我國教育財政指標建構與運用之研究

A Study of Building and Using Domestic Indicators for Educational Finance

林怡君(YI-CHUN LIN)

指導教授 ： 許添明

國立臺灣師範大學/教育學院/教育政策與行政研究所/碩士(2007年)

摘要

本研究旨在藉參酌國內外重要教育財政指標，為我國建立一套適用本土，同時又能與國際接軌之教育財政指標。為達前述研究目的，本研究先自文獻探究中了解國內外指標系統的建置內容、原因、方式與應用分析現象，再進一步建構出本研究之指標雛形，接著使用德懷術進行問卷調查，研究對象為國內相關專家學者共15人，在經過兩回德懷術的問卷調查後，先後達到100%與93%之問卷回收率，再使用平均數、標準差與眾數三種統計量分析兩回問卷結果，找出67項已達共識之指標，並利用第二回德懷術之平均數，對此67項指標進行排序，將結果與先前文獻歸納相互參照檢視，發現在本研究實證結果中排序前五者：「每生教育支出」、「中小學、高等教育支出占GDP之比率」、「各級教育支出占GDP比率」、「中央、地方政府教育總支出占公共總支出比率」與「每生教育支出占平均每人國內生產毛額之比率」，此五項指標同時亦為國內外皆使用之教育財政指標。

綜合文獻探討與問卷調查之結果，主要得到以下結論：
一、世界性經濟蕭條導致教育資源投入短少，但為活絡經濟發展同時又提高了對人力資本的重視，因之在此投資減少卻又要求提高的教育場域中，勢必強化資源利用的效率。
二、全球化後帶來的激烈國際競爭，讓各國普遍重視國際比較，而指標之數據呈現，正能提供各國在比較上的客觀參照依據，具有工具性之實用價值。
三、指標所呈現的客觀資訊，成為各國政府在擬定政策時的重要參考依據，並能以之對社會大眾進行政策說服，相較於精神層次的道德勸說與教化，客觀理性的數據呈現更具有說服力量。
四、國外重要教育財政指標之建構多半基於實際運用的需求立場而出發，隨著社會脈動的變遷，運用資料庫的長期資料累積，搭配國際資訊流通之合作方式，由專家學者研發學理以修正教育財政指標，提供決策者了解社會現況與修改政策，而學者亦更能藉此進一步研擬進化的研究分析與政策建議。
五、從國內外現有的教育財政指標內容看來，當前各國重視的主要議題有：投注在每位學生身上的資源、國家對教育的重視與投入程度、公部門與私人在教育上的負擔比重是否合乎公平性、教育項目的支出效率、教育人力的數量與品質供給、在教育人力上的花費，以及國際間現在均最關切的高等教育領域。

關鍵字

教育財政 ； 指標 ； 經濟合作暨發展組織

並列摘要

The main pruposes of this study involve: firstly, to understand the context and building reasons of international indicators for educational finance; secondly, to build the domestic indicators for educational finance. In order to meet the purposes, this study analyzes 3 cases of international indicators for educaitonal finance, including the indicators from the OECD, the U.S.A. and the World Bank. Besides, this study criticizes 2 cases of domestic indicators. Based on the data above, this study builds an initiative system of indicators for educational finance and then uses the Delphi technique twice to find out the appropriate indicators. As to the Delphi technique questionnaires, they are delivered to 15 college teachers. At last, through the statistic analysis (Mean, Stand Deviation, and Mode), this study finds out 67 indicators which can be used in Taiwan. Furthermore, there are 5 indicators are universal adopted: “educational expenditure per student,” “expenditure on primary, secondary and higher education of educational institutions relative to gross domestic product (GDP),” “expenditure on different levels of educational institutions relative to GDP,” “educational expenditure on different levels of governments relative to total public expenditure,” and “educational expenditure per student relative to GDP.”
The main conclusions of this study are as follows:
1. Global sag in educational investment pushes governments to strengthen the efficiency of using educational resources.
2. Governments use indicators to view their own advantages and disadvantages among the fierce international competition.
3. Policy makers use information gathtered by indicators to modify their policy and convince their people of their policy.
4. International indicators for educational finance are builded for meeting the need of improving education. International scholars use data base and work together to modify indicators.
5. International governments put much attention on issues about: educational expenditure per student, expenditure on educational institutions relative to GDP, public and private investment in educational institutions, total public expenditure on education, tuition fees charged by tertiary institutions and support for students and households through public subsidies, expenditure in institutions by service category and by resource category, estimates of technical efficiency for primary and lower secondary public sector education, class size and ratio of students to teaching staff, and teachers’ salaries.

並列關鍵字

educational finance ； indicators ； organization for economic co-operation and development (OECD)

參考文獻

教育部（2007）。十二年國民基本教育常見問答。臺北市：作者。

Anderson, L. W. (2005, April 4). The No Child Left behind Act and the legacy of federal aid to education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(24). Retrieved May 8, 2006, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n24/.

National Center for Education Statistics (2007). The Condition of Education 2007. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Odden, A. (1990). Educational Indicators in the United States: The Need for Analysis. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 24-29.

OECD (1992). Education at a glance: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD.