本研究旨在探討我國自八十六年修正通過「特殊教育法」後，台北市立國民中小學校身障班在經費運用，是否有績效。
探討問題包括：
一、學校對年度特教經費分配運用，支援教學是否滿意而有績效。
二、學校身障班教師，對學校經費支援教學活動是否滿意而有績效。
三、學生家長，對學校提供學習環境是否滿意而有績效。
本研究方法採問卷調查及深度訪談調查法。問卷調查取樣對象，依台北市八十九會計年度（民88.07.01-民89.12.31）市立國民中小學校年度特教經費在350萬元以上學校行政人員（校長80人、輔導主任114人、會計主任68人、特教組長122人）、特教教師（512人）、特教學生家長（499人），以隨機取樣方式，進行問卷調查，調查結果以百分比、卡方檢驗，進行統計分析；同時深度訪談特教學者、特教行政業務主管、熱忱特教工作者，進行深度調查訪問。
根據研究，主要發現如下：
一、校長、主任、組長對整體特教經費運用，支援教學滿意而有績效。
二、經費編列
（一）採班級數作編列經費基本數及器材維修費運用，會計主任、特教組長較低滿意及保留態度外，其他行政人員較高滿意度比率。
（二）對校園無障礙設施經費統編在教育局，學校行政人員及家長認為運用較不方便。
（三）對政府訂定標準公式編列特教經費，多數行政人員較傾向保留態度，待相關單位進一步研究。
三、教師對經費支援教學需要，多數教師較保留態度（無意見30%），待相關單位進一步研究。
四、教師對教材編訂，認為教師自訂較省經費，惟共同性或專業性的教材，得委託特教資源中心或特教學術研究機構編訂。
五、家長對學校提供學習環境滿意度高達80%。
研究者根據文獻分析及研究發現，提出下列各項建議：
一、對教育行政單位的建議
（一） 校園無障礙設施經費，應由各校視實際需求編列在年度預算中。
（二） 各校經費編列應以設置障礙班類別、學生人數、障礙程度訂定經費編列標準公式，以達經費運用績效。
（三） 充實特教資源中心經費，設置特教專業人員，協助教學與輔導。落實教學評鑑，有效監督經費運用。
二、對學校行政單位的建議
（一） 經費運用開誠佈公，避免誤解和疑慮並增設專用電腦教室加強學生技能訓練。
（二） 身障班學生上課，儘量方便師生上課，考試評量特別設計，減少學生學習挫折。
三、對家長的建議
（一） 尊重教師教學專業，協助結合社會或社區資源，共同參與學生教學與輔導活動。
（二） 自動提早通報子女障礙情形，供學校早期介入，改善學生障礙。
四、對未來研究的建議
（一） 本研究理論基礎著重特教經費來源及運用概況，相關研究工具尚未建立，對經費運用之效能、效率、信度，有待再進一步研究。
（二） 本研究範圍調查問卷取樣及深度訪談對象，僅作台北市國中、小學校身障班未普及全面性學校、社區、社會人士觀點或意見，進行評析，提供更具體研究結果，有待更進一步研究。

Abstract
This research aims to discuss about the using of the funds to the disability classes whether are efficiency in elementary and junior high schools since the "Special Education Regulations and Clauses" has been established from 1997.
The main points are:
1. Are the schools satisfied and efficient to the arrangement of the yearly funds and the supplied teaching resources?
2. Are the teachers of the disability classes satisfied and efficient to the arrangement of the yearly funds and the supplied teaching resources?
3. Are the parents satisfied with the learning environment that is provided by the schools?
This research is based on the interviews and the questionnaires of which objects are mainly the administrative staffs of the schools that had accepted special education yearly funds (July, 99' ~ December 20') above NT$ 3,500,000. The aforesaid objects are included 80 Principles, 114 Chiefs of Counselling Centres, 68 Chiefs of Accounting, 122 Unit Leaders of Special Education, 512 Special Education Teachers, and 499 Students' Parents. And the questionnaires are set up by the random method. All the related results are analysed and statistics by the percent scale, and the card examination. Meanwhile, the deeply interviews on the scholiasts, the leaders, and the enthusiastic workers of Special Education are held for information collection.
According to the final results, the main discoveries are as follows:
1. The Principles, the Chiefs, and the Unit Leaders are mostly satisfied and feel efficient to the arrangement of the yearly funds and the supplied teaching resources.
2. About the Funds:
A. The ordinary administrative staffs have a higher satisfaction level than
the Chiefs of Accounting and the Unit Leaders on the topic of the using
of the funds arrangement on the facilities maintains and the numbers of
the special education classes.
B. The administrative staffs in the Education Bureau, and the schools, and
the parents feel not satisfied and inconvenient to the non-obstacle
environment in the schools.
C. Most of the administrative staffs rather have the observation attitude and
disagreement on the topic of the funds are accounted by formulas which
are given up by the government, and they hope the related bureaus can
make more and further researches on this topic.
3. Most of the Special Education Teachers rather have the observation attitude and disagreement on the topic about the funds on the supplementary teaching needs, and they hope the related bureaus can make further and more researches on this topic. (No common on this topic: 30%)
4. Most of the Special Education Teachers think that might save more money if they can make up the teaching materials on their own. However, the specialised and the common used materials should still have to be set up by the Resource Centres and the Institutes of Special Education.
5. 80% Parents are satisfied with the learning environment of the schools.
The researcher made the following proposes according to the analyses on the related documents and the researches.
1. To the educational administrative departments of the bureaus:
A. The funds of the non-obstacle environment should be made by the
actual needs of the schools, and it should be contained in the yearly
budget.
B. The accounting formulas of the arrangement should take the level of the
disability, the vary kinds of the special classes, and the number of the
students in account for achieving the best efficiency of the using of the
funds.
C. The Special Education Resource Centres should share more funds for
having more specialised workers to assistant the teaching program,
and to do more consultants. To ascertain the teaching evaluation for
achieving the best efficiency of the using of the funds.
2. To the educational administrative departments of the schools:
A. All the uses of the funds should be made known to the public for
avoiding the misunderstandings, and doubts. By the way, the funds
should be used for having more special computer classrooms to make
the students learn and practice more skills of living.
B. To design more out-door teaching programs for the physical disability
students, and let the students have the special evaluation ideas for
reducing the learning frustrations.
3. To the parents:
A. To respect the teachers' specialised field of teaching, to help and
combine the resources from the society or the neighbourhoods, and to
join the students' teaching and counselling activities.
B. To provide the children's disability information willingly and to let the
schools to help the students get improvement on the situations.
4. To the future researchers:
A. This research is based on the origin and the using of the special
education funds. The related researching tools haven't been built up.
The efficacy, the efficiency, and the level of trusty are still needed to
make further researches.
B. The objects to the interviews and the questionnaires in this research is
limited in Taipei City, which means the results are not popularised to all
kinds of schools, the members of this society, and the levels of this
society. Therefore, the further studies on this area are still waited to
be made.

中文部分
1.王如哲（民87）：教育行政學。台北，五南。
2.王振德（民70）：近三十年來我國的特殊教育。教育資料集刊，第六輯。台北：國立教育資料館。
3.林新發（民79）：組織氣氛與組織績效關係之研究。國立彰化師範大學特教系，博士論文。（未出版）。
4.林幸台（民88）：特殊教育與終生教育。教育資料集刊，第二十四輯。台北：國立教育資料館。
5.林玉体（1996）：民主與教育。台北：師大書苑。
6.李平（2000）譯，Thomas Amstrong原著：經營多元智慧－開展以學生為中心的教育。台北：遠流。
7.李錫津（民88）：台北市政府教育局工作報告－向台北市議會第八屆第二次大會報告。台北：台北市政府教育局。
8.吳武典（民69）：我國國民中小學特殊教育的設施及其檢討。教育資料集刊，第五輯。台北：國立教育資料館。
9.吳武典（民85）：教育改革與資優教育。資優教育季刊，63期，1-7頁。
10.吳武典（民86a）：特殊教育的發展與趨勢。載於黃政傑主編，當代師資培育的發展與趨勢。台北市：漢文書店。
11.吳武典（民86b）：從特殊兒童的教育安置談特殊教育的發展。中國特殊教育，15，頁15-21。
12.吳武典（民87）：出席1998年美國教育研究學會與特殊教育協會年會報告。（未發表）
13.吳武典（民87）：教育改革與特殊教育。教育資料集刊，第二十三輯。台北：國立教育資料館編印。
14.吳武典（民87）：特殊教育行政問題與對策，特殊教育季刊，68期，國立台灣師大特教中心。
15.吳清山（民86）：跨世紀的重要教育工程－談國民教育革新的動向。教師天地，11頁。
16.江明華（民85）：國民中學啟智班教師專業能力運用程度之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育系碩士論文。（未出版）
17.陳清溪（民88）：啟智班教師教學支援需求與教學自我效能之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育系碩士論文。（未出版）
18.曾燦金（民85）：美國學校本位管理及其在我國國民小學實施可行性之研究。台北市立師範學院碩士論文。（未出版）
19.陳再明（1994）：日本論（初二版）。台北：遠流。
20.張錫惠（1997）：績效管理－經營叢書：非營利組織經營管理研修粹要。台北市：洪健全基金會。
21.高希均（1997）：觀念播種。台北：天下文化。
22.洪皓（1989）譯：如何作好績效管理。台北：尖端出版。
23.許是祥（民80）譯：管理學－理論與運用。台北市：前程企業管理公司。
24.馬英九（民89）：台北市政府網頁，http://www.taipei.gov.tw/mavor/announce/
25.黃建銘（民88）：組織績效指標的運用與管理的意涵－英國經驗之探討。人力發展期刊，66卷。
26.黃松本（民89）：英國實施學校本位管理概況。師說月刊，145期。
27.蓋浙生（民82）：教育經濟與計畫。台北：五南書局。
28.蓋浙生（2000）：新任總統當選人教育政策座談會摘要。教育研究雜誌，73期，11頁。
29.蘇皇妃（民85）：我國啟智學校之學校效能探討。國立彰化師範大學特教系碩士論文。（未出版）
30.楊平吉（民78）譯，日比中平原著：部門別績效評估實務。台北：豪華工商圖書。
31.劉平文（民80）：經營分析與企業診斷－企業管理總觀。台北：華泰書局。
32.簡慧美、林秋靜、劉玉玫等（民88）：特殊教育經費運用問題的探討－經濟政策專題研究，台灣大學推廣進修部公共行政研究班第二期學員報告。（未出版）
33.莊萬壽（1998）打開盲人心內的門窗－甘為霖牧師。載於台灣史123，56-57頁。台北縣政府編印。
34.蔡保田（民76）：教育組織與行政。台北：五南書局。
35.秦夢群（民88）：教育行政－實務部分。（二版），台北：五南書局。
36.教育部（民84）：邁向二十一世紀的教育遠景－中華民國教育報告書。
37.教育部（民88）：中華民國教育統計。
38.教育部（民88）：教育統計指標。
39.教育部（民88）：特殊教育－中華民國教育年報。台北：國立教育資料館。
40.教育部（民89）：特殊教育(1)特殊學校概況。中華民國教育統計。
41.行政院主計處（民89）：中華民國台灣地區國民經濟動向統計季報，88期。
42.台北市政府教育局（民87）：台北市身心障礙白皮書。
43.台北市政府教育局（民87）：台北市議會暨台北市政府北歐藝術教育及特殊教育考察報告。
44.台北市政府教育局（民88）：台北市教育統計提要。
45.台北市政府教育局（民89）：台北市政府最近五年教育經費結構分析。（未出版）
46.台北市政府教育局（民89）：八十八學年度台北市特殊教育評鑑手冊-身心障礙教育類。（未出版）
47.台北市政府教育局（民86）：86.5.19.北市教人字第八六二三○六三五○○號函台北市政府「台北市教育局修正組織規程及編制表總說明」。
48.行政院國科會技術資料中心（民69）：六十九年度經營與管理資料彙編－一般管理（績效的四個R字），台北：益群印刷公司。
49.行政院教育改革審議委員會（民85）：教育改革總諮議報告書。
50.中文大辭典（民56）：「績效預算」解釋。台北：中國文化學院出版部。
51.新辭典（民78）：「績效預算」解釋。台北市：三民書局。
52.中華民國智障者家長總會（1999）：全民上網審預算，http/budget.yam.com.tw/03-03.htm
53.台北市立啟明學校（民88）八十八年九月簡介資料。
54.台北市立啟智學校（民88）八十九年九月簡介資料。
55.特殊教育法（民86）：中華民國八十六年五月十四日總統華總（一）義字第八六○○一一二八二○號令修正公布。
56.教育經費編列與管理法（民89）：中華民國八十九年十二月十三日總統華總一義字第八九○○二九五七○○號令公布。
外文部分
日 文
1.兼子 仁（平成三年）：公立養護學校整備特別措置法－教育福祉編。東京：學陽書局。
2.東京都教育委員會（昭和六十二年）：教育財政－東京都的教育。東京：都教育廳總務部企畫室。
3.文部省教育助成局地方課（平成十一年）：時集－教育改革的推進；盲、聾、養護學校。教育委員會月報，11號。東京：文部省。
4.文部省（平成二年）：將特殊教育的振興－文教預算、學校、學術、文化。東京：第一法律出版株式會社。
5.文部省（平成九年）：地方教育調查－平成九年會計年度中間報告概要。
http://www.monbr.go.jp/news/0000039
6.文部省（平成十一年）：障害配慮教育－。東京：文部省。
英文部分
1.Audit Commission (1993). Adding up the Sums: Schools' Management of their Finances. London: HMSO.
2.Audit Commission (1998). Better by Far: Preparing for Best Value. London: HMSO.
3.Ainscow, M. (1994). Special needs in the classroom: A teacher education guide. London:Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
4.Bibby, P.Lunt, I. (1994). Special costs, Managing Schools Today, 4, No.1
5.Bryk, A. S. (1998) Chicago school reform: Linkages between local control, educational supports and student achievement. Presentations with colleagues in the Consortium on Chicago School Research in a Symposium at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, April.
6.Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S., & Easton, J. Q. (1998). Charting Chicago School Reform: Democratic Localism as a Lever for Change. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.
7.Bailey, A., & Johnson, G. (1997). How strategies develop in organizations. In M. Preedy, R. Glatter and R. Levavil (eds), Educational Management: Strategy, Quality and Resources. Buckingham, UK:Open University Press.
8.Coleman, M.,& Anderson, L. (2000). Managing Finance and resources in education - cost analysis in education. Panl Chapman Publishing LTD.
9.Council for Exceptional Children (1998). IDEA1997:Let's make it work. Reston, VA: CEC.
10.Cumming, C. (1971). Studies in Educational Costs. Edinburgh, UK:Scottish Academic Press.
11.Caldwell, B. J., & Spinks, J.M. (1998). The Self-Managing School. London: Falmer Press.
12.Caldwell, B.J., & Spinks, J.M. (1998). Beyond the Self-Managing School. London: Falmer Press.
13.Cohn, E., & Geske, T. G. (1990). The Economics of Education (3rd ed.). Oxford: Pergamon.
14.Coombs, P.H., & Hallak, J. (1987). Cost Analysis in Education: A Tool for Policy and Planning, Baltimore.MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
15.Crabb. G. (ed.)(1990). Costing Open and Flexible Learning: A Practical Guide. London: National Council for Educational Technology.
16.Crowther, D., Dyson, A., & Millward, A. (1999). Costs and Outcomes for Pupils with Moderate Learning Difficulties in Special and Mainstream.
17.Department for Education and Employment,UK (1989). Schools, Research Report RR89
18.Daniels, H., & Ware, J.(Eds.)(1990), Special Educational Needs and the National Curriculum the impact of the Education Reform Act. Kongan Page. (The Bedford Way Series).
19.DETR(1998). Annual Report 1998/The Governoment's Expendure Plans 1998-99, Cm 3906, London: The Stationery Office.
20.DFEE & OFSTED(1998). Department Report/The Gvoernoment's Expoudure plons 1998-99, Cm 3916. London: The Stationery Office.
21.Department of Education, U.S.A. (1998). Family involvement in Children's Education Successful Local Approaches. Office of Educational Resarch and Improvement, U.S.A. DOE.
22.Dee, L., Emmerson, P. (1997). Special Educational Needs in the Secondary School, University of London, institude of Education Limit teacher Education (ITE).
23.Education Finance Statistics Center,(2000).What are we spending on special Education in the U.S.A. http:nces.ed.gov/edfin/speced.html.
24.FAS (Funding Agency for Schools),UK: (19999). Cost and Performance Comparisons for Grant-Maintained Schools: Expenditure and Income, 1997/98. York,UK:FAS.
25.Glasgow City Council (2000). Pave the Way - A Directory of Information . Glasgow,UK:Glasgow City Council Social Work Services Resource Team, Children Affected by Disability Public Information Centenary House.
26.GSS(1994). Education Statistics for the United Kingdom: 1993 edition. London:HMSO.
27.GSS(1997). Education Statistics for the United Kingdom: 1996 edition. London:The Stationery Office.
28.GSS(1998). Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1998 edition. London: The Stationery Office.
29.Hough, J. (1981). A Study of School Costs. Slough, UK:NFER-Nelson.
30.Hanushek, E. A. (1997) Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19:. 2,141-64.
31.Hayward, D. (1993). Schools of the Future: Preliminary Paper. Melbourne:Directorate of School Education.
32.Hess, G.A. (1999). Understanding achievement (and other) changes under Chicago school reform, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,. 21:.1.
33.Hanushek, E. A. (1994). Making schools work: improving performance and controlling costs. Washington, DC:The Brookings Institution.
34.Hanushek, E. A. (1997) Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: an update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19:.2.
35.Kelly, A. (1992). Turning the budget on its head, Managing Schools Today, Vol.1, no.7.
36.Knight, B. (1997) Budget analysis and construction. In M. Preedy, R. Glatter and R. Levavil (eds), Educational Management: Strategy, Quality and Resources. Buckingham, UK:Open University Press.
37.Laine, R. D., Greenwald, R. & Hedges, L. V. (1996) Money does matter: A research synthesis of a new universe of education production function studies. In L. O. Picus and J. L. Wattenbarger (eds), Where Does the Money Go? Resource Allocation in Elementary and Secondary Schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
38.Levavil, R., & Glover, D. (1997). Value for money as a school improvement strategy: Evidence from the new inspection system in England. School Effectiveness and Improvement, 8:2.
39.Levavil, R., & Glover, D. (1998). The relationship between efficient resource management and school effectiveness: evidence from OFSTED secondary school inspections. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9 :1.
40.Levavil, R. (1995). Local Management of Schools: Analysis and Practice. Buckingham, UK:Open University Press.
41.Levavil, R. & Hardman, J. (1999). The performance of grant-maintained schools in England: An experiment in school autonomy. Journal of Educational Policy (forthcoming).
42.Mackinnon D., Stathman,. (1999) . 1978 Warnock Special Educational Needs, Facts and Figures, Education in the UK. (3rded.) Holder & Stoughfon in Association .UK: Daniels, H & Ware.
43.Meyerson, D.,& Matin, J. (1997). Cultural change: integration of three different views. In A. Harris, N. Bennett and M. Preedy (eds), Organisational Effectiveness and Improvement in Education, Buckingham, UK:Open University Press.
44.OECD, Directorate of Education, Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, Education Committee (1994) Effectiveness of schooling and of educational resource management: synthesis of country studies, Points 22 and 23. Paris: OECD.
45.OFSTED (1995a). Guidance on the Inspection of Nursery and Primary Schools. London: HMSO.
46.OFSTED (1995b). Guidance on the Inspection of Secondary Schools. London: HMSO.
47.OFSTED (1995c). Guidance on the Inspection of Special Schools. London: HMSO.
48.OFSTED (1999a). Primary Schools Panda Annex 1998 Data. London: HMSO.
49.OFSTED (1999b). Secondary Schools Panda Annex 1998 Data, London: HMSO.
50.OFSTED (1993). Standards and Quality in Education. London:HMSO.
51.OFSTED (1995a). Guidance on the Inspection of Secondary Schools. London:HMSO.
52.OFSTED (1995b). Guidance on the Inspection of Special Schools. London: HMSO.
53.OFSTED (1998). The Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools.1996/7. London: The Stationery Office.
54.OFSTED (1995). Guidance on the Inspection of Secondary Schools. London:Office for Standards in Education.
55.ONS(1997). Regional Trends 32. London: The Stationery Office: HMSO.
56.ONS(1998). Monthly Digest of Statistics: June 1998. London: The Stationery Office: HMSO.
57.Ruesch M , & Brandy.Q, (2000), Disciplining Students in Special Education . The Journal of Special Education, 33:4.
58.Rice, J. K. (1997). Cost analysis in education: paradox and possibility . Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19:4.
59.Ross, K. N. & Levavil, R. (eds.), (1999). Needs-based resource allocation in education via Formula funding of schools. Paris: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning.
60.Simkins, T. (1981). Economics and the management of resources in education, sheffield papers in education management, No.17. Sheffield,UK: City Polytechnic.
61.Siciliano, J. (1997). The relationship between formal planning and performance in non-profit organizations. Non-Profit Management and Leader-ship, 7: 4.
62.Scottish Execusive (1999). Raising standard-setting targets in scottish education, authority information 1999.
63.Scottish Office Forestry commission (1998). Serving scotland's needs: the government's expandure plans 1998-99, Cm 3914. Edinburg,UK: The stationery Office.
64.Thomas, H. (1990). Education costs and performance: A cost-effectiveness analysis. London: Casse11.
65.Tsang, M. C. (1997). Cost analysis for improved educational policymaking and evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19: 4.
66.Tompkins, P. (1997). Financial and material resources In M. Leask and I. Terrell (eds.), Development planning and school improvement for middle managers. London:Kogan Page.
67.Taylor, J. & Bradley, S. (1999). Resource utilisation and economies of scale in secondary schools. Unpublished paper based on research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, Department of Economics, Management School, Lancaster University.
68.Whitty, G., Power, S. & Halpin, D. (1998). Devolution and choice in education: The school, the state and the market. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.