本研究蒐集雲林、彰化及嘉義等三個就學區103與104學年度超額比序之相關資料，旨在分析比較彰雲嘉三個就學區超額比序機制。雲林縣與鄰近的彰化縣、嘉義縣同屬農業縣資源與文化刺激比較欠缺，兼且所屬的免試就學區部分互為共同就學區，頗具淵源，因此，本研究選擇這三個就學區的103與104學年度超額比序機制予以分析比較。
本研究結果發現：一、104學年度超額比序所占分數較高項目，彰化區依序為教育會考、志願序、服務學習、就近入學等；雲林區依序為教育會考、獎勵紀錄、均衡學習、志願序等；嘉義區依序為教育會考、志願序、競賽成績、體適能以及適性輔導等；二、均衡學習列入超額比序對國中教學正常化頗具指標意義，未來國中借課、配課現象是否顯著減少值得關注；三、教育會考占分比例高低直接影響進入高中職學校的學術能力異質性程度，後續研究者可運用後期中等教育資料庫高一學生問卷資料進行實證檢驗；四、除申辦各類資優班外，能力分班已是非都會地區高中學校「拼升學」行之有年之措施，主管機關實應重新檢討此一現象之正當性；五、僅嘉義區採計的「適性輔導」占分達11%，國中生多數生涯興趣未定、評估工具與方法未建立深具說服力之信效度前，本項目納入超額比序有待商榷。

This thesis aims at analyzing the excess competition policy for high school exam-free enrollment in Chunghua, Yunlin and Chiayi School Districts, through the research of data and materials related to the excess competition policy in 2014 and 2015 school years.
There are five findings from the conclusion of this research. First, this research analyzes and compares items and their weights employed by these three school districts to rank students in the excess competition policy for the enrollment of general and vocational high schools. In 2015 school year, the major items ranked according to their weights for each school district are as the following. For Chunghua district, they are the score of the comprehensive assessment, the choice of high schools sorted by the student, servicelearning grade, and enrollment priority by distance. Those for Yunlin district are the score of the comprehensive assessment, outstanding rewards, balanced learning accomplishments, and the choice of high schools. Major items adapted by Chiayi district are the score of the comprehensive assessment, the choice of high schools, achievements in competitions, physical fitness and career counseling.
Secondly, it is important to include a balanced learning assessment in the excess competition policy in order to encourage well-balanced teaching and learning in the junior high school. It should be evaluated whether there is a noticeable change of the bypassing and non-major subject teaching attitude in the junior high school under a balanced excess competition policy for exam-free high school enrolment. Thirdly, the weighting of the comprehensive assessment result for junior high school students has a direct impact on the variability of the academic level between students entering the same high school. This conclusion can be validated by a continuous study based on the academic survey of high school freshmen in the high school education database. Fourthly, in addition to gifted education programs, the competence-based class grouping is a common practice among rural high schools for years in order to boost the college entrance rate of their students. The administration of education should seriously review the legitimacy and appropriateness of such a practice. Fifthly, Chiayi school district adopts an 11% weighting of “career counseling” in its excess competition policy. Given the fact that the career orientation is undetermined for the majority of junior high school students, it is questionable to include “career counseling” in the excess competition policy before a rigorous assessment methodology and a credible evaluation approach can be established.