………………………………….…10
第一節 充足的重要與意義………………………………………10
第二節 教育經費充足的決定因素………………………………24
第三節 國民小學教育經費編制的機制…………………………71
第三章 研究方法與設計.……………………………………….…92
第一節 研究方法…………………………………………………92
第二節 研究設計………………………………………………..106
第三節 德懷術之實施…………………………………………..120
第四章 結果分析與討論....…..…………………………………..122
第一節 第一次問卷調查結果分析.……………………………..122
第二節 第二次問卷調查結果分析.……………………………..147
第三節 第三次問卷調查結果分析.……………………………..166
第四節 比較與綜合討論………………………………………...180
第五章 結論與建議.………………………………………………200
第一節 結論………………………………………………….….200
第二節 建議………………………………………………….….207
參考文獻...…………………………………………………………...209
中文部分….………………………………………………...……..209
英文部分…………………………………………………………..210
附錄…………………………………………………………………...216
附錄一 第一次研究說明函和問卷…………………………….216
附錄二 第二次研究說明函和問卷…………………………….230
附錄三 第三次研究說明函和問卷…………………………….253
附錄四 以「專家判斷法」決定教育經費充足的方法……….275
表 次
表2-1-1-1 West Virginia州高等法庭所定義的「充足教育」.….….25
表2-2-2-1 Wyoming州教(1990)育部的規定………….……….…48
表2-2-2-2 Wyoming州範本:幼稚園至小學五年級的基本成本…..54
表2-2-2-3 Wyoming州範本:國中的基本成本………………..…...55
表2-2-2-4 Wyoming州範本:高中的基本成本………………..…...56
表2-2-6-1 統計分析法、實證觀察法、學校重建法與專家判斷法的
彙整表…………………………………………………….70
表2-3-1-1 國小單位預算編制流程…………….……………………72
表2-3-2-1 國小歲出用途科目別………………………………….…75
表2-3-3-1 行政管理的人事費編列方式明細表………………….…77
表2-3-3-2 行政管理的業務費編列方式明細表………….…………80
表2-3-3-3 事務管理的人事費編列方式明細表………………….....80
表2-3-3-4 事務管理的業務費編列方式明細表…………..………...81
表2-3-3-5 身心障礙差額補助編列方式明細表………………….....82
表2-3-3-6 社會教育的人事費編列方式明細表………………….....82
表2-3-3-7 社會教育的業務費編列方式明細表……………..……...83
表2-3-3-8 社會教育的補助及捐助編列方式明細表…………..….. 84
表3-3-1-1 三次問卷實施進度……………………………….……..120
圖 次
圖3-1-1-1 研究架構圖………………………………………..……...93
參考文獻
壹、中文部分
王雅玄(民87)。德懷術(Delphi)在課程評鑑上之應用。教育資料與研究,25,43-46。
林文達(民73)。教育機會公平性之研究。國立政治大學學報,48,87-115。
花蓮縣政府(民88)。台灣省花蓮縣地方政府總預算。花蓮:縣政府。
教育部(民87)。國民教育階段九年一貫課程總綱綱要。台北:教育部。
許添明(民87)。教育財政制度新趨勢。文教新潮,3(1),9-18。
許添明(民89)。教育經費與教育改革。師友月刊,391,5-10。
許添明、張熒書(民89)。教育基本需求與教育基本法。教育基本法與教育革新研討會,5月6日。台灣,台北:台北市立師範學院。
陳麗珠(民82)。我國中小學教育財政公平之研究。高雄:復文。
陳麗珠(民86)。我國國民教育經費補助公式之模擬研究:垂直公平考量。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。
陳麗珠(民87)。臺灣省教育優先區計畫與實施之評估研究:教育機會均等理念之實踐。臺灣省政府教育廳委託專案研究報告。
陳麗珠(民89)。美國教育財政改革。台北市:五南。
游家政(民85)。得懷術及其在課程研究上的應用。花蓮師院學報,6,1-24。
黃政傑(民83)。課程評鑑,4版。台北市:師大書苑。
蓋浙生(民88)。教育財政與教育發展。台北市:師大書苑。
謝文全(民78)。得懷術在教育研究上的應用。收錄於教育行政論文集,再版。台北:文景。
貳、英文部分
Adams, J. E. (1994). Implementing program equity: Raising the stakes for educational policy and practice. Educational Policy, 8(4), 518-534.
Adams, J. E., Jr. (1997). School finance policy and students’ opportunities to learn: Kentucky’s experience. The Future of Children: Financing Schools, 7(3),79-95.
Alexander, K., Augenblick, J. G., Driscoll, W., Guthrie, J. & Levin, R. (1995). Proposals for the Elimination of Wealth-Based Disparities in Public Education. Columbis, OH: Department of Public Instruction.
Augenblick, J. G. (1997). Recommendations for a Base Figure and Pupil-Weighted Adjustments to the Base Figure for Use in a New School Finance System in Ohio. Report presented to the School Funding Task Force, Ohio Department of Education.
Augenblick, J. G., Myers, J. L., & Anderson, A. B. (1997). Equity and adequacy in school funding. The Futhure of Children: Financing Schools, 7(3), 63-78.
Augenblick, J. G., & Myers, J. (1994). Determining Base Cost for State School Funding Systems. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States Issuegram.
Augenblick, J. G., Alexander, K. & Guthrie, J. W. (1995). Report of the Panel of Experts: Proposals for the Elimination of Wealth Based Disparities in Education. Report submitted by Ohio chief State School Officer T. Sanders to the Ohio State Legislature.
Barnett, W. S. (1994). Obstacles and oppoortunities: Some simole economics of school finance reform. Educational Policy, 8(4), 436-452.
Berne, R. & Stiefel L. (1984). The measurement of equity in school finance: Conceptual, methodological, and empirical dimensions. Baltimore: the Johns Hopkins University Press.
Berne, R. & Stiefel L. (1999). “Concepts of School Finance Equity: 1970 to Present.” In Helen Ladd, Rosemary Chalk and Janet S. Hansen, eds. Equity and Adequacy in Education Finance. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Berne, R. (1994). Program equity for all children: Meaningful goal or impossible dream . Educational Policy, 8(4), 502-517.
Chambers, J. & Parrish, T. (1994). State level education finance. In Cost Analysis for Education Decisions: Methods and Examples. Advances in Educational Producativity, 4, W. S. Barnett, ed. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Clune, W. H. (1994a). The cost and management of program adequacy: An emerging issue in educational policy and finance. Educational Policy, 8(4)[whole issue]. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Clune, W. H. (1994b). The shift from equity to adequacy in school finance. Educational Policy, 8(4), 376-375.
Clune, W. H. (1995a). Introduction: Educational adequacy: A theory and its remedies. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 28(3), 481-491.
Clune, W. H. (1995b). Accelerated education as a remedy for high-poverty schools. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 28(3), 655-680.
Clune, W. H. (1997). The empirical argument for educational adequacy, the critical gaps in the knowledge base, and a suggested research agenda. In Selected Paper in School Finance 1995(NCES 97-536, p.101-124). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Delbecq, A. L. et al. (1975). Group Techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and delphi process. NJ: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Duncombe, W. & Yinger, J. (1999). “Performance standards and educational cost idexes: You can’t have one without the other.” In Helen Ladd, Rosemary Chalk and Janet S. Hansen, eds. Equity and Adequacy in Education Finance. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 260-297.
Duncombe, W., Ruggiero, J. & Yinger, J. (1996). Alternative approaches to measuring the cost of education. In Ladd, ed. In Holding Schools Accountable. Performance-Based Reform in Education. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 260-297.
Edison Project. (1997). Annual report on school performance. New York: Author.
Elmore, R. E. (1994). Thoughts on program equity: Productivity and incentives for performance in education. Educational Policy, 8(4), 453-459.
Goertz, M. E. (1994). Program equity and adequacy: Issues from the field. Educational Policy, 8(4), 608-615.
Grossman, M. (1995). Oklahoma school finance litigation: Shifting equity to adequacy as the theme. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 28(3), 521-557.
Guthrie, J. W. & Rohstein, R. (1999). “Enabling adequacy to achieve reality: Translating adequacy into state school finance distribution arrangements.” In Helen Ladd, Rosemary Chalk and Janet S. Hansen, eds. Equity and Adequacy in Education Finance. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 209-259.
Guthrie, J. W., Hayward, G. C., Smith, J. R., Rohstein, R., Bennett, R. W., Koppich, J. E., Bowman, E., Delapp, L., Brandes, B. & Clark S. (1999). A Proposed Cost-Based Block Grant Model for Wyoming School Finance. [Online]. Available: http://www.constant.edu/ [April , 2001].
Guthrie, J. W. (1979). Organization scale and school success. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1(1), 17-27.
Hanushek, E. A. (1994). A jaundiced view of ‘Adequacy’ in school finance reform. Educational Policy, 8(4), 460-469.
Hess, G. & Alfred, J. (1994). Adequacy rather than equity: A new solution or a stalking horse. Educational Policy, 8(4), 544-567.
Hinrich, W. L., & Laine, R. D. (1996). Adequacy: Building Quality and Efficiency into the Cost of Education. Springfield, IL: Illinois Board of Education.
Ladd, H. F., & Hansen, J. S. (Eds.). (1999). Making Money Matter. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 101-133.
Levin, H. M. (1994). Little things mean a lot. Educational Policy, 8(4), 396-403.
Linstone, H. A. & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. MA: Addison-Wesley.
Monk, D. H. (1994). Education finance: An economic approach. New York: McGraw Hill.
Morgan, M. I., Adam, S. C., & Hershkoff, H. (1995). HeEstablishing education program indequacy: The Alabama example. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 28(3), 559-598.
Murnance, R. J. (1994). Will school finance reform improve education for disadvantaged children? Educational Policy, 8(4), 535-542.
Odden, A. & Picus, L. (2000). School finance: A policy perspective(2th ed). NY: McGraw-Hill.
Odden, A. R. & Busch, C. (1998). Financing schools for high performance: Strategies for improving the use of educational resources. San Franciso: Jossey-Bass.
Olson, L., & Hendrie, C. (1998). Pathways to progress. In Quality Counts 98. The Urban Challenge. Public Education in the 50 States. In collaboration with the Pew Charitable Trusts. Education Week, January 8.
Orfield, G. (1994). Asking the right question. Educational Policy, 8(4), 404-413.
Orland, M. (1990). The demographics of disadvantage: Intensity of childhood poverty and its relationship to educational achievement. In J. Goodlad and P. Keatinf, eds. Access to Knowledge: An Agenda for Our Nation’s Schools. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 43-58.
Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity--one''s own. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 17-21.
Picus, L. O. (1994). Achieving program equity: Are markets the answer. Educational Policy, 8(4),568-581.
Pogrow, S. (1994). A skeptical perspective on the adequacy conception. Educational Policy, 8(4), 414-424.
Protheroe, N. (1997). ERS-Local school budget profile study. School Business Affairs, 63(10), 42-49.
Reschovsky, A. & Imazeki, J. (1998). The development of school finance formulas to guarantee the provision of adequate education to low-income students. In William J., Fowler, Jr(Ed)), Developments in School Finance, 1997(NCES 98-212, p.123-148). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics.
Reschovsky, A. & Imazeki, J. (1999). Does the school finance system in Texas provide students with an adequate education? Paper prepared for the American Education Finance Association Research Conference in Seattle, WA, March 18-21.
Rossmiller, R. A. (1994). Equity or adequacy in school finance. Educational Policy, 8(4), 616-625.
Sheu, T. M. (1993). School finance equity in Taiwan, Republic of China: A longitudinal analysis, 1981-1990. Doctoral D. Teacher college, Columbia U.
Slavin, R. E. (1994). Statewide finance reform: Ensuring educational adequacy for high poverty schools. Educational Policy, 8(4), 425-434.
Slavin, R. & Fashola, O. (1998). Show mw the evidence!proven and promising program for America’s schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Stringfield, S., Ross, S. & Smith, L. (1996). Bold plan for school restructuring: The new American school designs. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Underwood, J. (1995). School finance adequacy as vertical equity. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 28(3), 493-519.
Ziglio, E. (1996). The Delphi method and its contribution to decision-making. In Ziglio, E. & Adler, M. Gazing into the Oracle: The Delphi Method and its Application to Social Policy and Public Health. London: Jessica Kingsley, 1-33.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top