民國89年12月13日公布的「教育經費編列與管理法」，不但重新訂定保障政府教育經費額度的條文，並建構了迥異於以往的教育經費編列與分配模式，本研究之目的在檢證該法實施前後不同分配模式下，國民教育經費分配的公平性與適足性。 本研究由公共資源分配的理論出發，探討分配正義的議題，並涉及府際間財政收支與移轉支付體系，以及教育經費補助法制化、公式化的相關學理與實徵研究，以建構本研究之理論基礎，並據以發展立論各異的國民教育經費分配模式。 本研究依循 Berne與Stiefel（1984, 1999）及 Odden與Picus （2004）所發展之概念架構，取87至92會計年度間各相關之財政、教育年報及會議資料進行分析，所採用之衡量量數，計有McLoone指數、Verstegen指數、Gini係數、相關係數、斜率、調整關係量數，以及Odden-Picus適足性指數等；此外，本研究轉換美國各學區採行的補助公式，發展定額模式、基準模式、百分比均等化模式、保障稅基模式、統籌統支模式及結合模式等六個分配模式，以92會計年度的數據資料，檢證並比較不同分配模型間所能達成的公平性與適足性。 本研究主要發現如下： 一、法定模式所達成的政策效果，與美國基準方案相類似。 二、依法定模式編列之國民教育預算，與縣市實際需求仍有落差。 三、法定模式編列一般教育補助，尚能考量到地方的財政能力。 四、不同縣市間國民教育成本指數有相當的差距。 五、就不同年度間的比較而言，教育經費編列與管理法實施後各年度國民教育經費分配達成公平性及適足性的程度較高。 六、就不同模式間的比較而言，法定模式的國民教育經費分配與仍有改進的空間，以更符合公平性及適足性的原則。 依據研究發現，本研究提出對現行國民教育經費分配模式及相關研究之建議： 一、釐清國民教育經費基本需求的成分與單位額度。 二、法定模式的估算應擴大地方政府參與，以適時反應實際需求。 三、法定模式的估算應納入激勵縣市教育財稅努力的因素。 四、發展國民教育成本指數及並建立經費適足標準。 五、對國民教育經費分配的公平性與適足性，進行長期性的評估。 六、依據公平性與適足性原則，修正法定分配模式。 七、配合財政收支劃分法的修訂，調整法定分配模式。 / The Compilation and Administration of Education Expenditures Act (CAEEA) was signed into law by president on December 13, 2000. The new law was an attempt by the legislature to set a minimum guaranteed funding rate for educational budgeting, and to be more equitably and adequately distribute funds for education. The purpose of this study was to analyze how different funding models affect the equitable and adequate distribution of funds for compulsory education. The theoretical and empirical literatures were thus analyzed in this study, including the issues related to public resources allocation, distributive justice, intergovernmental fiscal relations, and school finance formulas. The conceptual framework developed by Berne and Stiefel (1984, 1999) and Odden and Picus (2004) served as the basis for defining and measuring the degree of equalization and adequacy of the financial system. The financial and educational data incorporated into this study have been taken from MOE's and MOF's annual reports and meeting records from 1998 to 2003. A series of measures were selected for assessing equity and adequacy in school finance, including the McLoone index, Verstegen index, Gini coefficient, correlation coefficient, slope, adjusted relationship measure, and the Odden-Picus adequacy index. In addition, in this study the school funding formulas that the various states continue to use to distribute education funds to local school districts in the USA were converted into six different funding models: a Flat Grants Model, Foundation Model, Percentage Equalization Model, Guaranteed Tax Base Model, Full Centralized Funding Model, and Tier Model. This was in order to determine the extent to which these models have improved the equity and adequacy of the system for funding compulsory education. The findings from the data analysis were as follows: (1) The CAEEA Funding Model and Foundation Model have the same impact, as far as policy is concerned, on fiscal equity and adequacy; (2) the results of budget preparation using the CAEEA Funding Model are not commensurate with the needs of counties and cities; (3) in the distribution of general education subsidies, some measure of local fiscal capabilities must be taken into consideration; (4) there is a noticeable difference in the cost of education indices for counties and cities; (5) The full funding and implementation of the CAEEA Funding Model has a positive impact on fiscal equity and adequacy; (6) it is necessary to reform the CAEEA Funding Model in order to satisfy the conditions of equity and adequacy. Based on the policy implications of these findings, it was recommended that: (1) The basic needs of education expenditures be formulated precisely in terms of composition and unit volume; (2) the CAEEA Funding Model be extended to involve local opinions, so as to take into consideration the local educational demands; (3) incentive factors be incorporated into the CAEEA Funding Model, in order to increase the local tax effort; (4) a cost of education index be developed and the adequacy level be identified; (5) a long-term assessment of the equity and adequacy of funding allocation be undertaken; (6) the CAEEA Funding Model be improved according to the principles of equity and adequacy; (7) the CAEEA Funding Model be adjusted to meet the revised provisions of the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures.