Author: |
蕭錦利 Jen-Li, Shoa |
---|---|
Thesis Title: |
國民小學校長選用制度之研究 The study of the system of principal selection of public primary schools. |
Advisor: |
方炎明
Fang, Yan-Ming |
Degree: |
碩士 Master |
Department: |
教育學系 Department of Education |
Thesis Publication Year: | 2001 |
Academic Year: | 89 |
Language: | 中文 |
Number of pages: | 238 |
Keywords (in Chinese): | 校長選用 、校長遴聘 、校長派任 、國民小學 |
Keywords (in English): | principal selection, primary school |
Thesis Type: | Academic thesis/ dissertation |
Reference times: | Clicks: 380 Downloads: 13 |
Share: |
School Collection Retrieve National Library Collection Retrieve Error Report |
本研究探討公立國民小學校長選用制度問題中,除嘗試發展出傳統派任制、徵可派任制、固委遴聘制、參與遴聘制、遴報認可制等五個較具代表性的典型方案外,並建構校長選用制度的評估準則,做為評析比較各項替選方案的依據。
從國民小學校長、主任、教師、學生家長、教育行政學者專家、地方教育行政人員等類群體,在問卷中對校長選用制度各項評估準則及其相對權重,以及對校長選用制度不同方案優劣得失等問題之意見資料,本研究獲致以下結論。
1.校長選用制度應考慮背景、輸入、過程、產出等方面的適切性,評估準則包括必須要能符應環境背景或思潮、能吸引人才願意參與競爭、評選人員具有專業知能、評選人員具有代表性、使用有效的鑑別方法與資料、程序客觀公平公開、程序簡便可行有效率、要能獲致適當的人選、要能提昇校長辦學績效、以及要能避免負面效應等。
2.評估準則相對權重高低不同,各類受試者間對於校長選用制度評估準則相對權重的看法並無明顯的差異,不過各類受試者群體內部看法則有較大的歧見。
3.不同的關注點上各有不同的適當方案,不同的校長選用制度各有其優劣得失。
4.不同受試者對各方案在各項目上優劣得失的看法具有差異性,不同群體對不同方案各有偏好。就整體受試者調查結果而言,偏好於參與遴選制。惟校長群體以及有意願擔任校長職務的教育人員,明顯偏好傳統派任制,與非校長群體、無意願擔任校長職務的教育人員所偏好的參與遴聘制,意見形成相當對立的局面。
5.校長選用制度的決策面臨困難,必須進一步試探或整合各不同立場群體的意見。必要時,應在各群體認為的最佳方案之外,另外以如徵可派任制或固委遴聘制等折衷式的方案,做為最適方案來進行決策考量。
依據研究發現,本研究對於教育行政以及未來的相關研究分別提出若干建議事項。
This study tries to investigate the issues about the system of principal selection of public primary schools in Taiwan. Five programs are developed as the alternatives for the system of principal selection, they are: traditional-appointment program, consultative-appointment program, non-participate selection program, participate selection program, and selection-approve program. And ten criteria for assess the strength and weakness of the system of principal selection are offered.
In order to inquiry the opinion of some groups about these issues stated above, a questionnaires is developed to gather data from principals, director, teachers, parents, educational administration professors, and educational administration officials. The findings of this study includes:
1. The system of principal selection must consider if it is appropriate on the dimen-sions of context, input, process, and product. The criteria of evaluation include: it must fit the background and the trend of thought; it must attract people to serve as principal; it must invite the evaluator who has expertise about principal selection; it must invite the evaluator who represent every stakeholder; it must gather effective information and apply discriminating method to analysis these information; its selection process must be objective, fair and open; its selection process must be simple, feasible and efficient; it must selection and promote appropriate candidate; it must promote principals to achieve more merits and contribution; it must avoid some undesired consequences.
2. The weightiness of each criterion is different. There are no great gaps for the estimate of weightiness of each criterion among these groups, but in each group.
3. The appropriate program for principal selection depends on the criteria. Each program has some strength and weakness.
4. The appraisals for five programs on the criteria and the favorite program are different among every group. The participate-selection program is the most favorite program for the entire participators, the groups of nonprincipal, and the group who has no aspiration to serve as principal. The traditional-appointment program is the most favorite program for the group of principal and the group who has aspiration to serve as principal. There are great gaps between these groups.
5. It is difficult to decide what is the best program for principal selection, further exploration and integration is needed. If necessary, some compromising programs(e.g. consultative-appointment program or non-participate selection program)must be assessed and considered again.
According to the findings of this study, some suggestions are offered for the office of educational administration and the researches about principal selection in future.
文超順(民89):臺灣地區國民中小學校長遴選制度之探析。學校行政
雙月刊,6期,85-96頁。
王秀玲(民89):國民小學校長遴選制度實施之研究。國立臺北師範學
院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
朴濟英(民83):中韓兩國國民小學校長甄選制度之比較研究。政治大
學教育研究所碩士論文。
吳 定(民79):行政學(下冊)。臺北縣:國立空中大學。
吳文中(民88):校長遴選之我見。國民教育,40卷2期,63-67頁。
吳明清(民87):校長遴選制度探討。師說,113期,4-5頁。
吳清基(民88):我國學校行政的政策新取向。學校行政,創刊號,3-
11頁。
吳順火(民88):專業校長如何在遴選中贏得尊嚴。國民教育,40卷2
期,57-62頁。
李敦義(民89):國民中小學校長遴選制度之研究。政治大學教育學系
碩士論文。
林天佑(民88):新世紀國民中小學校長任用的探討。教育資料與研究,
28期,14-16頁。
林文生(民88):校長遴選制度的多重面向。國民教育,40卷2期,10-13
頁。
林奇佐(民88):基隆市國民中小學校長遴選方案省思。國民教育,40
卷2期,52-56頁。
林奇佐(民89):基隆市國民中小學校長遴用制度之研究。國立臺北師
範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
林海清(民88):談校長遴選制度。學校行政,創刊號,59-60頁。
侯世昌(民88):校長遴選制度的檢討與省思。國民教育,40卷2期,
40-48頁。
徐秀珍(民88a):全台中小學校長颳起失業狂潮。今週刊,5月16日,
102-105頁。
徐秀珍(民88b):王璧城:校長連公娼都不如。今週刊,5月16日,106
-108頁。
秦夢群(民88):國民中小學校長遴選制度之評析。國民教育,40卷2
期,28-31頁。
張明輝(民88):我國中小學行政人員任用之現況及其變革趨勢。國立
臺灣師範大學教育系網頁資料。
張明輝(民89):中小學校長遴選的人性化課題。學校行政,9期,41-
45頁。
張金鑑(民79):人事行政學(修訂三版)。臺北市:三民。
張清良(民82):臺灣省立高級中等學校校長甄選制度之研究。政治大
學教育研究所碩士論文。
張潤書(民79):行政學(修訂三版)。臺北市:三民。
教育部國教司(民88):直轄市及各縣市政府國民中小學校長遴選要點
(辦法)彙編。台北市:教育部。
梁坤明(民88):談各縣市校長遴選作業及其相關措施。國民教育,40
卷2期,36-39頁。
許濱松(民79):人事行政。臺北:華視出版部。
陳木金(民88):從特別權力關係看我國中小校長之評鑑與甄選。國民
教育,40卷2期,19-27頁。
陳寶山(民88):校長遴選配套措施是啥。學校行政,創刊號,27-29
頁。
傅肅良(民79):人事管理。臺北:三民。
黃乃熒(民88):國民中小學校長遴選制度的教育行政專業建構。學校
行政,3期,30-38頁。
黃德祥(民89):改造學校組織,檢討校長遴選制。中央日報,9月5
日,12版。
葉卉軒(民89.8.18):校長遴選流程,瑕疵多待改善。中央日報,18
版。
詹智慧(民88):從校長遴選試談校長的專業與發展。國民教育,40卷
2期,73-76頁。
趙貴枝(民89):我國國民小學校長選用制度之探討。國立臺北師範學
院研究報告。
蔡書憲(民89):從領導特質論談遴選新世紀優質校長。師友,399期,
36-40頁。
鄧振源、曾國雄(民78a):層級分析法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用(上)。
中國統計學報,27卷,67期,5-22頁。
鄧振源、曾國雄(民78b ):層級分析法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用(下)。
中國統計學報,27卷,68期,1-20頁。
賴光真(民85):教科書選用評準權重之決定:分析層級程序法(AHP)
的應用。研習資訊,13卷4期,12-20頁。
蕭 鈺(民82):從各國文官陞遷制度看我國公務人員陞遷制度之改革
方向。人事行政,105輯,18-37頁。
繆全吉(民78):人事行政。臺北縣:國立空中大學。
謝文全(民84):比較教育行政。臺北市:五南。
謝文全(民88):中小學校長培育、任用、評鑑制度。教育資料與研究,
28期,1-5頁。
謝文全(民89):各縣市國民中小學校長遴選辦法分析研究報告。台北
市:教育部。
謝玲芬(民78):多目標(多準則)評估技術之探討及其在組織績效評估
之應用。清華大學工業工程研究所碩士論文。
顏慧萍(民81):國民中學校長甄選制度之研究。臺灣師範大學教育研
究所碩士論文。
Albright, K. C. & Nottingham, M.(1989). Guidelines for selecting
secondary school principals. Doctoral dissertation of
University of Idaho.
Anderson, M. E.(1989). Training and selecting school leaders.
Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
Baltzell, D. C. & Dentler, R. A.(1983). Selecting American school
principals: A sourcebook for educators. Cambridge, MA: Abt
Associates, Inc.
Baltzell, D. C. & Dentler, R. A.(1984). 5 paths to the Princi-
palship. Principal, 63(5), 37-44.
Castetter, W. B.(1986). The personnel function in educational
administration. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Cenzo, D. A. D. & Robbins, S. P.(1994). Human resource
management--Concepts and practices(4th ed.). New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Finn, C. E. Jr.(1987). How to spot an effective principal.
Principal, 67(1), 20-22.
Flanagan, J. L.(1989). A process model principal selection. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Danforth
Conference for the Preparation of School Principals(Norman,
OK, April 9-12).
Geering, A. D.(1980). The role of the school principal in
comparative perspectives. South Australia, Australia.
McNeely, S. R.(1989). Principal selection in a time of change.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South
Educational Research Association(Little Rock, AR, November
7-10).
Musella, D.(1981). Improving administrator selection proce-
dures. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association(Los Angeles, CA, April
13-17).
National Institute of Education.(1984). Selecting principals:
Research in brief. Washington, DC: Nation Institute of
Education.
Richardson, M. D.(1989). Principal selection in rural school
districts: A process model. Paper presented at the National
Rural Educational Research Association(Reno, NV, October
7-11).
Richardson, M. D.(1990). A collaborative model for principal
selection. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Association of School Administrators(San Fran-
cisco, CA, February 23-26).
Saaty, R. W.(1987). The analytic hierarchy process─What it is
and how it is used. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3-5), 161-
176.
Saaty, T. L.(1988). Decision making for leaders: The analytical
hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world. Pitts-
burgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.
Saaty, T. L.(1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy
process. European Journal of Operational Research, 40(1),
9-10.
Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (1982). The logic of priorities.
Boston: Kluwer Nijhoff Publishing.
Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G.(1991). Prediction, projection and
forecasting. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Vargas, L. G.(1990). An overview of the analytic hierarchy
process and its applications. European Journal of
Operational Research, 48(1), 2-8.
Wendel, F. C. & Sybouts, W.(1988). Assessment center methods in
education administration: Past, present and future. UCEA
Monograph Series.
Winter, P. A., McCabe, D. H., & Newton, R. M.(1998a). Principal
selection decisions made by teachers: The influence of work
values, principal job attribute, and school level. Journal
of school leadership, 8(3), 251-279.
Winter, P. A., McCabe, D. H., & Newton, R. M.(1998b). The impact
of work values and principal job attribute on principal
selection decisions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research Association(San Diego,
CA, April 13-17).
Zakariya, S. B.(1983). How to add snap, crackie, and pop to
principal selection. Executive Educator, 5(11), 20-23.