本研究目的在探究臺北市國民小學集體協商的內容，及集體協商的歷程，並探討我國臺北市國民小學教育組織中集體協商的現況和相關意見，根據研究結論提出建議，以供我國未來國民小學集體協商之參考。 因此本研究方法採文獻分析、問卷調查、訪談，透過文獻分析以作為調查和訪談研究的基礎，並編製「臺北市國民小學集體協商意見調查問卷」，進行調查研究並編製訪談大綱，進行訪談，以瞭解臺北市國民小學集體協商的現況和相關意見。問卷部分以隨機抽樣的方式，共發出問卷本研究總計對臺北市所抽樣的學校發出756份問卷，共回收590份問卷，有效問卷為545份，可用問卷比例為72﹪。 訪談對象則訪問臺北市國民小學的校長、教師會會長、家長會會長各3名，共9名進行訪談。最後將文獻探討、問卷調查和訪談結果做成結論，並據以提出建議。依據文獻探討、問卷調查和訪談結果的發現，歸納出以下結論： 一、協商主要內容可分為「課程與教學」、「人事」、「預算」、「一般校務」四面向，臨時性質的事件也會成為協商內容。 二、學校集體協商內容目前「應列入」但仍「未列入」的議題有：「本校教師教學時數的安排」、「本校教師任教科目的分配」及「教師獎懲考核的實施辦法」。 三、不同的職務及學校規模所較重視的議題亦隨之相異。 四、臺北市國民小學的學校集體協商品質良好，但在個人情緒控制及思考模式的變通仍有改進的空間，其中互動情形良好的學校比互動情形欠佳的學校協商品質較為優良。 五、臺北市國民小學的學校集體協商成效良好，但在效率及履約執行方面，為日後需繼續努力的方向；其中家長、行政人員及互動情形良好的學校較認同集體協商成效。 六、在進行協商時多使用「先同意大架構，細節部分再行討論」的策略進行，目前協商時第三者介入情形不普遍，如需選擇第三者時，以「教育局人員」為多數，遇僵局時多以「先休會擇期再開」的方式處理。 七、「專科」學歷的協商代表對於「協商過程中第三者」傾向選擇「民意代表」，行政人員、教師、家長則分別傾向求助於「教育局人員」、「退休或離職的校長、主任、教師」、「民意代表」。 八、教師認為學校在「協商僵局處理」時會傾向於「擁有裁量權者的一方說了就算」，家長則認為學校應「請第三者進行事實調查，提供真實資料供雙方參考」；而大型規模及互動情形良好的學校除選擇「先休會擇期再開」之外，也傾向用「請第三者調解」的方式解決。 九、協商成員的權力及知能較為缺乏。 十、臺北市國民小學認同「集體協商」為協商決策模式，其中以家長與互 動情形良好的學校更認同協商決策模式。 最後綜合研究結果提出以下建議： 一、 對學校的建議： （一） 學校宜建立良好的集體協商制度，以作為重大議題的決策模式。 （二）協商內容可分為「課程與教學」、「人事」、「預算」、「一般校務」四面向，惟須注意臨時性質的事件也會成為協商內容。 （三） 未來學校集體協商內容應增列「本校教師教學時數的安排」、「本校教師任教科目的分配」及「教師獎懲考核的實施辦法」的議題。 （四）學校集體協商內容應考慮對象及學校規模之不同需求。 （五）學校行政人員、教師與家長協商時應屏除個人私益及情緒。 （六）學校宜精簡時間、人力、資源，以提升效率並應持續追蹤協議的達成度。 （七）學校集體協商時可多使用「先同意大架構，細節部分再行討論」的策略。 （八） 學校集體協商將來若需外力協助時，得商請相關的第三者協助。 （九）遇協商僵局時，成員應去除獨權專大的陋習，並可考慮請第三者調解、進行事實調查等解決方式。 （十）落實家長監督機制。 二、 對教育行政機關的建議 （一） 辦理協商知能的研習。 （二） 建立諮詢的資訊平台。 （三） 制定相關協商的法令。 / The purpose of this study is to investigate the content and the process of collective negotiation in Taipei public elementary schools. The study is also to explore the circumstances and opinions of collective negotiation from the schools’ organizations. According to the study results, some recommendations are proposed available for future references. The study methods include the literature review, the questionnaire, and the interview. The questionnaire, “Taipei Public Elementary Schools’ Opinions on Collective Negotiation Questionnaire”, is created based on the initial results from the literature review and the interview. 756 copies of the questionnaire are distributed to randomly-sampled schools. Finally, there are 545 of 590 valid questionnaires are collected. The retrieval rate is 72%. Nine interviewees are: three principals of Taipei public elementary schools, three presidents of Teachers’ Association, and three presidents of Parents’ Association. Finally, the study makes a conclusion by analyzing the literature review, the questionnaire, and the interview’s results. Some findings and suggestions are described as below: A. The content of collective negotiation can be categorized into four main areas: “the curriculum and the teaching”, “the personal matters”, “the budget”, and “general school administration”. Temporary events are also included in the content of collective negotiation. B. In the content of schools’ collective negotiation, some issues currently “should be included”, but “not be included yet” are: “arrangement for school teachers’ teaching hours”, “distribution of school teachers teaching subjects” and “implementations of school teachers’ rewards, punishments and assessments”. C. Different people and school’s scales should pay attention to different issues. D. The qualities of Taipei public elementary schools’ collective negotiation are good. However, they still need to improve some places, like personal emotion’s control and thinking models. Schools, having better interactive status, have better quality of collective negotiation than those having worse interactive status. E. The efficacy of collective negotiation in Taipei public elementary schools is better. However, they need to continue making efforts on its efficiency and the implantation. Parents, administrators and schools, having better interactive status, agree with the efficacy more. F. In the process of collective negotiation, people most of time take a “agree with a big framework first, and then discuss its parts in detail” strategy. Currently, it is not common to ask a third person to get involved in the process. If choosing a third person to deal with a deadlock is necessary, people most of time choose from the Bureau of Education. When meeting a deadlock, they usually use “adjourn first, and then fix another meeting date” strategy. G. Representatives of collective negotiation, having “vocational school” degree, prefer to choose “representatives of the public opinion” as their “third person in the process of collective negotiation”. Administrators, teachers, and parents prefer to ask for help from “people who are in the Bureau of Education”, “retired principals, deans, and teachers” or “representatives of the public opinion”. H. Teachers think that the schools prefer to “listen to people who have decision-making rights” as dealing with a deadlock of collective negotiation. Parents think that schools should “invite a third person to do a fact survey and provide facts for the two sides’ references”. However, schools having bigger scale and good interactive status, not only choose “adjourn first, and then fix another meeting date”, but also prefer to use “invite a third person to mediate” strategy. I. The power and skill of the negotiation members are more destitute. J. Taipei public elementary schools agree that “collective negotiation” is model to make a decision. Parents and schools having better interactive status agree with it more. After the study combines the results, some suggestions are made as follows: l To schools: 1. Schools should set up good rules of collective negotiation as decision-making model for important issues. 2. The content of collective negotiation can be categorized into four main areas: “the curriculum and the teaching”, “the personal matters”, “the budget”, and “general school administration”. However, it is necessary to pay attention to temporary events that will also become a content of collective negotiation. 3. The content of schools’ collective negotiation should add three more events, “arrangement for school teachers’ teaching hours”, “distribution of school teachers teaching subjects” and “implementations of school teachers’ rewards, punishments and assessments”. 4. The content of schools’ collective negotiation should consider different needs from different people or schools’ scales. 5. School administrators, teachers and parents should remove personal interests and emotion in the negotiation process. 6. In order to increase the efficiency and efficacy of collective negotiation, schools should save time, people, and resources. 7. Schools’ collective negotiation can use “agree with a big framework first, and then discuss its parts in detail” more. 8. If schools’ collective negotiation need others’ assistance, they could ask an appropriate third person for help. 9. If schools meet with a deadlock in the process of collective negotiation, school members should discard bad habits of autocracy and may consider to invite a third person to mediate, to do a fact survey and so on. 10. To execute the system of cognizance from parents. l To educational administration: 1. Doing a research to deal with negotiation. 2. Building an information platform. 3. Setting up some laws about negotiation.