1995年我國試辦教育優先區，並於1996年擴大計畫開辦至今，教育優先區計畫在「照顧學習弱勢族群學生」，希望能能縮短城鄉教育差距，達成「教育機會均等」與「社會公平正義」的理想。本研究在探討臺南市教育優先區經費申請的概況與分析，並以105年度臺南市各公立中小學所申請的經費為主，研究對象共有275所學校。研究結果顯示：1.教育優先區經費補助臺南市九成九以上的學校；2.補助項目計畫數量以「推展親職教育活動」最多，佔總計畫數量五成以上；3.補助項目的經費中以「補助學校發展教育特色」最多，為總補助經費六成以上；4.雖然偏遠學校的平均經費較非偏遠學校多，但若以計畫數和經費補助比較來看，補助偏遠學校的平均經費卻反而比非偏遠學校少；5.補助經費的細項中，以「專業服務費」最多，占補助經費近五成。研究者對於教育優先區的建議為：1.指標界定應該更清楚，經費審查應該更審慎；2.教育資源應該集中於需要的學校；3.縣市政府不應強迫學校申請教育優先區經費；4.教育優先區應要能整合各地區計畫；5.重新思考教育優先區的主角是誰。另外，對未來研究的建議有兩個面向：1.縱向性的研究，研究臺南市教育優先區經費在不同年度的運用和補助；2.橫向性的研究，與其他縣市教育優先區經費作比較研究。

The Educational Priority Area in Taiwan has been in place since their pilot in 1995 and expansion in the following year. The Educational Priority Area aims to ＂help disadvantaged students in learning,＂ by which the urban-rural education gap can hopefully be narrowed so as to attain the ideals of ＂equal of educational opportunity＂ and ＂social equity and justice.＂ This study investigates and analyzes the general conditions of application of the Educational Priority Area funding in Tainan City. Its primary focus dwells on the funding that all public elementary-and high-schools in the city applied for in 2016, with 275 schools as its subjects. The research results indicate that: over 99% of the schools applied for the Educational Priority Area funding, of which ＂activities for promoting parenting education＂ accounted for over 50% of the total number of application plans, and ＂subsidies for schools in developing educational characteristics＂ accounted for over 60% of the total funding applied. There was greater average funding for remote schools, but smaller average funding for their application plans; and ＂professional service fee＂ took up about 50 % of the funding applied. As there have been disputes over the funding, the researcher subjected each of the above sections to further discussion. The recommendations of the researcher are as follows: (1) the indicators should be more clearly defined, while the funding review should be more prudent; (2) education resources should be concentrated in needy schools; (3) governments should not force schools to apply for Educational Priority Area funding; (4) Educational Priority Area should be able to integrate the plans of all districts; and (5) we should rethink the question of who the protagonists of the Educational Priority Area are. In addition, there are two dimensions in the recommendations for future research: (1) longitudinal research that studies the uses and subsidies for the Educational Priority Area funding in Tainan City in different years; (2) cross-sectional research that compares the Educational Priority Area funding in Tainan City with those of other counties and cities.