中央對地方政府特殊教育行政績效評鑑實施之後設評鑑與改進意見研究

The Performance Evaluation of Special Education Administration in the City/County Governments: Meta-Evaluation and Prospect

本研究以後設評鑑觀點，檢視「中央對地方政府特殊教育行政績效評鑑」參與人員對評鑑實施的看法和感受，並探究未來實施改進之道。研究分問卷調查和實地訪談兩階段進行：第一階段以參與民95年度評鑑之25縣市特教承辦人及27名評鑑委員為調查對象，以參考美國「教育評鑑標準聯合委員會」評鑑標準而設計之「中央對地方政府特殊教育行政績效評鑑調查問卷」進行調查，縣市人員問卷回收率為100％，評鑑委員問卷回收率為63％；第二階段進行七場、十縣市32名人員之焦點團體或個別訪談。本研究主要發現：（1）後設評鑑部分──受訪者肯定此項評鑑之重要性，但評鑑目的太重考核，有些評鑑項目偏離行政績效主軸，評鑑過於重視書面資料，統一計分標準對資源不足縣市不利，少數評鑑委員過於權威讓受評者感受不被信任和不受尊重。（2）改進意見部分──評鑑項目應定位在縣市層級，採實地訪視或併入統合視導，除以核心指標評比縣市整體表現外，並採質性資料描述縣市特教工作情形及陳述建議事項，另建議重視各縣市資源條件之個別差異、廣納和慎選評鑑委員、積極協助辦理績效不佳者。

Base on the meta-evaluation perspective, this study examined the 2006 special education administration performance evaluation carried out by the Ministry of Education to all city/county governments in Taiwan in regards to its practice and possible future changes of such evaluation. Firstly, 25 city/county government administrators and 27 evaluators who participated in the 2006 evaluation were surveyed with two self-designed questionnaires and, secondly, 32 administrators from special education offices in ten city/county governments were interviewed in focus-groups or individually. The meta-evaluation survey questionnaire was designed based on the Program Evaluation Standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1994). As the results, most of the participants affirmed the critical impacts of the evaluation, however, the administrators reported that the information requested was less responsive to their needs and interests, heavy paper work prepared for the evaluation have severely disrupted routine work, and some evaluators showed less respects to human dignity and worth in their interactions with administrators. It was also found that the evaluation based on the unified items, criterions, and procedures was unfavorable to those counties which had less resource. In terms of future changes, the participants came to the agreements that such evaluation should concern the individuality of each city/county's resource, be focused on administration matters, reduce paper work, pay field visits to each city/county, and provide helpful assistance to the county evaluated as low performance.