非學校型態實驗教育政策合法化歷程之研究

本研究藉由非學校型態實驗教育政策合法化過程的重新描述，理解該政策的背景脈絡，分析政策參與者的行為與影響力，細究議題問題的形成、政策草擬以至於議程設定等過程，詮釋決策環境與各因素互動關係，作為未來教育政策推動立法的參考。就所蒐集非學校型態實驗教育政策合法化過程有關文獻加以分析，並選擇具代表性政策參與者進行半結構性訪談。經綜合討論及分析結果獲致以下結論：非學校型態實驗教育政策和法化歷程歷經三個政策視窗開啟：1999年與2010年《國民教育法》第4條修正以及2014年《高級中等以下教育階段非學校型態實驗教育實施條例》，利用多元途徑理論架構分析各階段問題流、政策流及政治流發現在非三條流域很難完全獨立是彼此互相交融影響的，而每一個政策視窗的開啟都成為下一個階段的政策環境。問題未必需「社會大眾」矚目，「關鍵人物」對問題的識別更有意義及影響性。進入立法院的政策版本差異性不大與非學校型態實驗教育政策的特質有關，由於影響的政策標的人口小，且利益分配不明顯，政策的爭議與衝突相對降低，以教育專業進行溝通說服。而各階段政治流的情形則與台灣代議制度發展有關，隨民主化程度越來越高，在進入立法院之前的共識凝聚更為重要。政策倡議者的行動受時代氛圍與制度環境的影響，倡議者基於某種需求和信念行動；倡議者具備專業能力、積極的態度並在同領域持續耕耘有助於擴大影響力；政策倡議者之間的關係時而合作時而分離；每個階段有類似的政策倡議方式，例如：事前擬定政策草案、結合議題及使用媒體。政策背後意識形態的轉變是從國家教育權到國民教育權，而政策目的與價值則從國家人才培育到更重視發展個人自主學習。

關鍵字

政策合法化；非學校型態實驗教育；實驗教育；多元途徑理論

並列摘要

This research is to discuss the legitimation background， the legislative process and participants （advocate）of Non-School-Based Experimental Education in Taiwan ， explore factors that influence of the legitimation process, and to offer some suggestions for educational policy makers and advocates of education Act. Related literature is collected and analyzed and the author also interviews policy participants who attended the legislation of Non-School-Based Experimental Education. The results are concluded as follows： There are three policy windows between 1987-2014： 1999 and 2010 amendment of Primary and Junior High School Act, and 2014 Enforcement Act for Non-school-Based Experimental Education across Education Levels below Senior High School. In the problem stream, the critical people's awareness to the concerned issues is more important than that of the public. The development of political stream is related to system of representation in Taiwan. In the political stream, because the number of the people involved decreases and the difference of the benefit distribution is not significant, there are less arguments about educational policies, and most of the problems can be solved with educational profession. The legalization models of various stages are different, but the policy participants have a similar advocating strategy: drafting act, convening people, looking for resources and acting with the trend at the time.