A study on educational policy instruments for principal preparation of primary and secondary schools in Taiwan

• Main Author: 周仁尹
• Other Authors: 梁恆正
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2008
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/ytf8k4

博士 === 國立臺灣師範大學 === 教育學系 === 96 === This study examines the applicable educational policy instruments on the preparation for primary and secondary school principals in Taiwan. Based on the findings, the researcher indicates several effective approaches which could exalt principals’professionalism and leadership, protect students’learning rights, promote the capability of socialization, enhance the quality of education nationwide and publicize international competitiveness. 100 schools were randomly selected nationwide for quantitative study according to their scale and type. 1000 questionnaires were sent out; 833 returned for data processing by the software SPSS for window version 12.0. The summary of the research findings is as follows: 1.Among the current policy instruments for principal preparation, capacity instrument is widely utilized, while the communication instrument is the most influential. 2.Currently funded by the state, the principal preparation programs are in transition to charging candidates and outsourced to other institutes. 3.Internship and mentor programs gradually gain the attention in the curriculum design of principal preparation. Most principal preparation programs under teacher education institutes plan to emphasize on mentor-mentee program. 4.Various incentives, funds and minority programs are in place for principal preparation to meet the needs for local counties and schools. 5.The fundamental policy instruments in the current 1-12 principal preparation system include but are not limited to: accountability, certificates, research capability, and socialization. Based on the research finding, the following suggestions are made for educational administration, principals, and teachers, as well as for future studies: 1.Standardized evaluation criteria, currently missing, are required for effective principal preparation. 2.Accountability of a principal should be evaluated at a higher level prior to principal preparation to adequately meet all professional requirements for principal selection. 3.Certification is urgently in need to design more flexible curriculum for principal preparation and professional development. 4.A state-level organization is necessary to study educational policies on principal preparation, in order to provide objective suggestions to improve principal preparation programs. 5.Local counties should apply various policy instruments, build more effective evaluation mechanisms post principal preparation to raise the program quality of principal preparation and respond to the needs of the ever-changing society. 6.For future studies, other research methodologies and a more inclusive study group can be adopted to create more robust data for analysis.