:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:臺北市幼兒教育券政策成效評估之研究
書刊名:初等教育學刊
作者:王保進 引用關係
作者(外文):Wang, Bao-jinn
出版日期:2002
卷期:13
頁次:頁25-52
主題關鍵詞:成效評估教育券Effect assessmentEducational voucher
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:136
  • 點閱點閱:23
保障幼兒教育品質已是政府施政之重要政策之一,台北市政府率先在八十七學年度實施幼兒教育券政策,以呼應政府政策。本研究目的首先在了解台北市幼兒教育券政策實施後幼兒進入幼稚園就讀之變化情形,並分析教育券實施與家長教育選擇權問之關係。 研究採事後回溯與平行樣本設計為方法,分三年進行調查,第一年以台北市國小一至六年級1685名家長為樣本,第二年則以同校各年級學生家長1679名為樣本進行調查分析,經以二項式考驗、適合度考驗、及百分比同質性考驗分析資料之結果,得到下列四點重要發現:(一)二個年度抽樣結果,在五個重疊年級之調查結果相當一致,研究結果應該具有良好之外在效度。(二)幼兒教育券對於促進幼兒進入立案幼教機構有正面的效果,就讀率呈現逐年提高之趨勢;(三)幼兒教育券顯著提高低經濟地位家庭學童進入立案幼教機構就讀之比率;(四)家長是否選擇子女就讀立案幼教機構之原因,有顯著之差異,但此種差異不受家長教育程度之影響;(五)政府對立案幼教機構公布之相關資料,在提供家長做為選擇幼教機構之參考功能上,仍有相當大之發展空間;及(六)整體而言,家長普遍認為台北市政府幼見教育券政策,已經能夠達成預定之目標。最後,根據研究發現,本研究進行討論並提出對未來行政與研究之啟示。
To assure the quality of the early childhood education has been one of the most important government policies. The Taipei City government took the leader in doing the Early Childhood Voucher in 1998 school year, which is responsive to the policy of the government. The purpose of this study is to understand the variation of the children's going into the kindergarten after the implementing of the voucher policy. In addition, to analyze the relationship between the voucher and the parents' educational choice. The study develops the method into the ex post facto research and the parallel sample design. It surveyed two years. In the first year, the 1685 parents from 1st grade to 6th grade in the Taipei City elementary schools are the samples. In the second year, the samples are 1679 parents in the same schools. By the binominal test, Chi square test, there are four important results as follows: 1. Theh results of the sampling in two years, it is consistency in the overlap five grades so the study should has a good external validity. 2. The Early Childhood Voucher has the positive effect on promoting children going into the registered kindergartens, and the ratio of the enrolment was growth year by year. 3. The voucher policy has been enhanced the ratio of the children's enrolment in lower economic status family to go into the registered kindergartens. 4. The reason whether parents choose the registered kindergartens for their children or not has significant difference, which is not influenced by the parents' education level of education. 5. The relevant information published by the government tothe registered kindergartens stillhas a much domain to make progress in the function of the supply in the parents' choosing. 6. In the whole, parents generally think that the policy of the Early Childhood Voucher in Taipei City has already attained the predicted goal. Finally, according to the results, this study discussed and gave the suggestions for the educational administrations and the future studies.
期刊論文
1.黃意舒、許碧勳(2000)。幼兒教育。中華民國教育年報,89,25-44。  延伸查詢new window
2.童敏雯(19991100)。家長教育選擇權。教育社會學通訊,17,17-18。  延伸查詢new window
3.Levin, H.(1998)。Educational vouchers: Effectiveness, choice, and costs。Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,17,373-392。  new window
4.Levin, H.(1991)。The economics of educational choice。Economics of Education Review,10,137-158。  new window
5.Lankford, H.、Lee, J. S.、Wykoff, J.(1995)。An analysis of elementary and secondary school choice。Journal of Urban Economics,38,236-251。  new window
6.Rouse, C.(199805)。Private school vouchers and student achievement: An evaluation of the Milwaukee parental choice program。Quarterly Journal of Economics,555-602。  new window
7.Miron, Gary(1996)。Free choice and vouchers transform schools。Educational Leadership,54(2),77-80。  new window
8.Manski, C.(1992)。Educational choice and social mobility。Economics of Education Review,29,517-526。  new window
9.Levin, H.、Driver, C.(1997)。Costs of an educational voucher system。Education Economics,5,265-283。  new window
10.Sparkes, Jo、West, Anne(1998)。An evaluation of the English Nursery Voucher Scheme 1996-1997。Education Economics,6,171-184。  new window
11.張德銳(19980300)。教育選擇權對教育機會均等的影響。教育資料與研究,21,1-7。new window  延伸查詢new window
12.沈姍姍(19980300)。自家長教育選擇權看教育機會均等。教育資料與研究,21,8-10。new window  延伸查詢new window
13.符碧真(19990100)。從美國教育券之實施論我國教育券政策。教育研究集刊,42,203-231。new window  延伸查詢new window
14.Witte, J. F.(1998)。The Milwaukee Voucher Experiment.。Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,20(4),229-251。  new window
15.王俊元(20010100)。從市場機制析探抵用券政策--以我國幼兒教育券政策為例。公共行政學報,5,123-143。new window  延伸查詢new window
16.陳麗珠(19980500)。教育券制度可行模式之研究。教育研究資訊,6(3),129-141。new window  延伸查詢new window
17.盧美貴、施宏彥(20000400)。我國幼兒教育券政策實施可行性之研究。臺北市立師範學院學報,31,161-192。  延伸查詢new window
18.謝美慧(19980400)。英國的「幼兒教育券計劃」。比較教育,45,99-108。new window  延伸查詢new window
19.蕭芳華(19991200)。幼兒教育券政策分析之研究。中國行政評論,9(1),135-175。new window  延伸查詢new window
20.吳清山、林天祐(1997)。教育選擇權。教育資料與研究,16。  延伸查詢new window
21.吳清山、黃久芬(19951200)。美國教育選擇權之研究。初等教育學刊,4,1-26。new window  延伸查詢new window
會議論文
1.Greene, J.、Peterson, P.、Du, J.(1996)。The effectiveness of school choice of Milwaukee: A secondary analysis of data from the program's evaluation。The American Political Science Association Annual Meeting。San Francisco。  new window
2.Wolf, P. J.、Peterson, P. E.、West, M. R.(2001)。Results of a school voucher experiment: The case of Washington, D. C. after two years。the Annual Meetings of the American Political Science Association,(會議日期: 2001/08/30-09/02)。San Francisco, CA。  new window
3.Witte, J. F.(1997)。The Milwaukee parental choice program: Achievement test score results。The American Economic Association Annual Meeting。New Orleans, LA。  new window
4.蘇秀花(1999)。幼兒教育券不是幼教改革的萬靈丹--台北市幼兒教育券規劃沿革與實施現況。現代教育論壇--新世紀的幼兒教育研討會。台北:國立台北師範學院。35-41。  延伸查詢new window
學位論文
1.王小芬(1996)。教育券制度可行性之研究(碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學。  延伸查詢new window
2.林孟皇(2000)。家長之公立學校選擇權(碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學。  延伸查詢new window
3.劉朝芳(2000)。幼兒教育券實施之研究(碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學。  延伸查詢new window
4.陳佩琪(1995)。父母在學校教育上之權利(碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學,臺北市。  延伸查詢new window
5.張炳煌(1998)。國中生家長學校選擇權之研究(碩士論文)。國立師範大學。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.洪福財、翁麗芳、蔡春美(1999)。台北市五歲幼兒教育現況研究。台北市:台北市政府教育局。  延伸查詢new window
2.楊思偉(2000)。家長教育選擇權。台北市:商鼎文化。  延伸查詢new window
3.DfEE(1997)。Nursery education voucher scheme。Department for Education and Employment。  new window
4.NCES(1993)。National household education survey。Washington, DC:National Center for Education Statistics。  new window
5.Witte, J. F.(2000)。The market approach to education: An analysis of America's first voucher program。Princeton, N. J.:Princeton Univ. Press。  new window
6.盧美貴(1997)。台北市幼兒教育券政策研究。台北市:台北市政府教育局。  延伸查詢new window
7.行政院教育改革審議委員會(1996)。教育改革總諮議報告書。台北:行政院教育改革審議委員會。  延伸查詢new window
8.朱敬一、戴華(19960000)。教育鬆綁。臺北市:遠流出版事業股份有限公司。new window  延伸查詢new window
單篇論文
1.林佩蓉(2001)。教育券不是改善教育品質的治本之道。  延伸查詢new window
圖書論文
1.Friedman, M.(1995)。The role of government in education。Economics and the public interest。New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers Press。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE