本研究旨在探討國民中小學校長工作的壓力與行政決定之關係。探討目前國民中小學校長所承受的工作壓力概況如何？並比較不同背景變項之國民中小學校長，對不同類別的工作壓力是否有顯著的差異，以及分析國民中小學校長面臨工作壓力時，所採用之行政決定的差異為何？ 本研究以九十三學年度台北縣國民中小學校長為研究對象，並以「校長工作壓力量表」及「校長行政決定之調查問卷」為施測工具，進行問卷調查。有效樣本223份。所得資料以次數分配、平均數、t 考驗、單因子變異數分析、皮爾遜積差相關等統計方法加以處理及分析並以薛費法(Scheffé)事後比較。綜合本研究之結果如下： 壹、國民中小學校長的工作壓力現況，整體及各向度均呈中等程度。 貳、不同教育背景之國民中小學校長的整體工作壓力，沒有差異存在。 參、不同教育背景之國民中小學校長的各壓力向度，確有差異存在。 肆、不同教育背景之國民中小學校長在各壓力向度的題項中，確有差異存在。 伍、國民中小學校長的行政決定模式，呈偏民主方式。 陸、不同教育背景之國民中小學校長的整體行政決定模式，確有差異存在。 柒、不同教育背景之國民中小學校長的各壓力向度，確有差異存在。 捌、不同教育背景之國民中小學校長的各行政決定模式，確有差異存在。 玖、所有壓力向度及行政決定模式中，達.05顯著相關者有三，即地方壓力與教務行政，部屬壓力與教務行政，行政負擔壓力與教務行政。

本研究旨在建構國民中小學校長評鑑指標系統，了解指標系統之權重，並提出結論與建議，以供主管教育行政機關實施校長評鑑之參考，並提供後續研究之參考。 在研究方法部分，首先，以文獻分析探討校長評鑑之理論分析，了解校長評鑑之意義、相關概念、目的與程序；探討國內校長評鑑之現況；探討國內校長評鑑之相關研究；探討校長評鑑指標系統之建構，並初擬本研究國民中小學校長評鑑指標系統。第二，以專家審查問卷調查10位專家學者對本研究初擬之指標系統之意見。第三，採模糊德菲法問卷，以18位專精於校長評鑑之專家學者以及富實務經驗之校長為研究對象，以進行本研究指標系統之篩選。第四，採層級分析法問卷，以前揭篩選之指標系統為基礎建構問卷，同樣對18位研究對象進行調查，以建構本研究指標系統之權重。 根據研究之結果與分析，歸納本研究結論如下： 一、本研究建構之國民中小學校長評鑑指標系統共三階層，計有六大領域，十二個向度，三十八項指標。 二、本研究建構之國民中小學校長評鑑指標系統之第一階層各領域相對權重，排序如下：「課程與教學領導」領域佔23.3%、「學生與教師成長」領域佔21.7%、「行政領導與管理」領域佔19.9%、「政策與校務推展」領域佔13.9%、「專業成長與素養」領域佔12.1%、「資源與公關管理」領域佔9.1%。 三、本研究建構之國民中小學校長評鑑指標系統之第二階層各向度相對權重，在「課程與教學領導」領域下，以「教學領導」向度較重要，佔65.1%；在「學生與教師成長」領域下，以「學生學習」向度較重要，佔65.3%；在「行政領導與管理」領域下，以「行政領導」向度較重要，佔66%；在「政策與校務推展」領域下，以「校務推展」向度較重要，佔70.1%；在「專業成長與素養」領域下，以「理念操守」向度較重要，佔70.6%；在「資源與公關管理」領域下，以「資源管理」向度較重要，佔54.6%。 四、本研究建構之國民中小學校長評鑑指標系統之第三階層各指標相對權重，在「教學領導」向度下，以「協助教師實施多元與適性的教學與評量」最重要，佔38.5%；在「課程管理」向度下，以「主持課程發展會議，帶領教師規劃與實施學校課程」最重要，佔41.9%；在「學生學習」向度下，以「培養品德良好、身心健康的學生」最重要，佔29.2%；「教師成長」向度下，以「鼓勵教師參與課程教學研究，促進課程教學效能與創新」最重要，佔40.9%；「行政領導」向度下，以「激勵教職員工生動機，塑造學習文化與共同領導」最重要，佔31.3%；「人力管理」向度下，以「展現知人善任能力，使教職員工適才適所」最重要，佔46.6%；「校務推展」向度下，以「依照學校背景、特性與需求，型塑共享的學校願景」最重要，佔39.5%；「政策執行」向度下，以「將重要教育政策與法令融入校務發展計畫，並落實與檢討」最重要，佔44.9%；「理念操守」向度下，以「具有良好品格操守，遵守專業倫理規範」最重要，佔36.7%；「專業成長」向度下，以「具有專業責任感與服務熱忱，以專業領導同仁」最重要，佔47.7%；「資源管理」向度下，以「妥善運用各項資源，營造優質教學環境」最重要，佔36.7%；「公共關係」向度下，以「與家長、社區維持良好關係，促進交流與資源共享」最重要，佔51.9%。 最後，本研究根據研究結果，提出相關建議，俾供教育主管機關、國民中小學校長以及後續研究之參考。 / The purpose of the study is to construct the principal evaluation indicators system for elementary and junior high schools, understand the weights of the indicators system, and provide conclusions and suggestions for education administrative institutions to implement principal evaluation and future study. As for research methods, firstly, by literature review, discussing the theory basis of the principal evaluation to understand the signification, related concepts, purposes, and procedure; discussing the domestic current status of the principal evaluation; discussing the domestic related studies of principal evaluation; discussing the construction of the principal evaluation indicators system, and preliminarily develop the principal evaluation indicators system for elementary and junior high schools. Secondly, investigating the suggestions of 10 experts by questionnaire. Thirdly, selecting the indicators system by fuzzy Delphi method questionnaire for 18 experts and principals. In the final stage, constructing the weights of the indicators system by Analytic Hierarchy Process questionnaire for the same 18 experts and principals. The main conclusions are as follow: 1. The principal evaluation indicators system for elementary and junior high schools consists with 6 areas, 12 dimensions and 38 indicators in total. 2. The weights of 6 areas are: ‘curriculum and instructional leadership’ area (23.3%), ‘student and teacher growth’ area (21.7%), ‘administrative leadership and management’ area (19.9%), ‘policy and school affair promotion’ area (13.9%), ‘professional growth and integrity’ area (12.1%), ‘resource and public relations management’ area (9.1%). 3. The weights of 12 dimensions are as follow: in ‘curriculum and instructional leadership’ area, ‘instructional leadership’ dimensionis more important( 65.1%); in ‘student and teacher growth’ area, ‘student learning’ dimension is more important( 65.3%); in ‘administrative leadership and management’ area, ‘administrative leadership’ dimension is more important( 66%); in ‘policy and school affair promotion’ area, ‘school affair promotion’ dimension is more important( 70.1%); in ‘professional growth and integrity’ area, ‘idea and moral integrity’ dimension is more important( 70.6%); in ‘resource and public relations management’ area, ‘resource management’ dimension is more important( 54.6%). 4. The weights of 38 indicators are as follow: in ‘instructional leadership’ dimension, ‘assisting teachers to implement diverse and adaptive instruction and assessment’ is most important(38.5%) ; in ‘curriculum leadership’ dimension, ‘directing curriculum development conferences, and leading teachers to plan and implement curriculum’ is most important(41.9%); in ‘student learning’ dimension, ‘training moral and healthy student’ is most important(29.2%); in ‘teacher growth’ dimension, ‘encouraging teacher to participate curriculum and instructional research, and promoting curriculum and instructional innovation and efficacy’ is most important(40.9%); in ‘administrative leadership’ dimension, ‘encouraging faculty and student motivation, and shaping learning culture and participating leadership’ is most important(31.3%); in ‘human resource management’ dimension, ‘picking the right man for the right job’ is most important(46.6%); in ‘school affair promotion’ dimension, ‘according to school background, feature and needs, establishing shared school vision’ is most important(39.5%); in ‘policy implementation’ dimension, ‘integrating important education policies into school development plans, implementing and reviewing the school development plans’ is most important(44.9%); in ‘idea and moral integrity’ dimension, ‘possessing moral integrity, and compling with profession ethics’ is most important(36.7%);in ‘professional growth’ dimension, ‘possessing professional responsibility and service enthusiasm, and leading members by profession’ is most important(47.7%); in ‘resource management’ dimension, ‘properly using resources, and shaping high quality instructional environment’ is most important(36.7%); in ‘public relations’ dimension, ‘maintaining good relation with patents and community, promoting exchange ,and sharing resources’ is most important(51.9%). In conclusion, the findings and results in hope of providing suggestions for educational administrative institutions, elementary and junior high school principals, and future study.

本研究目的為建構中小學校長在職專業增能課程指標，提供校長專業發展支持機構、教育行政機關作為校長在職增能與專業發展相關課程與政策制定之參考。研究方法部分，經由文獻探討分析初擬中小學校長在職專業增能課程指標，邀請13位相關領域專家學者以及資深經歷之中小學校長針對指標進行適切性評估與指標修訂，而後以概念構圖法進行指標分群與重要性評定，得出上位概念之指標構面及權重，建構中小學校長在職專業增能課程指標系統，依據研究結果與分析歸納結論與建議如下。 結論： （一）本研究建構之中小學校長在職專業增能課程指標系統共計五構面22項指標，構面分別為：「一、課程教學與學生學習」構面含5項指標、「二、領導知能與溝通決策」構面含4項指標、「三、資源運用與空間規劃」構面含5項指標、「四、行政實務與知識管理」構面含4項指標、「五、學校行銷與品牌形塑」構面含4項指標。 （二）「領導知能與溝通決策」構面為最重要之中小學校長在職專業增能課程指標構面。 （三）學生適性學習及危機管理為最重要之中小學校長在職專業增能課程指標。 （四）中小學校長在職專業課程指標於不同對象之重要性有其差異，學者專家認為「學生適性發展」及「危機管理與實務」兩項最為重要；資深經歷中小學校長則認為「學生適性發展」、「學校領導知能與實務」及「辦學理念與校務發展規劃」最為重要。 建議： （一） 中小學校長在職增能宜建立有系統化之課程指標作為參照。 （二） 中小學校長在職專業增能課程首重於領導知能與溝通決策。 （三） 中小學校長在職專業增能課程宜著重於學生適性發展。 （四） 中小學校長在職專業增能課程建構應參酌不同利害關係人意見。 / The purpose of this study is to construct the indicators of inservice professional development course for elementary and secondary school principals, which provide principals professional development support agencies and educational administration departments as a reference for planning principals inservice professional development course and policy related to professional growth and professional development. As for research method, by means of literature review, 22 indicators of inservice professional development course for school principals had been organized based on an expert survey, which survey 13 experts. Concept mapping questionnaire used to analyze experts' opinion on the importance of each indicator and to help indicator selection. At last stage, find the weight of each indicator within each dimension and construct the system of indicators of inservice professional development course for school principals. The main conclusions as below: 1.　This study constructs an indicator system of inservice professional development course for school principals of 5 dimensions and 22 indicators in total. The 5 dimensions are: I. curriculum, teaching and student learning, which include 5 indicators. II. leadership knowledge, communication and decision making, which include 4 indicators. III. resource utilization and campus space planning, which include 5 indicators. IV. administrative practice and knowledge management, which include 5 indicators. V. school marketing and brand shaping, which include 5 indicators. 2.　Leadership knowledge, communication and decision-making is the most important dimension of inservice professional development course for school principals. 3.　Adaptive learning and crisis management are the most received expert attention. 4.　The importance of different objects have their differences of inservice professional development course for school principals. Scholar think Adaptive learning and crisis management are the most important indicators. on the other hand, school principal think Adaptive learning, school leadership knowledge and practice, and school philosophy and development planning are the most important indicators. According to the result, here are some recommendations as below: 1.　It is advisable to establish systematic curriculum indicators as a reference for inservice professional development course for school principals. 2.　Inservice professional development course for school principals most emphasis on leadership knowledge and communication and decision-making. 3.　Inservice professional development course for school principals most emphasis on Adaptive learning. 4.　Inservice professional development course for school principals should take into account the views of different stakeholders.