台北縣立高級中學學校績效責任指標之建構

摘 要

本研究旨在建構「台北縣立高中學校績效責任指標」內涵，以台北縣立12所高中（完全中學）為研究對象，採用文獻分析、焦點團體訪談，建構學校績效責任指標內容架構，並以「台北縣立高中學校績效責任指標可用性調查問卷」為研究工具，進行問卷調查，根據問卷實際所得資料，分別以次數分配與百分比、平均數、極端值、標準差、Pearson積差相關、因素負荷量以及內部一致性Cronbach α係數等統計方法進行分析，以了解指標之可用性；另以「台北縣立高中學校績效責任指標相對權重調查問卷」為研究工具，採焦點團體訪談方式，進行問卷調查，根據問卷實際所得資料，以層級分析法（Analytic Hierarchy Process）進行分析，以獲得學校績效責任指標相對權重之分配，本研究主要結論有以下三項：

一、台北縣立高中「績效責任指標」，結構上可區分為輸入層面（16.5有三個向度及16項具體指標細目；過程層面（34.1%）有五個向度及30項具體指標細目；輸出層面（49.4%）有四個向度及24項具體指標細目。
二、第二層級指標十二個向度中，經整體指標權重排序的結果，較重要指標分別是教師表現（22.7%）、學生表現（14.9%）、學生學習（14.9%）、教師教學（12.6%）及人力管理（9.4%）。
三、第三層級指標共有70個細目指標，經整體指標權重排序的結果較重要指標分別是專業成長表現（5.3%）、班級經營表現（5.2%）準時到校上課情形（5.0%）、學生參與學校學習程度（5.0%）、提供有效學習情境（4.5%）。

基於學校教育績效責任指標可用性與相對權重之研究結果與討論，本研究分別對教育行政機關提出「提供教育行政機制定學校績效責位政策參考」等五項建議; 對台北縣立高中提出「召開研討會，建立共識」等五項建議; 對進一步研究提出「研究方法可以行動研究進行」等四項建議。

關鍵詞：台北縣立高中、學校績效責任、績效責任指標

The Constructing of School Accountability Indicators for Taipei County Senior High Schools
Abstract
This study is aimed to construct the connotation of School Accountability Indicators for Taipei County Senior High Schools, taking the twelve Taipei County Senior High Schools (Junior-Senior High Schools) as the objects of study, using Documentary Analysis and Focus Group Interview methods to build up the structure of the School Accountability Indicators. At the same time, we use the valid questionnaire of Taipei County Senior High School as some sort of study means to set for this survey. Based on the data from the questionnaire, we use Frequency Allocation, Percentage, Average, Extreme Number, Standard Deviation, Pearson Product-moment Correlation, Factor Loadings, Internal Consistency, Cronbach’s α (alpha), or the other statistical techniques to progress the analysis, and to find out if the indicators are available. Besides, in order to understand the allocation of School Accountability Indicator Relative Importance, we make use of Analytic Hierarchy Process to analyze the data from the questionnaire and find out that:
1. The Accountability Indicators of Taipei County Senior High Schools can be divided into the Input Aspect (16.5%) with three scales and 16 concrete indicator specific items, the Process Aspect (34.1%) with five scales and 30 concrete indicator specific items, the Output Aspect (49.4%) with four scales and 24 concrete indicator specific items.
2. After the re-sorting of the total relative importance of indicators, we can see Teachers’ Performance (22.7%), Students’ Performance (14.9%), Learning of the Students (14.9%), Teaching of the Teachers (12.6%), and Man Management (9.4%) from the twelve scales of the second level are much more important.
3. After the re-sorting of the total relative importance of indicators, we can see Professional Progress (5.3%), Class Management (5.2%), Attendance at School (5.0%), Students’ Involvement in School Learning Activities (5.0%), and Providing Effective Learning Situation (4.5%) from the seventy specific items of the third level are much more important.
On account of the usability of School Accountability Indicators and the study results and discussions of the relative importance of the School Accountability Indicators, there are five suggestions (providing reference resources, etc.) for the Educational Administrative Organizations, five suggestions (holding a conference and getting the same point of view, etc.) for Taipei County Senior High Schools, and four suggestions (using Action Research as a research method, etc.) for the further study.
Keywords: Taipei County Senior High School, School Accountability, Accountability Indicator

參考文獻

一、中文部分
行政院（2003）。行政院暨地方各級行政機關九十三年實施績效獎計畫。台北：作者。
江書良、陳紅蓮（2006）。完全中學學校績效責任指標之建構--以三重高中為例中。發表於澳門大學主辦，「華人社會的教育發展」學術研討會。澳門：澳門大學。
李春儒（1996）。英國教育改革機構、法案與報告書。載於黃政傑(主編)，各國教育改革動向，頁77-105。台北：師大書苑。
李家宗（1997）。英美教育改革法案中市場導向之比較研究。國立暨南國際大學比較教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台灣南投縣。
李勝富（2000）。教育管轄權的改革。2005年8月28日，取自http://www.houstoncul.org/eduinfo/e2000006.htm/
吳再居（1984）。官僚化與組織效能關係之研究。國立中興大學公共政策研究所碩士論文，未出版，台灣台中市。
吳定（1993）。行政機構生產力衡量理論。載於行政院研考會：行政績效評估專論選輯(一)，105-117。
吳明清（1990）。談組織效能提升與校長角色。教師天地，46，48-49。
吳政達（2002ａ）。教育績效責任之內涵與作法。教育研究月刊，96，34-48。
吳政達（2002ｂ）。教育政策分析：概念、方法與應用。台北：高等教育。
吳政達、郭昭佑（1997）。概念構圖法在國民小學教科書評鑑標準建構之應用。教育與心理研究，20（2），217-242。
吳清山（2000）。學校績效責任的理念與策略。學校行政雙月刊，6，
3-13。
吳清山（2001）。教育發展研究。台北：元照。
吳清山 (2002)。學校行政研究的重要課題與未來方向。教育研究月刊，100，23-31。
吳清山、林天祐（2001）。教育名詞—績效責任。教育研究月刊，83，139-140。
吳清山、黃美芳和徐緯平（2002）。教育績效責任研究。台北：高等教育文化。
吳清基（1990）。教育與行政。台北：師大書苑。
林新發（1990）。我國工業專科學校校長領導行為、組織氣氛與組織績效關係之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北。
徐緯平（2001）。國民小學學校教育績效責任指標之建構。台北市立師範學院國民教育研究所，碩士論文，未出版，台北。
范熾文（2002）。國小校長領導行為、教師組織承諾與學校組織績效之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北。
陳正義（2004）。桃竹苗四縣市國民小學教師之學校績效責任信念與教師效能關係之研究。國立新竹師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台灣新竹市。
教育部全球資訊網（2005）。教育經費編列與管理法。2005年9月27日，取自http://www.edu.tw/
盛冰（2004）。契约學校：美國学校教育改革的新動向。2005年10月26日，取自http://www.pep.com.cn/200406/ca470119.h
陳明璋（1979）。組織效能研究途徑及其衡量。中國行政，29，48。
陳明璋（1982）。組織效能及其決定因素關係之研究。政治大學學報，45，117-149。
黃建忠（1999）。國民小學教育品質指標之建構。台北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。
黃美芳（2002）。美國學校教育績效責任制及其在我國實施可行
　性之研究。台北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未
　出版，台北。
黃淑梅（2005）。國民中學學校教育績效責任指標建構。國立臺南教育大學教育經營與管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，台灣台南市。
張明輝（1991）。巴納德組織理論與教育行政。台北：五南。
張清濱（1997）。學校行政與教育革新。台北：台灣書店。
張德銳和李俊達（2001）。美英兩國的績效責任運動及其對我國中小學教育的啟示。毛連溫、張玉成(主持人)，全球化的教育改革。現代教育論壇討論報告，國立教育資料館。
張慶勳（1996）。學校組織行為。台北：五南
郭昭佑（2000）。概念構圖法在評鑑指標建構上之應用─以國民中學校務評鑑指標建構為例。教育政策論壇，3(2)，173-203。
郭照佑（2001）。教育評鑑指標建構方法探究。國教學報，13，274。
孫志麟（1998）。國民教育指標體系的建構與應用。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北。
潘文章（1992）。企業管理：導論、功能、革新。人力發展月刊，66，52-63。
鄭彩鳳（1996）。競值途徑應用在高中職校長領導角色、學校組織文化與組織效能關係之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育系博士論文，未出版，高雄。
劉春榮（1993）。國民小學組織結構、組織承諾與組織效能關係之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北。
劉慶仁（2000）。美國教育改革概況表（1994-2000）。2005年9月9日，取自http://www.houston cul.org/eduinfo/e2000015.htm
謝文全（1985）。教育行政：理論與實務。台北：文景。
謝金青（1997）。國民小學學校效能評鑑指標與權重體系之建構。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北。
龔平邦（1997）。管理學。台北：三民。

二、英文部份
Bennett, S.J. (1997). Empowering teacher,empowering leadership: muti-site case study of school restructuring and accountability for student achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of San Diego, CA.
California State Department of Education (1995). Model school accountability report card. Retrieved April 24, 2001, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ope/epic/sarc/msarc/intro.html
California State Department of Education (2005). Testing & Accountability. Retrieved November 25, 2005, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/sa/
Campbell , J.P.（1977）.On the nature of organizational effectiveness. In P. S. Goodman & J.M. Pennings et al. (Eds.), New perspectives on organization.
Chelimsky,E.(1997).The coming transformations in evaluation.In E.Chelimsky & W.R. Shadish（Eds.）.Evaluation for the 21st century，pp1-26.CA:SAGE.
Cibulka, J.G., & Derlin, R.L. (1995). State education performance reporting policies in the U.S.: Accountability´s many faces. International Journal of Educational Research, 23(6), 479-492.
Cibulka, J.G., Reed, R. J., & Wong, K. K.(1992). The Politics of urban education in the United States. Washington, DC:Falmer.
Concil of Chief State School Officers (2001). State education accountability reports and indicator reports: Status of reports across the states-2000. Retrieved June 1,2001, from http://Pulications.ccsso.org/ccsso/publication_Detail.cfm?PID=307
Darling-Hammond, L., & Ascher, C. (1991). Creating accountability in big city schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No.ED428455)
Denision, D. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. N.Y.：John Wiley & Sons.
Drucker , P.F. (1993). Management：Tasks, responsibilities, practices. N.Y.：Harper & Row.
Education Commission of the state (1998). Accountability state and community responsibility. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 419277).
Education Week. (1999). Accountability guidelines.Retrirved December 05,2005, from http://www.edweek.org/cgi-bin/texis/search_more?querystring=Accountability+guidelines&date=datespan&sYear=1999&sMonth=1&sDay=1&eYear=1999&eMonth=12&eDay=31&PrimaryCategory=/ew/articles&SecondaryCategory=ew_commentary&OrderBy=
Education Week. (2000). Accountability. Retrirved December 05,2005, from http://www.edweek.org/cgi-bin/texis/search_more?querystring=Accountability+guidelines&date=datespan&sYear=1999&sMonth=1&sDay=1&eYear=1999&eMonth=12&eDay=31&PrimaryCategory=/ew/articles&SecondaryCategory=ew_commentary&OrderBy=
Education Week. (2001). Accountability. Retrirved December 05,2005, from http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qu01
Education Week. (2005). Issues: accountability. Retrirved December 05,2005from http://www.edweek.org/rc/issues/accountability/index.html?querystring=Accountability
Education Commission of the state (1998). Accountability state and community responsibility. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 419277).
Education Commission of the state (2000). Accountabilit:The progress of Education Reform 1999-2001. Retrieved October 20, 2005, from http://www.ecs.org/ecsmain.asp?page=/html/issues.asp
Education Commission of the state (2002). Accountability. Retrieved December 26, 2005 from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/39/95/3995.doc
Education Commission of the state (2001). Accountability. Retrieved December 18, 2005, from http://www.ecs.org/ecsmain.asp?
Elliott, E.J. (1991). Education counts: An indicator system to monitor the nation’s educational healthy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 334279).
Elmore, R.F. (1990). Restructuring schools：The next generation of educational reform. San Francisco：Jossey Bass.
Gallegos,A.（1994）.Meta-evaluation of school evaluation model. Studies in Education Evaluation, 20, 41-45.
Genck, F.H. (1983). Improve school performance. N.Y.: Praeger Publishers.
Gibson, J.L. ,Ivancevich, J.M. & Donnelly, J.H.Jr. (1976). Organizations: behavior, structure, and processes, Dallas, Taxas: Business Publications, Inc.
Greiner,J.M. (1996). Positioning performance measurement for the twenty first century. In A.Halachmi & G.Bouckaert (Eds). Organizational performance and measurement in the public sector (pp.11-50). London：Quorum Book.
Gross, E. (1967). The definition of organizational goal, British Journal of Sociology, 20, 287-291.
Hannaway, J. & Crowson, R. (1989). The politics of reforming school administration. New York: Falmer.
Hoy, W.K. & Ferguson, J. (1985). A Theoretical framework and exploration of organizational effectiveness of schools, Educational Administration Quarterly, 21(2), 121-124.
Hoy, W.K. & Miskel ,C.G. (1991). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice, (4th ed.), New York :Random House, Inc.
Jennifer, L.N.W. (1999). Selecting educational accountability indicators: Exploring states and local performances.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, MN.
Johnstone, J.N. (1981). Indicators of education systems. London: UNESCO.
Johnstone, J.N. (1991). Indicators of education systems. Paris: UNESCO.
Kirst, M. W. (1990). Accountability: Implications for state and local policymakers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 318804)
Kogan,M. (1988). Educational accountability：An analytical overview. London：Hutchinson.
Lashway, L.(1999). Holding schools accountable for achievement.Retrieved December 05,2005, from http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/digests/digest130.html
Levin, H. (1974). A conceptual framework for accountability in education .School Review, 82, 363-391.
Macpherson, R.J.S. (1996). Educative accountability policy research：Methodology and epistemological. Educational AdministrationQuarterly,32(1), 80-106.
Maryland State Department of Education (2000). Maryland school performance report. Retrieved April 24,2001,from http://msp.msde.state.md.us/introduction/index.asp
Maslow, A.H. (1970). Motivation and personality .N.Y.：Harper & Row.
National Governors Association. (1999). Standards,assessment,and accountability. Retrieved December 18, 2005,from http://www.nga.org/center/topics/1,1188,D_413,00.html
Norlin-Weaver, J.L. (1999). Selecting education indicators: Exploring states and local performances. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, M.N.
Oakes, J. (1986). Educational indicators: A guide for policy makers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 315920).
Oakes, J. (1989). What educational indicators? The case for assessing the school contex. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2),181-199.
OFsted (2000). Handbook for inspecting primary and nursery schools. Retrirved November 05, 2005, from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications/docs/hb2003/primaryhb03/hmi1359-18.html
OFsted (2003). Handbook for inspecting secondary schools. Retrieved December l6,2005,from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications/index.cfm?fuseaction=pubs.summary&id=3266
Parsons,T. (1960). Structure and process in modern societies. N.Y.: Free Press.
Pennings, J.M. & Goodman, P.S. (1977). Toward a workable framework. In P.S. Goodman & J.M. Pennings (Eds.), New perspectives on organizational.
Porter, A.C. (1991). Creating a system of school process indicators. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13, 129-133.
Robbins, S.P. (1988). Organizational behavior. New Jersey: Prentice-Mall, Inc.
Scheerens ,J. (1990). School effectiveness research and the development of process indicators of school functioning. School Effectiveness and School Improveness, 1(1), 61-68.
Scheerens ,J. (1991). Process indicators of school functioning:A selection based on the research literature on school effectivensss. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 17, 371-403.
Scriven, M.(1967). The methodology of evaluation. In: R. E. Stake （Ed.）, AERA Monograph series on Curriculum Evaluation No. 1. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1998). Organization, market and community as strategies for change: What works best for deep changes in schools. In Hargreaves, A. (ED), International Handbook of Educational Change, 576-595. London: Kluwer.
Silver, P.F. (1983). Educational administration: Theoretical perspectives on practice and research. N.Y.: Harper & Row.
Simon,H.A. (1976). Administrative behavior：A study of decision-making process in administrative organization. (3rd) N.Y.：The Free Press.
Smith, M.S. (1988). Educational indicators. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(7), 487-491.
Stern, J.D. (1988). The condition of education: Elementary and secondary education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 356519).
Stufflebeam, D. L., Foley, W. J., Gephart, W. J., Guba, E. G., Hammond, R. L., Merriman,H. O. & Provus, M. M.(1971). Educational evaluation and decision making. Itasca, IL: Peacock.
The Oxford English.(2005). Retrieved October 18, 2005, from http://mslin.ee.ntut.edu.tw:2000/cgi-bin/oxford_dict/dic.pl?account
Theobald, P. & Mills, E. (1995). Accountability and the struggle over what counts, Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 6, 462-465.
Wohlstetter, P. (1991). Accountability mechanisms for state education reform:some organizational alternatives. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis,13(1), 31-48.
Yuchtman, E. & Seashore, S.E. (1967). A system resource approach to0020organizational effectiveness, American Sociological Review, 32, 891-903.