| Summary: | 博士 === 國立彰化師範大學 === 特殊教育學系所 === 102 === The purpose of this study is to investigate the indicator content of the Special Education administrative performance in our country to establish the Weighting system of the administrative performance levels, and the Weighting system of the indicators-to-indicators. This study first used focus groups and in-depth interviews to formulate the initial indicator system. The author used Delphi technique to construct the completed performance indicator system and used Hierarchy analysis to conduct the Wight distribution of each level and indicator. At last, the author collected the data based on those indicator details to analyze the Special Education administrative performance current status in our country. The research methods of this study included focus groups, in-depth interviews, Delphi technique, and Hierarchy analysis, etc.
The results and conclusion of this study included the following:
1.The Special Education administrative performance indicators have been divided into two dimensions: Central and Local. Central included three levels: policy development and implementation, administrative organization and operation, and allocation and execution of funds, which including 11 indicators. Local included five levels: policy development and implementation, administrative organization and operation, the allocation of execution of funds, resources and support, and the implementation results of Special Education, which including 23-indicator details.
2.As to the relative Weight of the Special Education administrative performance indicators, “policy development and implementation” in Central level was the most important (44.97%); the second was “administrative organization and operation” (31.74%), and the last was “the allocation and execution of funds” (23.29%). “The implementation results of Special Education” in Local level was the most important (27.3%); the second was “the allocation and execution of funds” (21.19%); followed by “administrative origination and operation” (19.78%) and “policy development and implementation” (16.62%); and the last was “resource utilization and support” (15.11%).
3.The results of the Special Education administrative performance current data collection as the following:
(1)The policy and legislation the Central and Local special education authorizations developed met the needs of the Special Education development with implementation system and improvement strategies and execution rate reached over 95%.
(2)Both of the Central and Local special education authorizations setup the dedicated units and those administrative organizations worked division clearly, met the legislation requirements of designated staff study further and professional development. Both of authorizations have monitoring systems and evaluation systems, and the execution rate of the Special Education implementation was over 95%.
(3)The execution rate of the Central and Local special education authorization budget reached over 96%, and the execution rate of project commissioned reached over 93% with an evaluation and review system.
(4)Parents of a student with disabilities participated in the IEP meetings in the ratio ranged from 57% to 100%, which indicated that parents in each county have different involvement status.
(5)Each indicator of the implementation result levels of special education in each county reached over 80%.
|
|---|
