The comparative study of special education in junior high school between Taiwan and the United States.

[[abstract]]本研究是關於臺灣與美國中學階段特殊教育資源班教育安置與實施的比較研究，研究中透過文件分析、訪談以及貝瑞岱比較研究架構針對臺灣與美國近年資源班的教育安置趨勢及實施內涵進行探討，是結合書面文獻與實徵訪談的質性研究。 在教育安置趨勢方面，臺灣與美國中學階段的特殊學生近年主要均安置在普通校園中，但是美國的特殊學生的學習主要是在原班級進行，只有部分時間至資源教室接受服務，而臺灣的特殊學生的學習被抽離到資源班學習。而這也是為什麼目前美國是以服務時間長短作為分類，而臺灣是以班級安置型態作為分類的原因。 在實施內涵方面，本研究討論了兩國的師生比、鑑定與安置、轉銜服務、課程與教學以及教師專業能力等，兩國在這幾個面向均有差異： 一、在師生比方面：臺灣以「班」為單位，各縣市自訂師生比來決定教師數的多寡，而美國則是個別計算教師的個案量。 二、在鑑定與安置方面：美國的鑑定有專責的小組負責，另外有IEP小組針對鑑定結果來討論學生的IEP教學目標設定；臺灣的鑑定工作是各校教師協助，再由鑑輔會確認，而學生的IEP教學目標亦是由教師設定再與家長討論。 三、在轉銜服務方面：臺灣的轉銜服務注重跨階段的鑑定以及學生畢業年度的校園參訪活動，甚少在課程中進行學生未來的生活適應與職業能力的教學；而美國的轉銜服務則是將職業能力的課程模式融入教學之中。 四、課程與教學方面：臺灣目前資源班已全面試行新課綱，學習內容除了與普通班一致的九年一貫課程之外，還有特殊需求課程；美國特殊學生的學生本來就在普通班，另外2010年起美國已經有45個州在英文和數學兩科目訂有共同核心國家標準。 五、教師專業能力方面：臺灣的資源教師並沒有學科教學能力的限定，但是在美國的資源教師則必須要有相關的能力證明才可以進行教學。[[abstract]]This is a comparative study of educational placement and implementations of special education in junior high school between Taiwan and the United States. In the study, the researcher discussed trends of educational placement and implementations of Taiwan and the US in the recent years in the method of document analysis, interview, and the framework of comparative education. It is a qualitative study with official documents and empirical interviews. The trends of educational placement showed that students with special needs were all placed in regular schools in both countries. Students with special needs in the US learned mainly in regular classes and spent little time in resource specialist programs(RSPs); however, students in Taiwan were pull-out and learned mainly in resource rooms. That was why the educational placement category classified by how much time these American students spent staying in RSPs. But it was classified by settings in Taiwan. When it comes to the implementation connotations, the researcher discussed the student-teacher ratios, assessments and placements, transition services, courses, and professional competences. There were differences in these aspects between the two countries. The aspect of the student-teacher ratios revealed that the number of teachers was determined by the number of students in a class in Taiwan. But it depended on the caseloads of a resource specialist in the US. The aspect of assessments and placements revealed that there were two specific teams working in the US for the students with special needs, one for the assessments the other for the IEP. The work of assessments in Taiwan was assisted by the resource room teachers, and authorized by the Special Education Students Diagnosis and Placement Counseling Committee(DPCC). However, the goals of the IEP were set up through the discussion between the resource room teachers and the parents. The aspect of transition services showed that the transition services in Taiwan were emphasized on cross-stage assessments and the visit of nearby campus in the graduated year. The instruction was little involved in life adaptation and vocational ability for the students’ future lives. Yet, it was involved in the instruction through a vocational model in the US. The aspect of courses showed that the newly revised curriculum guidelines for students with special needs were promoted in resource room in Taiwan. Besides the same content of Grade 1-9 Curriculum Guidelines, there were also curriculum guidelines for special needs. In the US, students with special needs studied in regular classes originally. Moreover, 45 states have adopted the same standards for English and math since 2010. The aspect of professional competences of teachers revealed that resource room teachers in Taiwan were not demanded teaching certifications of specific subjects, but it was necessary to improve the ability to teach specific subjects for a resource specialist in the US.[[note]]碩