:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:特殊教育教師知覺的性侵害防治政策執行之困境分析
書刊名:教育政策論壇
作者:劉文英陳麗圓 引用關係
作者(外文):Liou, Wen-yingChen, Lih-yuan
出版日期:2016
卷期:19:2=58
頁次:頁125-155
主題關鍵詞:身心障礙性侵害性侵害防治政策特殊教育DisabilitySexual abuseSexual abuse prevention policySpecial education
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(3) 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:2
  • 共同引用共同引用:48
  • 點閱點閱:268
身心障礙學生是遭受性侵害的高危險群,本研究目的在探討特殊教育教師所知覺的相關法規所制定的性侵害防治政策執行之困境。研究方法採用質性研究法針對12位特教教師進行個別訪談以蒐集資料,資料分析採用主題分析法。研究結果有三:一、通報未能對受害學生有所助益,包含未能改善家庭功能與提供教師輔導資源,且司法判決不利未能伸張身心障礙者人權。二、《性別平等教育法》對特教學生的適用性遭到質疑,主因輔導時效低、特教生難蒐集事實證據,且因學生特質而對案件判定標準有所疑惑。三、跨專業合作困境:在社政部分,案量多而處遇速度慢、社政內部與跨教育專業的聯繫缺乏、且通報表格與管道繁複;在司法部分,包含警察訊問過程不容熟識者陪同、學生回答的真實性未知、到法院當證人因隱私未受到保護而擔心加害人報復;在教育主管單位部分,則包含未擔當轉學協調工作、以通報量判定學校性平工作成效、且由教師擔任師對生案件的調查員立場不足。
Students with disabilities are at high risk of being sexually abused. The aim of this study was to explore the difficulties of implementing sexual abuse prevention policy based on the relevant legislations, as perceived by the special education teachers. The qualitative research method was applied and twelve teachers were individually interviewed to collect data. The data were analyzed with the approach of thematic analysis. The results showed three categories of difficulties. First, the reports were of little benefit to student victims. The social workers failed to improve the victims’ family functioning and provide teachers with counseling resources. Most of all, the human rights of people with disabilities were not upheld in the judiciary system. Second, the applicability of “Gender Equality Education Law” for special education students was questioned, mainly because it impeded timely counseling and evidence-gathering for students, and it brought doubts of reporting criteria for teachers. Third, cross-profession difficulties arose. The case loading of social workers was heavy and the information of case management was deficient. The police interrogation process did not allow teachers’ presence, and this might undermine students’ credibility. The court did not protect teacher’s confidentiality as a witness; teacher’s fear of offender’s retaliation thus resulted. The educational administration did not coordinate student’s transfer, and school’s effectiveness in sexual abuse prevention was determined by number of cases reported. Special education teachers were not in a position to investigate sexual abuse cases that involved teachers and students.
期刊論文
1.焦興鎧(20070600)。我國校園性騷擾防治機制之建構--性別平等教育法相關條文之剖析。臺北大學法學論叢,62,41-90。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.周清玉、曾冠鈞(20110700)。保護性社工人力與工作條件之研究。亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊,7(1),47-77。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.Cambridge, P.、Beadle-Brown, J.、Milne, A.、Mansell, J.、Whelton, B.(2011)。Patterns of risk in adult protection referrals for sexual abuse and people with intellectual disability。Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities,24(2),118-132。  new window
4.劉文英、陳慧女(20060900)。心智障礙者遭受性侵害的調查研究。特殊教育研究學刊,31,23-42。new window  延伸查詢new window
5.郭慧龍(2013)。學校人員應瞭解的通報制度與違法責任相關問題之探討。學校行政,88,160-206。  延伸查詢new window
6.楊添圍(20130601)。精神鑑定的特殊議題:智能障礙者之性自主。台灣法醫學誌,5(1),41-46。  延伸查詢new window
7.劉文英(20080600)。性侵害防治相關體系處遇智能障礙被害案件在司法上所面臨的困境與需求。臺大社會工作學刊,17,93-130。new window  延伸查詢new window
8.Agnew, S. E.、Powell, M. B.、Snow, P. C.(2006)。An examination of the questioning styles of police officers and caregivers when interviewing children with intellectual disabilities。Legal and Criminological Psychology,11(1),35-53。  new window
9.Cederborg, A. C.、Danielsson, H.、La Rooy, D.、Lamb, M. E.(2009)。Repetition of contaminating question types when children and youths with intellectual disabilities are interviewed。Journal of Intellectual Disability Research,53(5),440-449。  new window
10.Cederborg, A. C.、Lamb, M. E.(2006)。How does the legal system respond when children with learning difficulties are victimized?。Child Abuse and Neglect,30(5),537-547。  new window
11.Cooke, P.、Standen, P. J.(2002)。Abuse and disabled children: Hidden needs...?。Child Abuse Review,11(1),1-18。  new window
12.Hershkowitz, I.、Lamb, M. E.、Horowitz, D.(2007)。Victimization of children with disabilities。American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,77(4),629-635。  new window
13.Melton, G. B.(2005)。Mandated reporting: A policy without reason。Child Abuse & Neglect,29(1),9-18。  new window
14.Lightfoot, E. B.、LaLiberte, T. L.(2006)。Approaches to child protection case management for cases involving people with disabilities。Child Abuse & Neglect,30(4),381-391。  new window
15.Mathews, B.、Bross, D. C.(2008)。Mandated reporting is still a policy with reason: Empirical evidence and philosophical grounds。Child Abuse & Neglect,32(5),511-516。  new window
16.Sobsey, D.(2002)。Exceptionality, education, and maltreatment。Exceptionality,10(1),29-46。  new window
17.Stalker, K.、McArthur, K.(2012)。Child abuse, child protection and disabled children: A review of recent research。Child Abuse Review,21(1),24-40。  new window
18.Takis, A.(2008)。The mandatory reporting debate。Macquarie Law Journal,8,125-152。  new window
19.Thompson, R. A.、Wyatt, J. M.(1999)。Current research on child maltreatment: Implications for educators。Educational Psychology Review,11(3),173-201。  new window
20.羅燦煐(20050400)。政策面vs.執行面:校園性侵害及性騷擾防治之政策分析、現況檢視及實務芻議。國家政策季刊,4(1),101-140。  延伸查詢new window
21.劉文英(20090600)。社工員執行智能障礙者性侵害防治工作所面臨的困境與需求。臺大社會工作學刊,19,41-85。new window  延伸查詢new window
研究報告
1.內政部統計處(2016)。人口年齡分配。  延伸查詢new window
2.衛生福利部統計處(2016)。身心障礙人數按縣市及類別分。  延伸查詢new window
3.衛生福利部保護服務司(2016)。性侵害案件受暴人數。  延伸查詢new window
4.衛生福利部保護服務司(2016)。性侵害案件被害人身心障礙者人數及比例。  延伸查詢new window
其他
1.劉明德(20110923)。漠視特教生 教育部失職,https://tw.news.yahoo.com/漠視特教生-教育部失職 -213000441.html。  延伸查詢new window
2.衛生福利部保護服務司(2016)。性侵害案件通報來源,http://www.mohw.gov.tw/CHT/DOPS/DM1_P.aspx?f_list_no=806&fod_list_no=4622&doc_no=42916。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關書籍
 
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE