本研究使用德懷術於台灣省教育優先區計畫實施成效之評估，主要的目的在於使 用此種專家意見的蒐集方法，透過多次的問卷往返與修正，達到對教育優先區實施成效評 估的共識。 　　經過十位對教育深具見解的國中小校長四個回合的討論與修正，本研究獲致的結論以 及其相對應的建議事項如下：一、教育優先區之主要精神就在於照顧文化不利之相對弱勢 地區。二、各項指標界定應明確而具體。三、教育優先區計畫指標與補助項目的制定應保 留彈性交由縣市政府辦理。四、嚴格落實「符合指標，申請補助」的原則。五、部分補助 項目無法完全解決指標問題。六、硬體補助項目原則上不宜重複補助。七、教育優先區計 畫應把軟體與硬體之補助項目分開申請，但同時審核。八、教育優先區計畫補助項目應訂 定若干「彈性項目」。九、與補助項目相關之經常經費應給予若干年限的補助。十、教育 優先區計畫對於偏遠地區之補助應避免硬體設施的重複補助。十一、已有合併計畫之小型 學校不應再補助硬體設備，但軟體仍應持續補助。十二、教育優先區計畫不宜年年修改， 但應隨時檢視執行成效以適度進行修正。十三、教育優先區計畫不應為縣市教育經費不足 時之替代經費。十四、教育優先區計畫之補助應有輪流性。

　　　　　This study adopts the Delphi method to assess the Education Priority Area (EPA) Project, which was first implemented in the Taiwan area in the year of 1985. The main purpose of this study is to generate consensus among education experts on the EPA projects itself and on it implementation results. During this multi-rounded discussion process, a designed questionnaire was distributed to the selected educational experts, who were ten experienced elementary and junior high school principals. The items in the questionnaire include three categories: the subsidy indicator, the subsidy content, and the subsidy method. The researcher herself played as the leader role in this multi-round discussion for generating consensus. 　　After four rounds of discussion and questionnaire revision, this study generates the following conclusions as well as suggestions: (1)The goal of EPA is to allocate more funds on the culturally disadvantaged areas. (2)The subsidy indicators should be more precise and concrete. (3)There should be more discretion for the county government. (4)Only the schools fit the indicator can be subsidized. (5)There are still some social problems cannot be solved by EPA alone. (6)There should be no repetition on the allocation for capital items. (7)The approving process should take both the hard ware and soft ware applications into consideration at one time. (8)There should be some leeway for each school. (9) There should be some current expenditure accompanying the allocation of capital expenditures. (10)For the schools in some remote areas, the allocation of should not overlap with other subsidizing projects. (11)For projects. (11)For to-be- consolidated, small-scaled schools, the allocation on current expenditures should continue to protect eqality of educational opportunity. (12)The content of the EPA should not make revisions according to its effects annually. (13)The grant of EPA should not be the substitution of county's education expenditure. (14)There should be some sequence among the subsidizing schools.