The Investigative Study of Implementation Condition on Elementary School Affairs Evaluation in Taipei County

• Main Authors: Chung-Lu Chuang, 莊忠儒
• Other Authors: 鄭崇趁
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2004
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/87048045423235178863

碩士 === 國立台北師範學院 === 教育政策與管理研究所 === 92 === Abstract The research inquired into the implement condition of school affairs evaluation in elementary schools in county of Taipei. First, probing into the content and theoretical background of elementary school affairs evaluation; second, understanding the development context and implement condition of elementary school affairs evaluation; third, understanding elementary educators’ opinions and discrepancy on the 91st academic year school affairs evaluation; finally, proposing improvement suggestions for the implement of elementary school affairs evaluation, so as to provide the Department of Education of Taipei County reference on future implementing of school affairs evaluation. The study adopted literature analysis and questionnaire survey. The research objects included 672 school staffs from 44 schools which were evaluated by Taipei County Education Bureau in the 91st academic year. The total sampling population was 672, 441 of which were valid; the valid returns-ratio was 65.6%. The data obtained by questionnaire were analyzed by SPSS for Windows 11.5 with descriptive statistics, item analysis, reliability analysis, independent-sampling T-test, one-way ANOVA, and Scheffe’ method. According to the result of data analysis, the main findings were as follows: i. The gap between acknowledgement and attainment of the purpose and function of school affairs evaluation indicates that the implement of school affairs evaluation still needs improvement. ii. The lower the educators’ education level, the higher they agree with the purpose and function of school affairs evaluation and its attainment. iii. The trend of commissioners’ professional diversity was agreed by most of the participants. iv. School affairs evaluation commissioners’ professional ability of righteousness objectivity was approved. v. Most of the educators thought the time of evaluation is sufficient and the way of evaluation can reflect real situation of school. vi. The participant educators of Taipei county consent to the adequacy of the implement ways of school affairs evaluation. vii. The school affairs evaluation indicators in Taipei County covered contained every aspect of school administration. viii. The evaluation indicators can provide information for evaluation team when they were evaluating, and reflect the content of school work; but there were still room for amending and improving these evaluation indicators. ix. It was not proper for educational administrative institution to subsidize and distribute expenditure only accordance with the results of evaluation. x. The educators in Ban Chiao district had higher level of agreement on parts of school affairs evaluation processing and applying than other educators. xi. Educators of both genders were positive about the whole implement situation of school affairs evaluation in Taipei County. xii. The educators over 51 years old had the highest level of identification with the implement of school affairs evaluation. xiii. The Principals had the highest level of identification with the implement of school affairs evaluation. xiv. The educators with over 25 years seniority had the highest level of identification with the implement of school affairs evaluation. xv. The educators from schools of different size had no significant different viewpoints about the implement situation of school affairs evaluation. xvi. The educators from young and new schools had higher level of identification with the implement of school affairs evaluation. According to the above-mentioned conclusion, the researcher made the following suggestions: I Suggestions for educational administrative institutions i. to plan different teams to inspect the evaluated schools, so as to understand the operation of school affairs in depth. ii. The evaluation policy-making organization should hold preprofessional training, to raise the professional ability of evaluation staff. iii. The increase or decrease of the financial support should cautiously base on the outcomes of evaluation. iv. The educational authority concerned should advocate the purpose and function of school affairs evaluation, seeking more educational workers’ support. v. Integrate documents and electronic materials about the school management of the excellent evaluated schools, to provide reference for the rest schools in Taipei County. vi. As to the schools with poor grades, the educational authority concerned should employ professors and experts in related field, educational supervisors and guidance teachers to assist them to do well, in order to carry out the follow-up guidance of the evaluation outcome. vii. Integrate related evaluation works to reduce the burden of educators. II The suggestions for the evaluated schools i. The principal should advocate the concept of evaluation and raise teachers’ acknowledgement about the content of evaluation. ii. Realize the school-based evaluation system; lift the staff’s self-evaluation ability. iii. Realize the arrangement and preservation of instructional and administrative profiles, to reduce the impact on the staff due to school affairs evaluation. iv. Establish a good channel of communication among the school, the community and the PTA; represent instructional achievements regularly to avoid that the public inspect the school management only according to the evaluation report. v. Transform school-based evaluation; request educational supervisors to attend school to evaluate. III The suggestions for future studies i. To do the study on the secondary indicator system’s reliability and validity ii. To do the comparative study regarding the schools which were evaluated in the past years. iii. Adopt the methodology combining interview and scale, considering both qualitative and quantitative analysis methods. iv. Establish the standard for evaluation indicators to serve as score reference for evaluation team.