從放手到放心的想望－偏鄉家長參與學校課程事務的個案研究

A case study on parents' participation in school curriculum affairs in remote towns-the yearning to transition from letting go and not intervening to feeling at ease

10.7038/JETP.201506_(31).0002

陳聖謨(Sheng-Mo Chen)；簡至悅(Chih-Yueh Chien)

家長參與 ； 學校教育 ； 親師合作 ； parent participation ； school education ； parent-teacher collaboration

教育理論與實踐學刊

31期（2015 / 06 / 01）

33 - 61

繁體中文

儘管教育市場化的風潮已然成形，偏鄉地區受限於主客觀條件，家長對於學校教育的供給似乎是無從挑選，甚至無力發聲。本研究以一所雲林縣偏鄉學校為個案，聚焦於偏鄉學校家長面對學校主導課程規劃與實施的態勢下，對學校課程事務品質有何聲音；又抱持什麼期待。主要採取半結構訪談法，目的性取樣選取全校13位家長，分次進行個別或團體訪談，並輔以文件分析法進行資料蒐集。歸納研究結果，所得結論為：個案學校家長大多致力於基本生計的維繫，滿足生活溫飽，打拼與打理家庭經濟是心力投注的主要重心，也因此對子女的照顧以養為主，在育方面僅著重在品格與行為的管教。學校的課程安排對家長而言是支配的關係，家長並沒有具備參與學校教育事務的權利意識，遑論意圖對學校課程政策發揮影響力。少數能夠發聲的家長也只是與學校存有熟稔關係，學校並不容易獲得多數家長的課程品質回饋訊息。與其說偏鄉家長對學校課程抱持放任與放手，毋寧說家長以順應自適，無所企求的態度，看待孩子在學校所接受的教育。在直升機家長、怪獸家長幾乎絕跡的教育環境下，學校如何提供優質的課程品質，贏得家長的放心，留下更多思索的空間。

One effect of the marketization trend of education is that parents have become ＂customers＂ of school education who are empowered to ＂vote with their feet＂ and select particular schools for their children. For parents in remote regions, however, this ability to ＂shop for schools＂ is significantly reduced, as the provision of school education is nearly without choice and monopolistic. This study focuses on these parents' opinions regarding school curriculum quality under such a situation, as well as their expectations. This study focuses on a school in the remote region of Yunlin County. The primary method of this case study adapted semi-structured interview including individual and group interviews that were conducted with 13 parents schoolchildren in various settings. A document analysis method was also used to supplement data collection. Study results suggest the following conclusion: Parents in the case study primarily strive to maintain their basic livelihood and provide for their families, with working hard and managing their household economy at the center of their focus and efforts. As such, care for their children primarily focuses on nutrition, while efforts to nurture focus on the discipline of character and behavior. School curriculum planning is viewed as a dominating relation from the perspective of parents, whereby they are not aware of their rights to participate in school affairs, let alone believe they can influence school curriculum policy. Those few parents who voice their opinions already have a close relationship with the school, while it remains difficult for the school to obtain curriculum quality feedback on the curriculum from the majority of parents. Rather than asserting that parents in remote towns maintain a laissez-faire approach toward school curriculums, it could rather be viewed that these parents have adopted an attitude of non-expectation regarding their children's school education. In an educational environment where ＂helicopter parents＂ and ＂monster parents＂ are almost extinct, there is room for schools to reflect and consider ways to provide premium curriculum quality to win the approval of all parents.

1. 謝孟穎(2003)。家長社經背景與學生學業成就關聯性之研究。教育研究集刊，49(2)，255-287。
   連結：
2. 教育部（2006）。國民教育階段家長參與學校教育事務辦法。臺北：教育部。
3. Astone, N. M.,McLanahan, S. S.(1991).Family structure, parental practices and high school completion.American Sociological Review,56,309-321.
4. Attride-Stirling, J.(2001).Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research.Qualitative Research,1(3),385-405.
5. Beyer, L.(ed.),Apple, M.(ed.)(1988).The Curriculum: Problem, Politics and Possibilities.Albany, NY:SUNY Press.
6. Bowles, S.,Gintis, H.(1976).Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and contradictions of economic life.New York:Basic Books.
7. Christenson, S. L.,Rounds, T.,Gorney, D.(1992).Family factors and student achievement: An avenue to increase student success.School Psychology Quarterly,7,178-206.
8. Coleman, P.,Collinge, J.,Tabin, Y.(1996).Learning together: the student/parent/teacher triad.School Effectiveness and School Improvement,7(4),361-382.
9. Cuban, L.(1988).The Managerial Imperative and the Practice of Leadership in Schools.Albany, NY:State University of New York Press.
10. Epstein, J. L.(2001).School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools.Boulder, CO:Westview Press.
11. Henderson, P.(1987).Effects of planned parental involvement in affective education.The School Counselor,35,22-27.
12. Keith, T. Z.,Keith, P. B.,Troutman, G. C.,Bickley, P.,Trivette, P.,Singh, K.(1993).Does parental involvement affect eighth-grade student achievement? Structural analysis of national data.School Psychology Review,22(3),474-496.
13. Klein, M. F.(1991).The Politics of Curriculum Decision Making: Issues in Centralizing the Curriculum.Albany:State University of New York.
14. Klein, M. F.(ed.)(1991).The politics of curriculum decision-making.Albany:State University of New York.
15. Lareau, A.(1989).Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary education.New York:Falmer Press.
16. Marsh, C. J.,Willis, G.(2003).Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues.Upper Saddle River, NJ:Merrill Prentice Hall.
17. Marzano, R.(2003).What works in school: Translating Research into Action.Alexandria, Va:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
18. Merriam, S. B.(1988).Case study research in education.Thousand Oaks, CA:Jossey-Bass.
19. Oliva, P. E.(2005).Developing the curriculum.Boston:Alley & Bacon.
20. Ornstein, A.C.,Hunkins, F.P.(2012).Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues.Boston:Pearson.
21. Pratt, D.(1994).Curriculum Planning: A Handbook for Professionals.Harcourt Brace College.
22. Riessman, F.(1962).The culturally deprived child.New York:Harper and Row.
23. Stoddard, L.(1992).Redesigning Education: A Guide for Developing Human Greatness.Tucson, Ariz:Zephyr Press.
24. Trusty, J.(1996).Effects of eight-grade parental involvement on late adolescents' educational expectations.Journal of Research and Development in Education,32,224-233.
25. Yin, R. K.(2009).Case study research: Design and methods.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
26. 何俊青(2014)。偏鄉特色小學創新經營的個案研究與省思。教育研究月刊，238，79-92。
27. 何瑞珠(1999)。家長參與子女教育：文化資本與社會資本的闡釋。當代華人教育學報，2(1)
28. 吳清山、高家斌(2009)。臺灣近二十年學校效能研究論文取向分析。教育研究，188，5-26。
29. 吳璧如(1998)。教育歷程中家長參與學校教育之研究。國教學報，10，1-36。
30. 李宜靜(2009)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。屏東市，國立屏東教育大學。
31. 李雪莉(2007)。別當直升機父母。天下雜誌，368
32. 林明地(1999)。家長參與學校教育的研究與實際：對教育改革的啟示。教育研究資訊，7(2)，61-79。
33. 林美惠(2002)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。屏東市，國立屏東師範學院。
34. 林素卿(2007)。從課程與教學的角度，談家長參與學校教育。研習資訊，24(2)，7-14。
35. 侯世昌(2007)。家長參與學校教育的意義與途徑。研習資訊，24(2)，15-21。
36. 侯靖南(2009)。博士論文(博士論文)。臺中市，國立臺中教育大學。
37. 范麗娟(2007)。台灣弱勢者教育的現況分析與未來展望。教育資料與研究專刊，12月，77-90。
38. 許芳菊(2011)。誰是怪獸家長？。親子天下，29
39. 陳成宏(2011)。學校變革和家長參與的整合論述。第四屆「教育行政與學術研討會」
40. 楊智穎(2011)。弱勢者教育改革中教師專業認同之研究：偏鄉學校教師敘事的省思。屏東育大學學報─教育類，36，499-522。
41. 劉倩如(2012)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。花蓮縣，國立東華大學。
42. 謝文豪(2000)。家長參與學校教育：理由、實務、及改進途徑。花蓮師院學報，11，21-35。
43. 簡加妮(2010)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。屏東市，國立屏東師範學院。

1. (2022)。高中學生家長的教育參與：概念、理論與研究。教育研究月刊，335，4-22。
2. (2022)。臺灣教育的城鄉差距：偏鄉學校實徵研究的分析。教育研究月刊，334，4-19。
3. (2024)。為台灣而教：偏鄉教育問題及TFT介入成效評估。當代教育研究季刊，32(1)，77-117。