校園霸凌防制政策成效評估指標之建構：政策工具之觀點

多數實證研究結果均支持校園霸凌與學生學習績效之負向影響關係，故先進國家政府部門除將校園霸凌防制列為教育政策優先議程外，更重視對相關政策之成效評估，以保障學生身心安全及促進學習表現。惟相較於先進國家發展趨勢，我國主管機關長期以來未針對反霸凌政策建立系統性、常態性之政策成效評估指標，以致缺乏政策調整及衡量政策介入措施效益之依據。故本研究之目的在於透過政策工具之觀點，採用焦點團體訪談、問卷調查及層級分析法等方法，建構發展我國校園霸凌防制政策成效評估指標。研究結果顯示：英、美兩國反霸凌政策工具較為多元，我國則偏重組織型及資訊型工具，在防制校園霸凌政策成效評估層面中，以「產出影響」層面權重佔比最高（0.44），其次為「執行傳送」層面（0.32），而我國公立中小學教育人員普遍支持增訂「父母或監護人配合管教子女在校偏差行為義務與責任之法令」，同時，政治社群與專家社群則在改善財務型與組織型政策工具及引進具正向實證效果新工具上具有共識。

關鍵字

成效評估指標；政策工具；校園霸凌

並列摘要

Most empirical researches demonstrated the negative correlation between the school bullying and the learning performance of students. Therefore, advanced countries not only set the anti-bullying in the prior education policy agenda, but also enforce the outcome evaluation of related policies to protect the physical and mental safety of students and promotion of academic achievement. Compared to the ongoing trend of advanced countries, the competent authorities have ignored the need for establishing the systematic and regular policy evaluation indicators of anti-bullying policy for a long time, and then result in lacking the reliance for policy adjustment and assessing the achievement level of policy goals. Hence, this study focuses on constructing evaluation indicators system of school bullying prevention policy in Taiwan, from policy instruments perspective, through multiple research methods, including focus group, questionnaire survey and analytic hierarchy process(AHP). Results show as follows: (1) the UK and USA have more diverse anti-bullying policy instruments, while Taiwan emphasizes organizational and information-based tools; (2) in the three outcome evaluation dimensions of school bullying prevention policy, the ＂output-impact＂ dimension has the highest weight (0.44), followed by the ＂implementation-delivery＂ dimension (0.32); (3) educators in public middle and elementary school generally support the revision of the＂ Regulations on the duties and responsibilities of parents or guardians to cooperate in discipline their children's misbehaviors in school＂. Meanwhile, political and expert communities have consensus on improving financial, organizational policy tools and introducing new instruments which have positive empirical effects.

並列關鍵字

outcome evaluation indicators ； policy instruments ； school bullying

參考文獻

李孟訓、劉冠男、丁神梅、林俞君(2007)。我國生物科技產業關鍵成功因素之研究。東吳經濟商學學報, 56，27-51。https : //doi.org/10.29735/SJEB.200703.0002【Lee, Meng-shiunn ; Liu, Kuan-nan ; Ting, Shen-mei(2007). A study on the key success factors of biotechnology industry in Taiwan. Soochow Journal of Economics and Business, 56, 27-51. https://doi.org/10.29735/SJEB.200703.0002 】

邱榆淨、邱守序(2018)。汽車製造商自中國採購之供應鏈風險關鍵因素分析。臺大管理論叢, 28(2), 61-96。https : //doi.org/10.6226/NTUMR.201808_28(2).0003【Chiu, Yu-jing ; Chiu, Shou-hsu(2018). Key factors of supply chain risk for the procurement of automobile manufacturer from China. NTU Management Review, 28(2), 61-96.】

林斌(2014)。英美校園霸凌防制政策 : 教育法之觀點。當代教育研究，22(3), 49-89。https : //doi.org/10.6151/CERQ.2014.2203.02【Lin, Bin(2014). School anti-bullying policies in the UK and USA : A perspective of education law. Contemporary Educational Research Quarterly, 22(3), 49-89.】

林維真、黃瑩(2013)。應用 AHP 探討公共圖書館推廣電子書閱讀服務決策因素，圖書資訊學刊，11(2)，117-148。https : //doi.org/10.6182/jlis.2013.11(2).117【Lin, Wei-jane ; Huang, Chin-ying(2013). Understand public libraries decisions on ebook extension service : An AHP analysis. Journal of Library and Information Studies, 11(2), 117-148.】

柯于璋(2012)政策移植與移植政策評估指標之建立─結合政策過程與知識應用之雙元演化觀點。公共行政學報，43，63-90。https://doi.org/10.30409/JPA.201209_(43).0003【Ke, Yu-chang(2012). The study of policy transfer and the construction of evaluation indicators for transfer policies : A dual evolutionary prospect of integrating policy process and knowledge utilization. Journal of Public Administration, 43, 63-90.】

主題瀏覽