台北市立國中教師執行零體罰教育政策之探討：正當性觀點

The Implementation of ZCPE Policy by the Teacher of Taipei City's Junior High School: Legitimacy Perspective

10.30409/JPA.200912_(33).0002

陳恒鈞(Hen-Chin Chen)；洪健哲(Chien-Che Hung)

政策設計 ； 正當性 ； 零體罰教育政策 ； 政策執行能力 ； 台北市立國中教師 ； policy design ； legitimacy deficit ； ZCPE ； implementation capacity ； teacher of Taipei City's junior high school

公共行政學報

33期（2009 / 12 / 01）

45 - 81

繁體中文

眾所皆知，一項政策即使是以有效的方式執行，最終也可能因為正當性的不足而宣告失敗，我國所推動的零體罰教育政策即是一例。為證明該項說法，本文遂運用正當性觀點，以台北市立國中教師為對象進行探討。 正當性具備與否逐漸成為政策設計時的考量要素。進言之，政策設計的實質內容，以及決策時所採取的程序步驟，深深影響政策利害關係人，乃至一般大眾對該項政策所持的態度與支持。儘管這兩項要素無法充分說明正當性對政策設計的重要性，惟針對個案而言，本文認為這兩要素攸關該項政策之推動，主因是欠缺正當性，受政策影響者的政策接受度將逐日漸減，連帶影響政策目標的達成度。 據此，本文首先進行理論探討，說明政策設計正當性對政策執行之影響；其次，運用文獻分析法，將零體罰教育政策發展曆程，劃分為五個階段進行探討；繼而運用半結構式訪談法，冀能獲得基層國中教師對零體罰政策的看法，藉以確定六項影響因素。最後，依據六項因素設計問卷，同時運用多元迴歸法，進行實證分析，檢證政策設計正當性要素對政策執行能力之影響。 研究結果顯示：（一）政策設計要素六項自變數中，與零體罰政策執行能力具有正向顯著性影響者，分別是：「問題建構明確度」、「目標與工具適合度」、「政策目標可行性」、「環境系絡契合度」及「執行人員認知接受度」等五項；（二）另一方面，由於專家、學者與技術官僚未能充分接受第一線教師的意見，以致「政策參與管道暢通度」與零體罰政策執行能力為負向顯著關係。

It is known even a policy is implemented and achieves its objectives in an efficient and effective way; the policy can fail in terms of legitimacy. The Zero Corporal Punishment Educational (ZCPE) Policy, which was executed in Taiwan, as an example. To testify, this paper applies the perspective of policy design for legitimacy deficit to explore the policy's implementation capacity. More detail, the substantive elements of policy and the procedural steps elements taken by decision makers affect the perception of policy legitimacy held by the stakeholders and the general public. Even these two elements do not exhaust the entire range of possible factors having a significant influence on legitimacy deficits, they are particularly important, since failure in policy legitimacy may subsequently hinder the long-term goals of decision makers by eroding society's acceptance of their legitimate claims to govern. In doing so, this paper first of all explores the theory of policy design for legitimacy. Secondary, using documentary analysis and pre-interview with the main stakeholders, especially the teachers, the results point out six causes that make legitimacy deficits appear and its significant factors. Besides, it also applies the core concepts to design the outline of interview. Finally, the paper further uses the multi-regression method to test the related hypothesis. The findings in terms of legitimacy deficit can be summarized as follows: (1) the question construction accuracy, the policy goal and the tool relevance, the policy goal feasibility, the context of environment, and the cognition of implementers have an significant and positive influence on the implementation capacity of the Zero Corporal Punishment Educational Policy, (2) since experts and technocracy cannot be appreciated the importance of teachers' participation; the participation channel has a significant but negative influence on the policy's implementation capacity

1. Ackoff, R. L.(1974).Redesigning the future: A systems approach to societal problems.New York:Wily.
2. Baumgartner, F. R.,B. D. Jones(1993).Agendas and instability in American politics.Chicago:University of Chicago.
3. Beetham, D.(1991).The legitimation of power.Basingstoke:Macmillan.
4. Bobrow, B. D.,J. S. Dryzek(1987).Policy analysis by design.Pittsburgh:University of Pittsburgh.
5. Bovens, M.,P. ''t Hart(1996).Understanding policy fiascos.New Brunswick:Transaction Publishers.
6. Carmine, J.,N. Darnall,,J. Mil-Homens(2003).Stakeholder involvement in the design of U.S. voluntary environmental programs: Does sponsorship matter?.Policy Studies Journal,31(4),527-543.
7. Cooper, T. L.(1991).An ethic of citizenship for public administration.Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall.
8. Dahl, R. A.(1998).On democracy.New Haven:Yale University.
9. Deleon, P.(1988).The contextual burdens of policy design.Policy Studies Journal,17(2),297-309.
10. Dryzek, J. S.(1983).Don't toss coins in garbage cans: A prologue to policy design.Journal of Public Policy,10(1),66-87.
11. Eliadis, P.(Eds.),M. M. Hill(Eds.),M. Howlett(Eds.)(2005).Designing government: From instruments to governance.Montreal:McGill-Queen's University.
12. Elmore, R. F.(1987).Instruments and strategy in public policy.Policy Studies Review,7(1),174-186.
13. Gross-Stein, J.(2001).The cult of efficiency.Toronto:Anansi.
14. Huntington, S. P.(1968).Political order in changing societies.New Haven:Yale University.
15. Ingram, H.,A. Schneider(1990).Improving implementation through framing smarter statues.Journal of Public Policy,11(2),187-206.
16. Lindblom, C.(1959).The science of muddling through.Public Administration Review,19,79-88.
17. Linder, S. H.,B. G. Peters(1989).Instruments of government: Perceptions and contexts.Journal of Public Policy,9(1),35-58.
18. March, J. G.,J. P. Olson(1989).Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics.New York:Free.
19. May, P. J.(1991).Reconsidering policy design: Policies and publics.Journal of Public Policy,11(2),187-206.
20. Montpetit, É.(2008).Policy design for legitimacy: Expert knowledge, citizens, time and inclusion in the United Kingdom's biotechnology sector.Public Administration,86(1),259-277.
21. Parkinson, J.(2003).Legitimacy problems in deliberative democracy.Political Studies,51,183-196.
22. Peters, B. G.(1986).American public policy: Promise and performance.Chatham:Chatham House Publishers.
23. Peters, B. G.(Eds.),F. K. M. van Nispen(Eds.)(1998).Public policy instruments: Evaluating the tools of public administration.Northampton:Edward Elgar.
24. Putnam, R. D.(1993).Making democracy: Civic traditions in modern Italy.Princeton:Princeton University.
25. Rochefort, D. A.,R. W. Cobb(1993).Problem definition, agenda access, and policy choice.Policy Studies Journal,21(1),56-71.
26. Salamon, L. M.(Eds.),M. S. Lund(Eds.)(1989).Beyond privatization: The tools of government action.Washington:The Urban Institute.
27. Salamon, L. M.(Eds.),O. V. Elliott(Eds.)(2002).The tools of government: A guide to the new governance.New York:Oxford University.
28. Scharpf, F. W.(1997).Games real actors play: Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research.Boulder:Westview.
29. Schneider, A.,H. Ingram(2005).Deserving and entitled: Social constructions and public policy.Albany:State University of New York.
30. Schneider, A.,H. Ingram(1997).Policy design for democracy.Lawrence:The University Press of Kansas.
31. Schneider, A.,H. Ingram,S. Nagel(Ed.)(1990).Policy theory and policy evaluation.New York:Greenwood.
32. SchÖn, D. A.,M. Rein(1994).Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies.New York:Basic Books.
33. Stone, D.(1993).Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas.Political Studies Quarterly,104(2),281-300.
34. Thomas, J. C.(1995).Public participation in public decisions: New skills and strategies for public managers.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
35. Wallner, J.(2008).Legitimacy and public policy: Setting beyond effectiveness, efficiency, and performance.The Policy Studies Journal,36(3),421-43.
36. Weber, M.,H. H. Gerth(Trans and Eds.),C. W. Mills(Trans and Eds.)(1958).From Max Weber: Essays in sociology.New York:Galaxy.
37. Weimer, D. L.,A. R. Vining(1992).Policy analysis: Concepts and practice.Englewood Cliffs:Prentice Hall.
38. 2008年校園教學正常化問卷調查
39. 台灣省政府公報，冬(59)
40. 台灣省政府公報，秋(17)
41. 台灣省政府公報，春(59)
42. 教育基本法修正第8條及第15條條文
43. 吳清山、林天佑(2005)。友善校園。教育資料與研究，62，177。
44. 林水波(2007)。公共政策析論。台北:五南。
45. 林水波(1999)。公共政策新論。台北:智勝。
46. 林水波、施能傑、葉匡時(1993)。強化政策執行能力之理論建構。臺北:行政院研究發展考核委員會。
47. 林靜淑(1997)。新竹，國立新竹師範學院國民教育研究所。
48. 翁興利、施能解、官有垣、鄭麗嬌(2000)。公共政策。台北:空大。
49. 教育人員獎懲標準
50. 教育部公報，257
51. 教育部公報，252
52. 教育部公報，272，
53. 教育部公報，270，
54. 陳文俊譯、Earl Babbie原著(2005)。社會科學研究方法。台北:雙葉。
55. 陳冠旭(2008)。新竹，國立新竹教育大學課程與教學。
56. 鄒川雄(2000)。中國社會學實踐－陽奉陰違的中國人。台北:紅葉。
57. 齊力(2007)。檢視台灣晚近人本教育主張者的人本主義思想內涵。當代社會與國家發展學術研討會，台北:
58. 羅清俊(2007)。社會科學研究方法。台北:威仕曼。

1. 李信興(2011)。從家戶所得分配觀點檢視「 齊一公私立高中職學費」政策。學校行政，72，174-189。
2. (2012)。教育政策與教育立法關係之分析。教育研究月刊，222，19-32。