本研究旨在探討美國、英國及我國中央對地方政府特殊教育行政績效評鑑的狀況，運用特殊教育通報網篩選檢核指標，編製地方政府特殊教育行政績效調查問卷，發展平時檢測與定期實地評鑑機制，以建置平時與定期兼顧的特殊教育行政績效評鑑制度，供教育行政機關實施之參考。 採用文獻分析、訪問、焦點座談、問卷調查及團體深度訪談等五種方法。採取「特殊教育通報網運用調查問卷」、「地方政府特殊教育行政績效調查問卷」、「地方政府特殊教育行政績效實地評鑑調查問卷」及三問卷之訪問大綱為研究工具，以特殊教育行政人員、學者專家及特教教師與家長為研究對象。本研究自2006年10月至2009年5月為期兩年餘，研究發現有五： 一、美國積極推動中央對地方政府特殊教育行政績效評鑑，採取法制化、發展督導系統、委託全國特殊教育績效監督中心評鑑、評鑑委員多元化、檢測各州績效體制成效表、以及實施指標強調與一般學生比較等作法。英國教育標準署明訂特殊教育之分項視察項目、明列三層面九向度的特殊教育需求檢核標準、明列每項鑑定標準的等級標準、以及鑑定標準納入地方教育局改善的能力等作為，兩國上述作法均可供參酌。 二、評析我國2002年、2004年、2006年及2008年對地方政府特殊教育行政績效評鑑，發現評鑑制度已日漸完善。但目的宜強化輔導、資源調配與管理、相互觀摩與交流；評鑑委員宜再納入縣市特殊教育行政人員代表；評鑑項目依其性質宜分為指定領域、自選領域、複評領域及免評領域四類；辦理方式除書面評鑑外，應納入實地評鑑。 三、基於文獻分析、訪問、調查及團體深度訪談結果，我國中央對地方政府特殊教育行政績效評鑑有必要「建置平時與定期(或專案)兼顧的特殊教育行政績效評鑑制度」。此制度含括平時檢測機制、定期實地評鑑機制、地方政府自我評鑑及專案訪視機制四部分，並具體轉化為實施計畫，然本研究僅探討前兩部分。 四、以適切擴充特殊教育通報網篩選出量化客觀的關鍵與核心指標予以初檢，再以地方政府特殊教育行政績效調查結果的主觀感受進行複檢，以建構平時檢測機制，並具體轉化為實施子計畫。 五、以2008年特殊教育行政績效評鑑為基礎，依據訪問、調查及團體深度訪談結果來發展以督導、輔導、檢討、改善、資源調配與管理、相互觀摩與交流為目的之定期實地評鑑機制，並以三年為一週期，分年完成25縣市之實地評鑑，且具體轉化為實施子計畫。 / This study provides an overview and analysis regarding the central government’s evaluation of local governments’ administrative performance in special education in the U.S, England and Taiwan. By applying the Special Education Transmit Net（SETNET） to set the examining indicators, and by working out special education administrative performance questionnaires, the purpose of this study is to develop a mechanism, including a routine review and a periodical evaluation, and eventually to submit some practical suggestions to the Ministry of Education regarding special education in Taiwan. This study was undertaken for two and half years starting from October, 2006. It was conducted through literature review, interviews, focused forum, questionnaire survey and group depth interview methods. The results and conclusions are as follows: （1）The U.S actively promotes a sound system to evaluate local government administrative performance in special education in the areas of legislation, monitoring mechanisms, supporting The National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM), and Measuring the Implementation of a State’s Accountability System etc. The Office for Standards in Education in England has linked inspection judgments about special education to the grade criteria of the inspection of special educational needs and investigates improvements the LEA has made since the last inspection. All the above mentioned are good paradigms for Taiwan. （2）An overview of evaluations which Taiwan has carried out in 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008 reveal gradual improvements. However, the aims should emphasize guidance and assistance, resources allocation and management, emulation and communication. Local special education administrators should be subsumed into evaluation committees.The evaluation items should include assignation domain, option domain, reevaluation domain and exempt domain. The evaluation procedure should also include on-site visiting. （3）Based on the study results, Taiwan needs to establish a local performance evaluation system which looks after both routine and periodicity. The system should contain a routine review mechanism, a periodical on-site evaluation, self evaluations of local governments and special task inspection. （4）The SETNET should be expended further to select some objective key indicators and nuclear indicators for the initial examination, then the survey results of “Local government’s administrative performance in special education questionnaire” for reviewing can be adopted to accomplish the routine review. （5）On the basis of the evaluation in 2008 and the study results, Taiwan could develop a periodical on-site evaluation every three years as a cycle to complete the evaluation of 25 counties.