我國高等教育審議機制之研究

Abstract

在第二次世界大戰之後，由於高等教育的快速擴充以及市場化、全球化的影響，使得政府對高等教育的管理產生了世界性的變革。各國為了在保護政府的公共利益與大學的學術自由之間發展出一個平衡點，紛紛仿效英國高等教育撥款委員會（Higher Education Funding Councils）的模式，透過一個介於政府與大學之間的中介組織來負責高等教育政策的諮詢、審議或經費分配的工作，避免大學與政府直接發生摩擦、衝突。 本研究主要目的在分析及比較英、日兩國與我國政府對高等教育的管理、高等教育行政組織與職權及高等教育審議機制等之異同。最後，綜合文獻分析、比較研究與訪談結果，對我國未來高等教育審議委員會之運作提出具體建議如下： 一、在法源與定位方面： （一）高等教育審議委員會應設在教育部之下，對部長直接負責； （二）高等教育審議委員會應有明確的法源依據。 二、在功能與職權方面： （一）高等教育審議委員會的職權應涵括重要高教議題； （二）高等教育審議委員會應依審議議題之不同，具備不同之「審議」或「諮詢」功能。 三、在組織與成員方面： （一）高等教育審議委員應先整合教育部相關委員會，避免疊床架屋； （二）高等教育審議委員會委員的組成應考量專業性及多元性。 四、在運作機制方面： （一）高等教育審議委員會的委員應有基本行為規範； （二）高等教育審議委員會的運作應公開透明。 五、在配套措施方面： （一）發展大學的自律機制； （二）由大學與教育部共同推動本機制； （三）建立社會的信賴感； （四）建置高等教育基本資料庫； （五）結合大學評鑑工作。Since World War Two, due to the rapid expansion and the influence of marketization and globalization in HE sector, the governmental management in HE has corresponsively transformed worldwide. Being aimed to settle a balance between public welfare and academic freedom of universities, then avoiding the direct contradiction; many governments have followed the British HE advisory model (e.g. Higher Education Funding Councils) that set up the intermediary organization between government and universities to proceed the consult and review of HE policies and the allocation of HE fund.

The main purpose of this study is to analyze and compare these similarities and differences among three states, Great Britain, Japan and Taiwan, in terms of public management, administrative constitution and advisory mechanism in HE sector. In conclusion, considering the work of literature review, comparison studies and field investigations by interview, this dissertation proposes some workable suggestions for the operation model of forthcoming advisory council for HE in Taiwan. These suggestions are summarized as following:

1. Regarding the law and orientation: 1.1 The forthcoming advisory council for HE should be established in MOE and be accounted directly to Minister. 1.2 The forthcoming advisory council for HE should be operated on the comprehensible lawful base. 2. Regarding the function and commission: 2.1 All the significant HE issues should be included in the commission of forthcoming advisory council for HE. 2.2 The forthcoming advisory should have the function of reviewing or consulting depends on the HE issues. 3. Regarding the organization and constituency: 3.1 The related councils should be incorporated into the forthcoming advisory council for HE, in order to avoid the reduplicated structure. 3.2 The constituents of forthcoming advisory council for HE should be made up on the consideration of plurality and professionalism. 4. Regarding the operational mechanism: 4.1 The fundamental behavior norms should be set up for the constituents of forthcoming advisory council for HE. 4.2 The operation of forthcoming advisory council for HE should be transparent. 5. Regarding the complementary and supplementary measures: 5.1 To develop the university autonomy. 5.2 The forthcoming advisory council for HE should be cooperatively driven by MOE and universities. 5.3 To build the credibility for the public. 5.4 To institute the essential HE database. 5.5 To coordinate with the university evaluation mechanism.