以德懷術(Delphi Method)評估臺灣省教育優先區補助政策實施成效之研究

A Delphi Assessment on the Implementation Results of the Educational Priority Area Project in Taiwan

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 PriorityArea (EPA) Project， which was first implemented in the Taiwan area in the yearof 1985. The main purpose of this study is to generate consensus among educationexperts on the EPA projects itself and on it implementation results. During thismulti-rounded discussion process， a designed questionnaire was distributed tothe selected educational experts， who were ten experienced elementary and juniorhigh school principals. The items in the questionnaire include three categories:the subsidy indicator， the subsidy content， and the subsidy method. The researcherherself played as the leader role in this multi-round discussion for generatingconsensus.　　After four rounds of discussion and questionnaire revision， this studygenerates the following conclusions as well as suggestions: (1)The goal of EPAis to allocate more funds on the culturally disadvantaged areas. (2)The subsidyindicators should be more precise and concrete. (3)There should be more discretionfor 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)Thereshould be no repetition on the allocation for capital items. (7)The approvingprocess should take both the hard ware and soft ware applications intoconsideration at one time. (8)There should be some leeway for each school. (9)There should be some current expenditure accompanying the allocation of capitalexpenditures. (10)For the schools in some remote areas， the allocation of shouldnot overlap with other subsidizing projects. (11)For projects. (11)For to-be-consolidated， small-scaled schools， the allocation on current expenditures shouldcontinue to protect eqality of educational opportunity. (12)The content of the EPAshould not make revisions according to its effects annually. (13)The grant ofEPA should not be the substitution of county's education expenditure. (14)Thereshould be some sequence among the subsidizing schools.