資料載入處理中...
臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統
:::
網站導覽
國圖首頁
聯絡我們
操作說明
English
行動版
(3.138.172.82)
登入
字型:
**字體大小變更功能,需開啟瀏覽器的JAVASCRIPT,如您的瀏覽器不支援,
IE6請利用鍵盤按住ALT鍵 + V → X → (G)最大(L)較大(M)中(S)較小(A)小,來選擇適合您的文字大小,
如為IE7以上、Firefoxy或Chrome瀏覽器則可利用鍵盤 Ctrl + (+)放大 (-)縮小來改變字型大小。
來源文獻查詢
引文查詢
瀏覽查詢
作者權威檔
引用/點閱統計
我的研究室
資料庫說明
相關網站
來源文獻查詢
/
簡易查詢
/
查詢結果列表
/
詳目列表
:::
詳目顯示
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆
/1
頁
來源文獻資料
摘要
外文摘要
引文資料
題名:
芝加哥與肯塔基學校本位管理模式之比較研究
書刊名:
國立臺北師範學院學報
作者:
黃嘉雄
作者(外文):
Huang, Chia-hsing
出版日期:
1999
卷期:
12
頁次:
頁197+199-221+223-224
主題關鍵詞:
芝加哥
;
肯塔基學校
;
本位管理模式
原始連結:
連回原系統網址
相關次數:
被引用次數:期刊(
10
) 博士論文(
3
) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
排除自我引用:
10
共同引用:0
點閱:34
本研究旨在比較芝加哥與肯塔基所實施的學校本位管理(School-Based Management)模式。採用貝爾德(G. Bereday)描述、解釋、併排和比較教育研究方法與步驟,先描述解釋兩地實施SBM的背景與緣起,再列出背景、緣起、制度內容與責任控制等項目,併排比較兩種模式在這些項目上的異同。 本研究發現兩模式間有許多相似處,也若若干相異處。在相似處方面,兩地實施SBM前,學區對學校均擁有實質管理權,而兩地的教育成效均不佳,教育經費的分配也不公平,兩地乃進行全盤式的教育改革立法,實施SBM制,希藉以提升教育品質。兩地的SBM制,均於學校層級設立學校審議委員會,作為自主管理的最高權力組織,也另都建立校內其他人員參與決定的機制。兩模式都授予學校幾乎完全的實質人事決定權,運作維持經費管理權;但校內的課程決定權,則須在上級行政機關的課程架構規範下為之。兩模式都建立了對學校成敗監督的嚴格責任控制方式,包括建立決策公開制度,藉由公眾力量來增進決策的合理化。 另一方面,兩模式也有若干相異處。其中較重要的是,芝加哥的學校審議委員會以家長席次居多;肯塔基則以教師和校長居優勢,且校長係當然主席。芝加哥學校對人事費的自主餘地較少,但擁有人事聘免的決定權;肯塔基學校對校內人事費的運用,有極大的自主權,但解聘校長和教師則須經學區教育局核定。另外,芝加哥以視導評鑑來衡量學校績效,而肯塔基則以學生定期評量的成就來判斷成敗。
以文找文
This paper aimes to compare the school-based management (SBM) models which have been implemented since 1989 in Chicago and 1991 in Kentucky. George Bereday's methods of comparative education are used for the study. After describing, interpreting, juxtaposing and comparing the two SBM models, the conclusions are made. The conclusions are presented as follows. Firstly, the school districts in both area had powerful authority to manage their schools before reforms. However, in both areas, the achievement of schooling was on low ranking postion and the funding policies for schools were unfair. In order to raise the achievement of schooling and to enhance equity of funding schools the SBM policies have been implemented in both areas. Secondly, each school has a school council as the most powerful organization for SBM decision-making in both models. At the same time, school committees are organized to involve the school staffs in both models. Thirdly, the personnel affairs and the basic maintenance money of school are entrusted to each individual school in both areas. But, the curriculum autonomy is limited in both models. Fourthly, the accounting for schooling failure is serious in both of them. Finally, there are also some differences between the two models. Parents are the majority in the school council in chicago, while in kentucky teachers are the majority. Besides, in Chicago, school inspection is the main mechanism for deciding the effectiveness of schools. On the other hand, in Kentucky, a KIRIS system, based on the achievement of the students, has been established to decide the effectiveness of schools.
以文找文
期刊論文
1.
Bryk, A. S.、Rollow, S. G.(1992)。The Chicago experiment: enhanced democratic participation as a lever for school improvement。Issues in restructuring schools,3(Fall),2-8。
2.
David, J. L.(1994)。School-Based Decision Making: Kentucky's test of decentralization。Phi Delta Kappan,75(9),706-712。
3.
Holland, H.(1997)。KERA: a tale of one teacher。Phi Delta Kappan,December,265-271。
4.
Jones, K.、Whitford, B. L.(1997)。Kentucky's conflicting reform principles: high-stakes school accountability and student performance assessment。Phi Delta Kappan,December,276-281。
5.
Lindle, J. C.(1995)。Lessons from Kentucky about school-based decision making。Educational Leadership,20-23。
6.
Walberg, H. J.、Niemiec, R. P.(1994)。Is Chicago school reform working?。Phi Delta Kappan,75(9),713-715。
會議論文
1.
Ford, D. J.(1992)。Chicago principals under school based management: new roles and realitiesof the job。0。
2.
Mckersie, W. S.(1995)。Reforming Chicago's public schools: philanthropic persistence, 1987-1993。0。
3.
Sexton, R.(1995)。Building citizen and parent support for school reform: the Prichard Committee experience。0。
4.
Wohlstetter, P.、Van Kirk, A.(1995)。School-based budgeting: organizing for high performance。0。
圖書
1.
Van Meter, E. J.(1992)。Restructuring a state education agency: The Kentucky experience。Charleston:Appalachia Educational Laboratory。
2.
Murphy, Joseph、Beck, Lynn G.(1995)。School-based management as school reform: Taking stock。Corwin Press。
3.
謝文全(1984)。教育行政制度比較研究。高雄:復文。
延伸查詢
4.
沖原豐(1991)。比較教育學。比較教育學。臺北。
延伸查詢
5.
黃嘉雄(1999)。英、紐學校自主管理政策之比較。教育研究與政策之國際比較。臺北。
延伸查詢
6.
Coe, P.(1995)。AEL study of KERA implementation in four rural Kentucky school districts, 1993-94 annual report。AEL study of KERA implementation in four rural Kentucky school districts, 1993-94 annual report。Washington, DC。
7.
Harvey, E.(1991)。Reaching new rights: a guide to the implementation of School-Based Decision Making under the Kentucky Education Reform Act。Reaching new rights: a guide to the implementation of School-Based Decision Making under the Kentucky Education Reform Act。Frankfort, KY。
8.
Hess, G. A., Jr.(1992)。Chicago school reform: a response to the unmet needs of 'at risk' students。Chicago school reform: a response to the unmet needs of 'at risk' students。Chicago, IL。
9.
Hess, G. A., Jr.(1992)。School restructuring, Chicago style: a midway report。School restructuring, Chicago style: a midway report。Chicago, IL。
10.
Jones, B.(1992)。Tracking our schools: strategies for achieving educational goals-Kentucky's annual report to the President。Tracking our schools: strategies for achieving educational goals-Kentucky's annual report to the President。Frankfort, KY。
11.
Naftchi-Ardebili, S.(1992)。The principalship under school reform as perceived by principals and local school councils。The principalship under school reform as perceived by principals and local school councils。Chicago, IL。
12.
Weston, S. P.(1991)。School-Based Decision Making: a guide for school council members and others。School-Based Decision Making: a guide for school council members and others。Lexington。
其他
1.
Chicago Board of Education(1998)。Chicago Academic Standards,0。
2.
Cody, W. S.(1995)。Transformation: Kentucky's Curriculum Framework,0。
3.
Mcpherson, R. B.,Crowson, R. L.(1993)。The principals as Mini-Superintendent under Chicago school reform,0。
4.
Moore, D. R.(1991)。Chicago school reform: the nature and origin of basic assumptions,Chicago, IL。
5.
Murphy, J.(1994)。The changing role of the superintendency in restructuring districts in Kentucky,0。
6.
Petrosko, J. M.(1993)。The plan for assessing the impact of the Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA),0。
7.
Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence(1991)。KERA updates: what for...,0。
8.
Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence(1994)。KEAR updates: what for,0。
9.
Chicago Board of Education(1998)。Chicago public school budget process,0。
10.
David, J. L.(1993)。Redesigning an education system: early observations from Kentucky,0。
11.
Guskey, T. R.,Oldham, B. R.(1996)。Despite the best intentions: inconsistencies among components in Kentucky's systemic reform,0。
推文
當script無法執行時可按︰
推文
推薦
當script無法執行時可按︰
推薦
引用網址
當script無法執行時可按︰
引用網址
引用嵌入語法
當script無法執行時可按︰
引用嵌入語法
轉寄
當script無法執行時可按︰
轉寄
top
:::
相關期刊
相關論文
相關專書
相關著作
熱門點閱
1.
學校自治的憲法理論基礎建構
2.
美國肯塔基州中小學學校本位教師績效獎金制度之探討
3.
國民小學實施學校本位管理之研究
4.
九年一貫課程與教師分級制相互配合之芻議
5.
學校本位經營在國民中學的應用--理念、模式與可行性
6.
當教師遇見課程評鑑--轉變與成長
7.
學校本位課程發展評鑑指標建構初探
8.
教師如何從事課程評鑑:從賦權增能評鑑理念談起
9.
學校管理與國際標準組織認證概念運用的探討
10.
學校本位課程評鑑--對九年一貫課程發展的啟示
1.
競值架構應用於學校本位課程評鑑指標建構之研究
2.
國民中學學校本位經營模式建構之研究
3.
學校本位經營推動多元智慧教學的研究─以高雄市獅甲國小為例
無相關書籍
無相關著作
無相關點閱
QR Code