公部門及非營利部門皆挹注資源於「補救教學」,然而前者成效不彰、後者資源受限,因此探討兼具「社會目的」及「財務永續性」的「教育類社會企業」發展之可能性。本研究採以半結構式訪談補救教學頗具成效的非營利部門管理階層,編碼並歸納類型及重要特質,再據此建構社會企業雛型及發展家長知覺與購買意願之問卷,並分就三個價位水準探討。以嘉義市國小高年級5,766位家長為母體,發放1201份問卷,有效樣本為541份,回收率為45.05%。 本研究結果發現:(一)類型涵蓋工作整合型及社區發展企業;(二)家長重要性排序為:(1)個別化教學;(2)學習品質管控;(3)小班制教學;(4)盈餘回饋予非營利組織;(5)培訓當地社區居民為適任課輔老師,創造就業機會;(三)背景變項:(1)家庭型態在知覺風險上有顯著差異;(2)家庭月收入與月支出、教育程度、工作類別及有無參加才藝班皆在知覺價格上有顯著差異;(3)有無參加安親班在購買意願上有顯著差異;(4)有無參加補習班及才藝班在知覺品牌上有顯著差異;(四)三個價位水準中,知覺品牌及知覺價值與購買意願、知覺品牌與知覺價值均為正向關係,知覺價格與知覺價值則為負向關係;低價位水準中,知覺價格與知覺品牌為負向關係。
In the last decade, both of public and NPOs sectors pump more and more money into the field of “remedial teaching” to solve students’ low achievement, however, a lot of research findings discover that public sectors are ineffective and non-profit sector is lack of sustainable resource. Therefore, the main goal of this research is to explore the development possibility of “educational social enterprise”, which pursue the dual mission of “social purpose” and “financial sustainability”. This research starts from interviewing the non-profit sector management, then summary the type and characteristic of educational social enterprise and develop the questionnaire of parental purchase intention and divide into three level of price. The survey conduct with the 1,201 parents of elementary school fifth grade and sixth grade student in Chiayi city. With a total of 541 valid questionnaires collected. Major findings are: (1) The type includes work integration social enterprises (WISE) and community development enterprise. (2) Parental ranking: individual teaching, learning quality, small class, feedback to non-profit sector and trained community resident as a teacher. (3) Family type is significant difference to perceived risk. Family income, expense, education, job and the participation of talent class are significant difference to perceived price. The participation of after-school class is significant difference to purchase intention. The participation of cram school and talent class are significant difference to perceived brand. (4) At three level of price, perceived brand and perceived value are positively correlated with purchase intention, perceived brand is positively correlated with perceived value, but perceived price is negatively correlated with perceived value. However, at low level of price, perceived price is negatively correlated with perceived brand.