從歷史制度主義觀點探討地方政府推動學習扶助政策之在地實踐

為瞭解地方政府推動學習扶助政策實踐歷程，本研究從歷史制度主義觀點，探討地方政府推動國民中小學學習扶助政策之制度建置及擴散的歷程和挑戰，並分析地方政府不同實踐經驗對教育治理的意義及啟示。首先，本研究以2017年1月至4月、以及2018年10月至2019年4月兩輪共42場次焦點團體座談方式，了解全國學習扶助政策推動概況及其挑戰；其次，則以近年5年科技評量系統學生平均表現優於全國的高雄市及彰化縣，作為個案縣市研究對象，並透過深度訪談高雄市6位、彰化縣5位方案推動之核心行動者，進一步了解縣市制度化歷程、實踐路徑及挑戰；再者，從兩個個案縣市制度發展途徑的殊異性，進行對照分析，從而反思不同推動模式對地方教育治理之意義及啟示。　　本研究發現有四：　　一、全國學習扶助政策推動層面的共同問題，包括：教育局處及學校承辦人員更迭頻繁、學習扶助師資來源不穩、教師缺乏提升學習扶助課程材教法之統整運用以及針對學生學習落點進行補強教學之專業知能等，導致學習扶助政策偏離提升學生基本學力之目標。　　二、縣市諮詢輔導網絡之形塑，有助於地方政府將政策內涵轉化為具體實踐策略，並有效整合不同類型學校之發展需求，帶動學校行政及教師團隊關注學生學習，使學生獲得實際的幫助。　　三、地方政府透過科技化評量系統長期追蹤學生學習表現，並與其他學生學習相關資料交互比對，有助於掌握學生學力表現整體脈動，擘畫地方教育治理整體圖像。　　四、以多層次推動網絡取代傳統行政官僚推動模式，並在政策實踐過程中連結實務教師課程與教學的專業能力，有助於發展貼近及理解學生需求的在地知識及教學實施程序，幫助學生獲有意義的學習經驗。　　基於研究發現，本研究透過歷史制度論的觀點，認為縣市制度的起源及發展路徑，取決於制度背後的教育情境脈絡，以及內部組織網絡聯盟協調互動所蓄積出來的動力，而非中央政策直接規範的結果。其次，學習扶助方案制度建置與擴散，需要透過在地行動者的轉化，在制度建置初期，觸發者及操盤手有助於制度的創新發展及勾勒制度框架；而制度推動主力、傳遞者及校本運作領導者是制度維繫與擴散的主要力量；制度運作網絡的弱關係行動者，卻可能對制度變遷的具有影響力。再者，植基於協調與策略互動的推動網絡，有助於形成多元彈性的推動策略；而專業增能培訓機制，則能增強網絡成員的專業能力與在地影響力，進而維繫制度的發展。　　最後，根據上述研究發現與結論，本研究提出對我國中央層級政策規劃、地方政府政策推動、以及未來研究之相關建議。

關鍵字

學習扶助政策；歷史制度主義；地方政府；制度建置與擴散

並列摘要

Through the lens of historical institutionism, this dissertation focuses on institutional creation and diffusion of the elementary school remedial education policy as well as challenges confronted in the policy enactment practices at the local government level in Taiwan. Based on the policy enactment experiences and practices of local governments, it aims to expand understandings of educational governance. In this qualitative research, 42 focus group interviews with main policy actors from local governments were conducted for exploring implementation experiences and challenges. In addition, in-depth interviews with main policy actors from Kaohsiung city and Changhua county, in which the average scores of students receiving remedial education were higher than the national average score, were carried out for understanding particular institutionalized processes. Based on analyses of different paths of institutional development enacted by these two local governments, this study identified four important themes. First of all, almost all local governments reported common problems in the process of implementing the remedial education policy, including high staff and teacher turnover rate, and teachers lacking professional expertise in remedial education. As a result, policy practices deviated from the policy goal of promoting students’ basic academic competence. Second, the establishment of local supporting networks contributed to an entire analysis of needs of different types of schools which furthered translations of policy ideals into effective strategies for practice and increased attention of school administration and teacher teams to students and their learning. Third, local governments continuously tracked and cross-checked student progress through an assessment system in order to monitor the entire student performance and to develop a local educational governance plan. Finally, instead of adopting a traditional implementation model, local governments created a multilevel implementation network and stressed teacher professional expertise in curriculum and instruction, particularly teachers’ local knowledge and teaching procedures that can accommodate to local students’ learning needs and help students gain meaningful learning experience. Based on the findings, this study argues that from a historical institutionist perspective, rather than being built and ordered by the central policy, the creation and development of local institutions are shaped by local educational contexts and by the forces accumulated from collaborations, interactions and coordination between the teams in the networks. Moreover, the creation and diffusion of the remedial education institution relied on translations of local policy actors. At the beginning stage, the one who takes initiative and the one who supervises the entire structure enhance innovative institutional development and build the institutional framework. Main actors for policy promotion and dissemination as well as school-based leaders are the major forces to maintain institutional connection and diffusion. Weak ties in this institutional network can have impact on institutional changes. In addition, the promoting network maintained by coordination and strategic interaction helps develop various and flexible promoting strategies. Finally, professional development mechanisms help promote network actors’ professional capability and local influence, and thus sustain the institution’s development.