| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立暨南國際大學 === 比較教育學系 === 99 === This thesis aims to comparing the private management of public schools for compulsory education among Taiwan and Spain. Through viewing the significance and the theory of the parental school choices and the private management of public school, then to analyze the background, the development of history, the contents of execution, the facing challenges of the private management of public school in Taiwan and Spain. Furthermore, by comparing the curriculum construction, characteristics, advantages and disadvantages of Taiwan and Spain, then to present the similarities and differences between the two systems. Most of all, try to conclude and discuss the causes and effects, to see the prospect for the future Taiwan.
By adopting the document analysis method and the comparative method presented by G. Z. F. Bereday, this study tries to integrate related theories, statements and literatures which are discussed above. According to the conclusion, not only the development background and the history, but also the models and the states of the schools are quite different. For example, in Taiwan, the relevant laws are still lack of completeness, but the laws of Spain are well-constructed. Besides, Taiwan exists both public and private school models, but in the case of Spain, the school models are all the same and belong to private. Furthermore, until 100th semester, for the compulsory education, there are only 5 private management of public schools in Taiwan, but there are 5794 ones in Spain instead. As a conclusion of this research, it will implement six suggestions in the final chapter which are: (1) The central government should try to draw up the laws and make them to be more complete. (2) Making specific rules of the private management of public schools in Taiwan, to ensure the rights of all the relevant personnel. (3) Avoiding the private management of public schools in Taiwan form becoming for-profit schools. (4) Valuing and respecting the disadvantaged students and ensure their matriculate opportunities. (5) Subsidizing the educational funds elastically. (6) Listening carefully and trying hardly to know what people need, revising the laws, and most importmently, to create a win-win system for all.
|
|---|
