The main purpose of this study is to research the metaevaluation of special education evaluation in Kaohsiung Area¡¦s elementary schools. The theory was based on a lot of documents to built the metaevaluation standards of special education evaluation in the elementary schools, and then to analyzed the implemented situation in Kaohsiung Area¡¦s elementary schools. This was a questionnaire survey study. The population was school special educators who participate in Kaohsiung Area¡¦s special education evaluation. There were convenience sampling 389 special educators in Kaohsiung Area¡¦s elementary schools to conduct questionnaires. Totally 296 valid questionnaires were collected and analyzed by SPSS 12.0 for Windows. They were also presented by descriptive statistics and examined by t-test and ANOVA. According to the data analysis, the results of the study showed: 1. the implemented situation in Kaohsiung Area¡¦s elementary schools ¡]1¡^As a whole, the situation of implementing special education evaluation in Kaohsiung Area¡¦s elementary schools was fine, and ¡§utility¡¨ standards were the highest ¡]2¡^In ¡§utility¡¨ standards, the ¡§practical procedures¡¨ was the highest, but the ¡§cost effectiveness¡¨ was the lowest. ¡]3¡^In ¡§propriety¡¨ standards, the ¡§service orientation¡¨ was the highest, but the ¡§formal agreements¡®fiscal responsibility¡¨ was the lowest. ¡]4¡^In ¡§utility¡¨ standards, the ¡§evaluator credibility¡®report clarity¡¨ was the highest, but the ¡§evaluation indicators, report timeliness and dissemination¡¨ was the lowest. ¡]5¡^In ¡§accuracy¡¨ standards, the " valid information¡¨ was the highest, but the ¡§reliable information¡®impartial report¡¨ were the lowest. 2. Different background variable difference analysis ¡]1¡^Different genders and positions of elementary school special educators had no significant differences in four perspectives of evaluation standards. ¡]2¡^Different special educational background of elementary school special educators had inconsistent beliefs in ¡§feasibility¡¨, ¡§propriety¡¨ , and ¡§utility¡¨ levels ¡]3¡^Different working years of elementary school special educators had inconsistent beliefs in ¡§propriety¡¨ and ¡§accuracy¡¨,levels. ¡]4¡^Different numbers of special class in schools of elementary school special educators had significant differences in ¡§feasibility¡¨ levels. ¡]5¡^Different school location of elementary school special educators had significant differences in four perspectives of evaluation standards ¡]6¡^Different result of evaluation of elementary school special educators had different beliefs in four perspectives of special evaluation

"This study is a report of the Exceptional Children's Unit in Lake Placid, Florida. The purposes of this report are as follows: 1. To clarify the thoughts of the writer on what the Exceptional Children's Unit has accomplished. 2. To arrive at conclusions on the contributions the Lake Placid Exceptional Children's Unit has made to children and to teachers of other grades. 3. To clarify the values and techniques of case histories in teaching exceptional children. 4. To compare the curricula and program which have been used in the exceptional unit with that reported in well-known schools. This study will attempt to trace the development of the mental pattern of two mentally defective children and a borderline subnormal boy over a period of three years in a public school"--Introduction. / "August, 1954." / Typescript. / "Submitted to the Graduate Council of Florida State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science." / Advisor: R. L. Witherspoon, Professor Directing Paper. / Includes bibliographical references (leaf 53).

本研究旨在瞭解國民小學特教團隊組織與特教團隊運作之指標、內涵與現況，並且探討與預測其關係，進而建構及驗證其互動模式，並依研究結果提出建議。首先，進行初步文獻探討，作為本研究之研究架構的理論基礎；其次，進行專家審查與正式問卷調查，正式問卷對象為校長、輔導主任、特教組長與特教老師，共384位，總共回收195 份調查問卷，有效問卷195 份，以分析現況、驗證模式；最後，依據研究結果進行討論與結論建議。研究主要發現如下： 一、國民小學特教團隊組織與特教團隊運作的指標、內涵及其現況 （一） 國民小學特教團隊組織包括「特教行政機制」、「團隊人力資源」與「特教家長參與」三個指標，得分均為高程度，其中以「特教行政機制」得分最高。 （二） 國民小學特教團隊運作包括「鑑定安置輔導」、「適性教育計畫」、「推動融合教育」三個指標，得分皆為高程度，其中以「鑑定安置輔導」得分最高。 二、不同背景變項在國民小學特教團隊組織與特教團隊運作之差異情形 （一） 不同背景變項在國民小學特教團隊組織的得分方面：研究發現在性別、所屬縣市、服務年資、擔任職務上有顯著差異。 （二） 不同背景變項在國民小學特教團隊運作的得分方面：研究發現在年齡、服務年資、擔任職務有顯著差異，此外，所屬縣市在推動融合教育有顯著差異。 三、國民小學特教團隊組織與特教團隊運作之相關情形 整體國民小學特教團隊組織與特教團隊運作間呈顯著高度正相關，國民小學特教團隊運作各指標中，以推動融合教育與國民小學特教團隊組織總量表之相關程度最高。 四、國民小學特教團隊組織各指標對國民小學特教團隊運作的預測情形 即國民小學特教團隊組織之特教行政機制、團隊人力資源、特教家長參與各指標對整體國民小學特教團隊運作有顯著的預測力。 五、國民小學特教團隊組織對國民小學特教團隊運作的適配情形 各項適配度指標良好，上游潛在變項「國民小學特教團隊組織」對下游潛在變項「國民小學特教團隊運作」具有顯著的影響力。 最後，本研究根據研究發現，提出相關建議，俾提供教育行政機關、國民小學行政人員與特教老師們及後續研究參考。 關鍵字：特殊教育評鑑、特殊教育評鑑指標 / The main purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship, content and status about the elementary school organization of special education team and operation of special education team. This study included literature analysis and questionnaire survey to be the survey methods. The purpose of literature analysis was aimed to explore the elementary school organization of special education team and operation of special education team. Based on arranging related theory, document, and opinion, researcher made the questionnaires of this study. The subjects of the questionnaire included the principals, tutorship director, special education leaders and special education teachers of elementary school in Taipei city and county of Taiwan. The data of this study was analyzed 195 sampling subjects by description statistics, t-test, correlation and ANOVA, Multiple Regression and LISREL model. According to the statistics analysis of the questionnaire, we can get the following results. A. In the aspect of the elementary school organization of special education team a. The organization of special education team includes three indicators, which are (1)the organization of special education administration , (2)the human resources of team, (3)the parents participation of special education. Except for the three ndicators are high degree. For all, the best dimension is “the organization of special education administration”. b. School personnel’ sexual, region, total years of servicing, and school occupation have significant influences on organization of special education team. B. In the aspect of the elementary school operation of special education team a. The operation of special education team includes three ndicators, which are (1)identification, placement and counsel, (2) Individualized Educational Program, (3) promote inclusive education. Except for the three idicators are high degree. For all, the best dimension is “identification, placement and counsel”. b. School personnel’age, total years of servicing, and school occupation have significant influences on operation of special education team. But School personnel’region have significant influence on “promote inclusive education”. C. In the aspect of the relationship between the elementary school organization of special education team and operation of special education team a. There was positive correlation and regression existed among the elementary school organization of special education team and operation of special education team. b. The elementary school organization of special education team did promote operation of special education team. In the last part, according to the findings and results, the researcher proposed some suggestion for the educational officers, the administrative staff of elementary school and special education teachers, hoping to benefit the improvement and development of education of elementary school in the future. Key word : special education evaluation ; the indicators of special education evaluation

The purpose of this study was to develop and test a model which addresses special education program evaluation needs. As such, the focus was on development. Often development and research are seen as one (e.g., Department of R & D; Director of R & D). They are, however distinctively different in process and product. The model developed provides general and special education leaders responsible for providing special education services with high quality data and procedures for decision making related to special education. Providing special education services is a complex responsibility. Not only are critical lifelong decisions related to students and their parents made, but there are stringent federal laws, complex state agency policies, detailed financial and programmatic reporting requirements, and often linkages to a variety of outside professionals and service provider agencies and organizations. There is a need for an effective program evaluation model useful to the uniqueness of special education. A variety of program evaluation models have been used in education and other organizational environments (e.g., Mabry, 2002; Patton, 2002; Posavac & Carey, 2003; Renger & Titcomb, 2002; Warburton, 2003). But, their application to special education has been limited and often ineffective or inefficient to address the evaluation needs of special education. This evaluation model development utilized the best of knowledge and procedures of existent evaluation models and adapted them to the uniqueness of special education. The special education evaluation model developed named Program Effectiveness in Special Education (PEiSE) identified espoused and in-use actions in a school district. This information with analysis, discussions, and data provided powerful special education information. To form the structure of the model, PEiSE utilized aspects of the CIPP Evaluation Model developed by Stufflebeam (2002), Logic Framework Model (Suchman, 1967), and the Utilization-Focused Evaluation Model (Patton, 1978). The process brought a number of within the district (Brunner & Guzman, 1989) and outside the district stakeholders into the development process which provided an expertise enhancing model effectiveness (Eisner, 1983). Information gathered from all stakeholders came in various forms and contained data acquired with little or no bias in the instruments or process used (Scriven, 1974; Provus, 1971; Cronbach, 1981; Stake, 1973). These processes not only had potential to improve the special education programs but also to improve the evaluation process itself (Eraut, 1984). The model also considered the limitations of resources of special education services (Stufflebeam, 1971; Tripodi, Pellin, & Epstein, 1971; Gold, 1988). Finally the process proved instrumental in bringing the primary discipline of general education and the complementary discipline of special education physically, philosophically and practically together for the benefit and improvement of services to all students. In conceptualizing the process, a flowchart of events was developed utilizing the form and philosophy of existing best practices in evaluation models and the foundational theory of organizational and program improvement and effectiveness (Argyris & Schon, 1974) PEiSE required the development of plans to reduce or eliminate discrepancies between what practices are espoused and what are actually in-use by practitioners. The PEiSE process included twelve phases: Point of Contact; Scope of Evaluation; Identify Formal Decision Makers; Structured Interviews with Formal Decision Makers; Compose List of Best Practices with Definitions; Formal Decision Makers Meeting/Approval of Best Practices List; Compose Espoused/In-Use Questionnaire; Collect/Analyze Questionnaire/Supportive Data; Recommendations for Action; Generate Action Plans Designed to Reduce or Eliminate Discrepancies; Execute Action Plans; and Measure Progress. An emphasis throughout PEiSE was that change is a necessary and welcomed part of organizational effectiveness as well as an integral part of organizational learning (Argyris & Schon, 1974). PEiSE guided administrators through the process of clearly articulating the change needed with development and implementation of action plans for change. PEiSE facilitated bringing together general and special education in a mutually beneficial manner to improve the quality and success of services to students with special needs. Specific differences in community and school district approaches to responding to compliance and intent of local, state, and federal regulations and initiatives are managed in the model developed. PEiSE was tested in a large, suburban school district. The testing indicated the model’s potential to: 1) advance evaluation of special education; 2) suggest new collaborative models for general and special education; 3) identify needed areas of research on evaluation, organization, issues of responsibilities, and professional expertise; 4) identify needed areas of pre-service and continuing professional preparation and development; 5) promote researched based programs related to student success. It was recommended that PEiSE include an additional phase of practitioner input on concerns and complaints of existing espoused best practices with suggestions or recommendations for different practices the district should consider. / text

No description available.