師資養成公費制度之歷史探究
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2019-06-??
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
國立臺灣師範大學
National Taiwan Normal University
National Taiwan Normal University
Abstract
本研究以1994年《師資培育法》為準，區分為國家以公費培育整體師資的「師範教育公費制度」，以及公費培育部分師資的「師資培育公費制度」，探究公費制度發展之設計目的、演進及其限制。經過歷史探究後，歸納之結論如下：一、公費制度設計目的從養成國家教師再到均衡區域師資，其功能包括吸引優秀人才穩定教師素質與促進社會流動；二、隨著社會環境變遷，師資培育公費制度包括公費待遇、服務義務、賠償公費等規定，與師範教育公費制度的原先設計差異不大；三、師範教育公費制度的舊問題延續至師資培育公費制度，包括公費制度未因師資培育模式不同而免其存在受到質疑、培養教師專業知能與態度功能有限及公費制度吸引優秀人才有限，使其新制度是否能解決均衡區域師資的目的，仍有待檢驗。
This study used Taiwan’s Teacher Education Act of 1994 as a cut-point for distinguishingnormal education (fully funded) and teacher education (partially funded) government-fundedsystems, examining the design concept and limitation of government-funded systems. This study’sfindings of a historical approach analysis are: (1) The objective of developing thegovernment-funded systems is to prepare national teachers during normal education stage and strivefor regional equity in the context of teacher education openness; the function of government-funded isto attract talents and promote social mobility. (2) The treatment, obligation, and compensation ofgovernment-funded of teacher education were little difference in time between normal education andteacher education with social change. (3) Limitations on the design of the government-fundedsystem during normal education to current in diversity teacher education are the existence ofgovernment-funded system is questioned, the limitation to prepare perspective teachers’ professionalknowledge and competence, and the limitation of attraction to talent. The goal of new institution toequalize the teacher quality between different regional is still be reviewed in the future. As a result,the paper offers some suggestions that focus on the limits of government-funded teacher educationthrough perspectives after historical analysis to be as reference for revising relative institution.
This study used Taiwan’s Teacher Education Act of 1994 as a cut-point for distinguishingnormal education (fully funded) and teacher education (partially funded) government-fundedsystems, examining the design concept and limitation of government-funded systems. This study’sfindings of a historical approach analysis are: (1) The objective of developing thegovernment-funded systems is to prepare national teachers during normal education stage and strivefor regional equity in the context of teacher education openness; the function of government-funded isto attract talents and promote social mobility. (2) The treatment, obligation, and compensation ofgovernment-funded of teacher education were little difference in time between normal education andteacher education with social change. (3) Limitations on the design of the government-fundedsystem during normal education to current in diversity teacher education are the existence ofgovernment-funded system is questioned, the limitation to prepare perspective teachers’ professionalknowledge and competence, and the limitation of attraction to talent. The goal of new institution toequalize the teacher quality between different regional is still be reviewed in the future. As a result,the paper offers some suggestions that focus on the limits of government-funded teacher educationthrough perspectives after historical analysis to be as reference for revising relative institution.