國中身心障礙學生轉銜服務之研究－社會體系觀點

A Research on the Transition Service for Disable Students in Junior High Schools-From the Perspective of Social Systems

10.6785/SPSW.200306.0099

邱瑜瑾(Yu-Chin Chiou)；許素彬(Su-Pin Hsu)

身心障礙者 ； 轉銜服務 ； 社會體系 ； 社會政策 ； 特殊教育 ； disability ； transition service ； perspective of social systems ； social policy ； special education

社會政策與社會工作學刊

7卷1期（2003 / 06 / 01）

99 - 161

繁體中文

身心障礙者教育與相關服務立基於「個別化教育方案」(IEP)。台灣於1997年新修正的「特殊教育法」明令規定中學以上學校所實施的IEP課程中還必須包含「個別轉銜方案」(ITP)。此政策之重要意涵乃是透過有效的執行IEP與ITP方案，能促進身心障礙由青少年步入成人生活後，成為具有生產性的社會成員。因此本研究的目的是探討國中階段對於身心障礙學生所實施IEP/ITP方案的現況；學校實施轉銜方案的結構限制；最後以體系變遷觀點提出未來轉銜服務的相關建議。本研究的方法包含社會調查法與深度訪談，資料收集來自學校行政人員、教師與家長。研究發現： 1．大多數學校有執行「個別化教育課程」(IEP)，但是有高比例學校未涵蓋「轉銜方案」(ITP)。在執行制度面上，以「輔導室」特教組為主，少見跨處室合作或聘請外來機構組成轉銜專業小組的轉銜模式。在學校與機構合作中，缺乏多元組織連結，社會支持力薄弱。 2．家長參與度低，但是對於學校的教育課程能促進其子女獨立生活的能力具有高度的肯定；然而對於學校所提供的職業教育課程滿意度較低。 3．學校教師界定執行IEP/ITP的困難因素包含專業訓練不足、缺乏資源與社會支持，以及社區因素。 4．影響轉銜服務方案整合的因素，有社會政策的困境、制度面的問題、區域資源分佈差異與家庭參與等問題。 本研究從社會體系觀點對於整合轉銜服務所提出的建議包含：制度改革、社區融合政策的推行、監督與評估轉銜方案、制度性資源網絡的建立，以及家庭的自我決策與自我權益維護之賦權。

The related services provided for special students are based on Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). The Special Education Act that was amended in l997mandates junior high schools to provide individualized transition service under IEP for their special students. Efficient implementation of IEP and ITP implicitly promotes the capabilities needed for students with disabilities to carry out their adult roles and to be productive members of their community. The purpose of this paper is to explore the situation and barriers of transition service for junior high special students and to provide suggests for future services. Methodology includes social survey and interview. Data were collected from school administrators, teachers, and parents. Results are as follows: 1. Although most of schools have implemented IEP, a lot of schools have not included ITP. The lack of resources network, social support, and multi-agency collaboration was found. 2. Families were not much involved in transition process, but most of parents affirmed that school education could promote their children's independent living skills. However, parents were not satisfied with vocational education provided by schools. 3. Inadequate professional training, insufficient resource and social support related to transition, and community level factors were cited by school staff as barriers to implementing transition services. 4. Social policy, unequal resource distribution in regions, and family involvement could influence transition service in junior high schools. The strategies to improve integration of transition service system were suggested. Those strategies include the change of transition service systems, promoting social inclusion policy, monitoring/evaluating transition practices, building interagency collaboration network, and improving family empowerment and self-advocacy.

1. Bradley V. J.(1993).Emerging Issues in Family Support (Monograph No. 18).Washington, DC:American Association on Mental Retardation.
2. Brown, R. I.(1998).Personal Reflections: Quality of Life Research and Down Syndrome.International Journal of Disability, Development and Education,45(3),323-329.
3. Campo, S. F.,W. R. Sharpton.,B. Thompson(1997).Correlates of the Quality of Adults with Severe or Profound Mental Retardation.Mental Retardation,35,329-337.
4. DeStefano, S. L.,Hasazi,J. Trach(1997).Issues in the Evaluation of a Muliti-Site Federal Systems Change Initiative.Career Development for Exceptional Individuals,20,123-139.
5. Fetterman, D. M.(1994).Steps Empowerment Evaluation: From California to Cape Town.Program Planning and Evaluation,17(3),305-313.
6. Field, S.(1996).Self-Determination Instructional Strategies for Youth with Learning Disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities,29,40-52.
7. Goode, D. A.(1994).Quality of Life for Persons with Disabilities: International Perspectives and Issues.Cambridge, MA:Brookline.
8. Gordon, M.,S. Keiser(1998).Accommodations in Higher Education under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): A No-Nonsense Guide for Clinicians, Educators, Administrators and Lawyers.New York:GSI.
9. Halpem, A. S.(1993).Quality of Life as a Conceptual Framework for Evaluation Transition Outcomes.Exceptional Children,59(6),486-498.
10. Heal, L. W.(1996).Review of the Book Quality of Life for Persons with Disabilities: International Perspectives and Issues.American Journal on Mental Retardation,100,557-560.
11. Janiga, Sandra J.,V. Costenbader(2002).The Transition from High School to Postsecondary Education for Students with Learning Disabilities: A Survey of College Service Coordinators.Journal of Learning Disabilities,35(5),462-479.
12. Johnson, J. R.,F. R. Rusch(1993).Secondary Special Education and Transition Services: Identification and Commendations for Future Research and Demonstratio.Career Development for Exception Children,59,486-498.
13. Katsiyannis, A.,S. deFuret,G.. Conderman(1998).Transition Services-Systems Change for Youth with Disabilities?.The Journal of Special Education,32(1),55-61.
14. Keith, D.K.,R.L. Schalock(2000).Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Quality of Life.AAMR Press.
15. Keith, K. D.,L. W. Heal,R. L. Schalock(1996).Cross-Cultural Measurement of Critical Quality of Life Concepts.Journal of Intellectual and Development Disabilities,24(4),273-293.
16. Lindstrom, B.(1992).Quality Of Life: A Model for Evaluating Health for All.Soz Praventivmed,37,301-306.
17. Mallory, B. L.(1996).The Role of Social Policy in Life-Cycle Transition.Exceptional Children,62,213-223.
18. Mithaug, D. E.,J. E. Martin,M. Agran(1987).Adaptability Instruction: The Goal of Transitional Programming.Exceptional Children,53,500-505.
19. Momingstar, M. E.,A. P. Tumbull,H. R. Tumbull(1996).What Do Students with Disabilities Tell Us about the Importance of the Family Involvement in the Transition from School to Adult Life?.Exceptional Children,62,249-260.
20. Raphael, D.(1996).Quality of Life in Health Promotion and Rehabilitation: Conceptual Approaches, Issues and Applications.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
21. Repetto, L. B.,V. I. Correa(1996).Expanding Views on Transition.Exceptional Children,551-563.
22. Scbalock, R. L.,G. S. Bonham,C. B. Marchand(2000).Consumer Based Quality of Life Assessment: A Path Model of Perceived Satisfaction.Evaluation and Program Planning,23,77-87.
23. Schalock, R. L.(1995).Outcome-Based Evaluation.New York:Plenum Press.
24. Schalock, R. L.(1996).Quality of Life: Perspectives and Issues.Washington, DC:American Association on Mental Retardation.
25. Schalock, R. L.(1997).The Conceptualization and Measurement of Life: Current Status and Future Considerations.Journal on Developmental Disabilities,5(2),1-21.
26. Schalock, R. L.,M. A. Verdugo-Alonso(2002).Handbook on Quality of Life for Human Service Practitioners.Washington, DC:American Association on Mental Retardation.
27. Snell, J. A.,L. K. Vogtie(1997).Quality of Life: Vol. II: Application to Persons with Disabilities.Washington, DC:American Association on Mental Retardation.
28. Stancliffe, R. J.(2000).Proxy Respondents and Quality of Life.Evaluation and Program Planning,23,89-93.
29. Tumbull, A. P.,H. R. Tumbull(2000).Family, Professionals and Exceptionality- Collaborating for Empowerment.Merrill, NJ:Prentice Hall, Inc, Pearson Education Company.
30. Turnbull(2000)。身心障礙家庭----建構專業與家庭的信賴聯盟。台北:洪葉文化事業公司。
31. Wehman P.(1994).Life beyond the Classroom.Baltimore:Brookes Publishing Co., Inc..
32. Wehmeyer, M. L.,M. Schwartz(1997).Self-Determination and Positive Adult Outcomes: A Follow-Up Study of Youth with Mental Retardation and Learning Disability.Exceptional Children,63,245-255.
33. Wermuth, T. R.,T. E. Grayson(1995).Case Studies of State-Level Cross-Disciplinary Transition Policy Implementation.Champaign, IL:Transition Research Institute.
34. Whitney-Thomas, J.(1997).Quality of Life: Vol. II Application to Persons with Disabilities.Washington DC:American Association on Mental Retardation.
35. Will, M. C.(1984).OSERS Programming for the Transition of Youth with Disabilities: Bridges from School to Working Life.Washington, DC:Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), U. S. Department of Education.
36. Wolfensberger, W.(1994).Quality of Life for Persons with Disabilities: International Perspectives and Issues.Cambridge, MA:Brookline.
37. Woodill, G.,R. Renwick,I. Brown,D. Raphael(1994).Being Belonging and Becoming: A New Conceptual Approach to Quality Of Life among the Developmentally Disabled.Quality Of Life for Persons with Disabilities: International Issues and Perspective,57-74.
38. 內政部統計處(2001)。中華民國八+九年台閩地區身心障礙者生活需求調查報告:(一)社會福利服務篇 (二)醫療衛生保健篇(三)就業服務與職業訓練篇。中正大學社會福利學系。
39. 王國羽(2000)。「身心障礙者照顧服務體系」學術研討會。東海大學社工系與中華民國身心障礙者自立共生福祉協會。
40. 吳武典(1997)。身心障礙教育的革新與展望----開發潛能再創新機。台北:心理出版社。
41. 周月清(1998)。身心障礙者福利與家庭社會工作理論、實務與研究。台北:五南出版社。
42. 周月清(2000)。「身心障礙者照顧服務體系」學術研討會。東海大學社工系與中華民國身心障礙者自立共生福祉協會。
43. 林宏熾(1999)。身心障礙者生涯規劃與轉銜教育。台北:五南出版社。
44. 林宏熾(2002)。轉銜計畫在身心障礙福利服務的運用與發展。社區發展季刊，97，60-79。
45. 林幸台(2002)。高職特較班智能障礙學生轉銜模式之研究----組織與運作模式之探討。特殊教育研究學刊，22，189-215。
46. 邱瑜瑾(1999)。台中市非營利組織資源網絡連結分析社會網絡取向。政大學報，29，117-163。
47. 教育部(1994)。中重度智障暨障礙學生接受第十年技藝教育規劃研究計畫。台北:
48. 陳靜江(1997)。轉銜方案在啟智學校高職部之發展與成效研究(I、II)。國科會專題研究。
49. 陳麗如(1999)。高中職特殊教育學校 (班)學生離校轉銜服務之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學系。
50. 劉玉婷(2001)。高中職特殊教育學校 (班)智能障礙學生轉銜服務現況之調查及其相關因素之探討。國立高雄師範大學特殊教育學系。

1. 陳恒鈞(2008)。身障生的學習權益在哪裡？論我國特殊教育通報網之執行成效。中國行政：政治類，80，1-35。
2. 雷亞潔,黃嘉雄,郭倩惠,吳芝儀(2017)。學生轉銜輔導及服務之保密議題。諮商與輔導，382，21-25+29。
3. 廖華芳、王天苗(2007)。嬰幼兒綜合發展測驗之判定準確度及切截點分析。特殊教育研究學刊，32(2)，1-15。