本文將課程改革視為一個論述場域，運用Foucault所提出的論述實踐和論述形構等概念，分析臺灣從解嚴至今課程改革論述的轉變。分析文本以立法院公報中，從1987年至2003年的會議質詢記錄為主，並輔以歷年的教育部公報、相關媒體報導，以及訪談為次要文本。研究發現擺盪在全球化與在地化之間的課程改革論述，隨著時空的轉變，原本指涉龐雜的改革語言，被簡化為政治本土化與經濟全球化兩條論述主軸，兩者相互搭架與轉化，而課程改革變成一種中介語言，反映課程改革的政治需求和經濟競爭的壓力。在十幾年來極力拉扯的政治意識型態對立與稀釋化的國際競爭之概念下，教育改革的概念幾乎來自政治與經濟的語言，而課程改革的相關語言主要也還是環繞在傳統的課程內容和學業負擔的陳述類型之中。儘管教育學術界開始建構新的教育想像，但是在官方的語言政治中，作為教育改革的實施主體¾¾學生和老師，其主體性仍是被發話者從政治與經濟的語言來定義，亦即Foucault所說主體客體化的過程。九年一貫課程改革所期望形成的教育主體性，顯然很難與政治和經濟形成三角鼎立的平衡關係。

Viewing curriculum reform as a discursive field, this paper employed concepts of discursive formation and practice, which were first introduced by Michel Foucault in his book The Archaeology of Knowledge, to analyze how discourses of curriculum reforms were formed and shifted with changes in socio-political and economic milieu after the post-martial era of Taiwan. Data collected for discursive analysis included: Documents in Legislative Yuan’s records of meetings since 1987-2003, public reports from Ministry of Education, three major newspapers and interviews with two educators, two senator’s assistants, and one journalist. Among these, a series of Legislative Yuan’s full records of meetings provide the most detailed and comprehensive text for discursive analysis. Affected by the interacting forces between localization and globalization, discourses of Taiwan curriculum reform were rarefied as discourses of political indigenization and global economic competition. By rarefication, it excluded the very complexity of discourse about curriculum reform and led to two simple lines of discursive formation–political indigenization and economic competition. In this way, curriculum reform became a language of mediation for political indigenization and economic globalization, not language for itself. The languages of curriculum reform reflected needs for political reform and economic competition. Therefore, after more than decades of oscillation between political indigenization and economic globalization, concepts of curriculum reform were mainly derived from languages of politics and economics. Only were issues about contents of curriculum and its loading which had direct effect on students’ participation for entrance exam raised and cared. Education, in this respect, failed to be independent from politics and economics. It lost its own subjectivity simply for curriculum reform. It cannot be a counterbalance between forces of politics and economics. How to exercise discursive power of curriculum reform, especially for educational academia, might be the next question needed to be tackled.