本研究主要目的係在分析比較七十七年評鑑資料與八十二年訪視資料，探討相隔五年間，臺北市大部分國中啟智班之學生背景、師資概況、行政配合與設備、鑑定與輔導、課程與教學的變化。訪視對象包括17所現有啟智班之學校，評量工具為七十七年國中啟智類評鑑表與八十二年國中啟智類之訪視表，主要發現為：(1)學生人數由453人降為381人，約少16%；國一、國二人數也減少26%與24%，人數有逐年下降的情形；(2)目前臨界與輕度學生佔66%，中重度學生佔34%，故啟智班仍以臨界與輕中度智障生為主要教學對象；(3)兼任教師之比率已由22%下降為8%，而未受專業訓練教師之比率仍佔27%，任教年資五年以下者已由50%降為39%且有5%的教師有二十年以上的啟智班任教資歷。以年齡變化來看，31至40歲者由33%降為22%，41至50歲者則由37%上升之44%，師資年齡似有更加偏高之情況；(4)在教師任課時數符合教育局之規定及教師編制符合標準並以從事特殊教育為主二項得分上，八十二年均比七十七年顯著下降。整體而言，大多數學校師資素質變化不大；(5)行政配合項目之評量結果大致相似，唯在啟智班經費專款專用上有顯著下降之情形；(6)教學設備方面之評量結果變化不大，唯整體啟智班之設施均嫌老舊，尤其是職業陶冶之設備，亟待更新；(7)在學生鑑定與輔導上的整體評量結果相似，唯對畢業生的追蹤輔導此七十七年顯著下降。整體觀之，自評鑑後各校資料大多有不足或不全之現象，且啟智班仍有僅憑藉智商分數即安置學生之現象，評量結果的分析使用及與IEP的銜接、個案研討與親職教育仍應加強；(8)課程與教學之情況差異很小。由實際訪祝中發現，以往教師任課時數與各科安排過分集中的現象已有逐漸減低之趨勢。整體而言，啟智班之課程與教學仍待提昇。研究者並根據整體資料分析提出對未來臺北市國中啟智班規劃與發展之建議。

　　　　　The main purpose of this study is to compare and' contrast the data collected during the 1993 study visit sessions and those collected during the 1988 evaluation process to explore the differences between student background, teacher status, school administration and facilities, student identification and guidance process, and curriculum and instruction. Seventeen junior high schools with special classes for the mentally retarded in Taipei city were the sample of this study. Data were collected mainly through the 1988 evaluation scale and 1993 investigation scale and analyzed by using both qualitative and quantitative methods. The major findings were: (1) student number of 1993 was decreased from 453 to 381(16%). Both 7th and 8th grade students were decreased about 25%. A tendency of gradual drop of student number has been shown in recent years; (2) currently about 66% of the student's IQ were at boarderline and mild level, the other 34% were moderately and severely retarded; (3) the rate of teachers working part time in special classes was decreased from 22% to 8% and the rate of teachers whose teaching experiences on mental retardation less than 5 years was dropped from 50% to 39%, but file rate of teachers without special education training was remained 27%. Also, teachers' age seemed to be higher than before; (4) the ratings on item of teachers' teaching hours and that of teacher mainly working in special education were significantly lower than before; (5) most ratings on the items of school administration were similar, except that budget only using on special classes was significantly dropped; (6) no significant differences were found on all facility rating items. During the observation, however, most facilities were old or out-of-date, especially the vocational training equipments, which need to be renewed urgently;, (7) except the item on follow-up ,guidance, other items evaluating student identification and guidance process were no significant differences; (8) no any differences were found on the items concerning curriculum and instruction. A need to enhance the curriculum and instruction, however, is urgent in the near future. Based on the results, suggestions were made for future implementation.