Department of Education, National Taiwan Normal University

Purpose

This study examines the policy background, operational mechanisms, practical challenges, and theoretical and practical contributions of the educational reform act on rural schools in Taiwan, which aims to avoid closures due to low enrollment while revitalizing local communities through private sector resources. Specific objectives include analyzing the institutional characteristics, development, and philosophies of Taiwan’s contract schools and comparing their key differences from public-private collaboration models in other countries, such as the US and the UK. It further investigates whether entrusted foundations are able to utilize their organizational and resource advantages to bring about substantive change in contract schools. The study examines the governance responsibilities and administration of schools situated within a collaborative framework involving government agencies, foundations, and relevant stakeholders, as well as the effects of this governance structure on current challenges in teacher recruitment.

Main Theories or Conceptual Frameworks

The study adopts the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model as its theoretical framework, exploring how government and private entities collaborate on formal platforms to formulate policies, allocate resources, and implement practices for enhanced effectiveness in contract schools. It incorporates concepts from New Governance and New Managerialism, emphasizing market mechanisms and private sector expertise to complement public education.

Research Design/Methods/Participants

The research employs a qualitative approach combining document analysis, field observations, and in-depth interviews to investigate 10 contract rural schools. Data collection included outsourcing contracts, field notes, and stakeholders interviews involving school principals, local education authorities, and private sector operators. Atlas.ti 8.0 was utilized to code, organize, and analyze the data. Conducted over one year, the study explored how these schools function under public-private collaboration, aiming to highlight both successes and ongoing challenges.

Research Findings or Conclusions

I. Discrepancy Between Practice and Spirit of Public-Private Collaboration

While intended as an experimental educational approach, contract schools largely resemble feature schools with little reform in curriculum or structure. The primary motivation in Taiwan is to prevent school closures in rural areas rather than driving innovation through market mechanisms or performance accountability. Unlike the public-private partnership models seen in the UK (Academies) and the US (Charter Schools), which emphasize leveraging private resources and philosophies for innovation, contract schools in Taiwan remain bound by traditional frameworks.

II. Transformative Role of Private Sectors

Private operators bring distinct philosophies and resources that transform the network ecology of contract schools. Their contributions include innovative teacher training, curriculum reform, and enhanced resource integration, which create new opportunities for growth. Partnerships with external entities also form supportive social networks, enhancing operational efficiency and stability. Principals, as catalytic leaders, play a critical role in bridging the public and private sectors, aligning stakeholders’ interests, and guiding schools toward achieving innovative and diversified educational goals. 

III. Institutional Dilemmas in Resource Management and Stakeholder Relations 

In accordance with the spirit of the “Act of Enforcement Act for School-based Experimental Education,” flexibility has been introduced in teacher recruitment and administrative arrangements. This flexibility has indeed provided contract schools with a certain degree of pedagogical professionalism and administrative latitude. As a result, it has had a positive impact on the implementation of experimental education philosophies. However, the supervisory approaches adopted by the local government toward contract schools continue to follow the administrative model applied to public schools.

Theoretical or Practical Insights/Contributions/Recommendations

This study advances the theoretical understanding of Collaborative Governance by examining the potential and limitations of public-private partnerships in addressing rural education challenges. It lays the foundation for the contract school model by highlighting the synergy between public and private resources. From a practical perspective, this study suggests that as the contract schools model gradually matures and societal demand for educational diversity increases, the government should adjust its conservative, risk-averse stance and appropriately respond to emerging trends in educational development.

研究目的

本研究旨在探討我國偏遠地區公立學校委託私人辦理（簡稱公校委辦）的政策背景、運作機制、實務挑戰及其理論與實務貢獻。具體目標包括分析我國公校委辦制度性質、發展狀況、運作思維及其與英、美公私協力做法之關鍵差異，探究受託基金會是否能發揮其優勢為委辦學校帶來實質改變，檢視學校於政府、基金會與相關利害關係人協力脈絡中之治理權責與運作情形，及其對當前聘任師資困境之影響，並據此提出現行法令與政策應有之施為。

主要理論或概念架構

研究以公私協力（Public-Private Partnerships, PPP）為核心理論架構，闡述政府與非政府利害關係人如何在正式平台中共同參與政策制定、資源分配與執行過程，以提升公校委辦模式的效能。在新管理主義（new managerialism）的理念價值下，強調市場機制和私部門經驗對公共教育提供的互補合作，並特別以公私協力的概念作為分析框架，檢視公校委辦的實踐。

研究設計／方法／對象

本研究採質性研究法，結合文件分析、田野觀察與專家訪談，深入探討10所偏遠地區公校委辦學校之運作現況。研究對象包括學校校長、地方教育主管機關人員及受託基金會負責人，研究期間歷時一年。資料結合半結構式訪談與田野札記，運用Atlas.ti 8.0軟體進行編碼與歸納分析，以彙整各方利害關係人對公校委辦模式的實際經驗與觀點。

研究發現或結論

一、我國公校委辦在實踐上與英、美公私協力精神存在落差：我國雖以委託私人辦理學校作為實驗教育的一環，但其核心精神多流於傳統特色學校，課程主體與運作方式尚未真正突破公立學校框架；且我國的委辦學校多以避免廢校為主要動機，偏重解決偏鄉學校存續問題，未能像英、美的公私協力學校強調市場機制與績效提升，例如美國特許學校（charter school）及英國公辦民營學校（academy），藉由私部門資源與理念實現教育創新，展現多樣性與競爭力。因此，在法規框架與運作模式上，仍無法彰顯與國際公私協力精神接軌的創新性與自主性。

二、學校受託人之特殊條件確能改變受託學校既有網絡生態：受託人不僅引入其教育理念，亦為學校帶來私部門的資源與治理模式，促使原有生態網絡產生變化。例如，透過創新的教師培訓及資源整合，受託學校在教師培力、課程設計及校務經營策略上取得新突破。此外，基金會透過與外部資源的合作，形成支持性的社會網絡，有助於提升學校經營效率及穩定性。

三、雖然暫時補足師資需求，但也存在學校面對地方政府與基金會的兩難：《學校型態實驗教育實施條例》給予相關師資聘任與行政安排任用的彈性，確實也為委辦學校帶來教學專業與行政若干的彈性作為，也為實踐實驗教育理念帶來正向的影響，但是，教育主管機關對於委辦學校的監管方式，仍延續公立學校的行政模式，導致受託學校無法完全實現其教育創新的目標。此外，行政主管機關與受託之基金會或法人對學校形成雙重監督壓力，也會讓經營團隊無所適從，反而抑制教育理念的推展。

理論或實務創見／貢獻／建議

本研究應用公私協力理論，揭示公私協力在偏鄉教育改革中的潛力與限制，為公校委辦模式提供理論基礎。在實務層面，本研究提出隨著公校委辦模式逐步成熟，社會對教育多元化的需求增加，政府應調整保守防弊心態，妥適回應教育發展之新趨勢；其次，儘管現行法規明定受託人得依校務發展與辦學特色聘任教師，但真正符合學校需求之教師，仍受未具教師資格之薪資待遇、職涯保障之限制，亟待制度性突破以留住人才；再者，公校委辦修正條例已納入「實驗教育」法律名稱，旨在促進教育創新與多元發展，政府自須持續參照委辦實效，評估事項規範及創新程度並調整鬆綁服務，以確保委辦學校真正實踐立法目的。

Lichtman, M. (2010). 教育質性研究：實用指南（江吟梓、蘇文賢，譯）。學富。（原著出版於2009）[Lichtman, M. (2010). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide (Y.-T. Chiang & W.-H. Su, Trans.). Pro-Ed. (Original work published 2009).]
 

余曉雯（2021）。德國改革教育學校發展及對我國實驗教育之啟示。教育學刊，56，45-82。https://doi.org/10.3966/156335272021060056002 [Yu, H.-W. (2021). Development of reform schools in Germany and its contribution to experimental education in Taiwan. Educational Review, 56, 45-82. https://doi.org/10.3966/156335272021060056002]
 

吳英明（1996）。公私部門協力關係之研究：兼論公私部門聯合開發與都市發展。復文。[Wu, Y.-M. (1996). A study of public-private partnership: Joint development and urban
development. Fu-Wen.]
 

李森永（2021）。從公私協力角度看課綱推動之支持運作與落實（NAER-2019-029-C-1-1-A2-04）。國家教育研究院。[Li, S.-Y. (2021). A study of support, operation and implementation of curriculum promotion from the perspective of public-private collaboration (NAER-2019-029-C-1-1-A2-04). National Academy for Educational Research.]
 

林素卿（2009）。潛在課程之研究：以一所公辦民營學校為例。教育科學研究期刊，54（1），179-208。[Lin, S.-C. (2009). The investigation of the hidden curriculum: Taking a privately managed public school as an example. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 54(1), 179-208.]
 

林顯明（2025）。臺日鄉村學校之雙元轉型與永續發展協力治理模式探究（NSTC114-2410-H153-001）。國立屏東大學師資培育中心。[Lin, H.-M. (2025). The dual transition and sustainable development collaborative governance in rural schools of Taiwan and Japan (NSTC114-2410-H153-001). Center for Teacher Education, National Pingtung University.]
 

秦夢群（2014）。美國特許學校經營與成效之研究。教育資料與研究，115，169-192。
https://doi.org/10.6724/ERR.201411_(115).0007 [Chin, J. M. (2014). A study on the outcomes of charter schools in the United States. Educational Resources and Research, 115, 169-192. https://doi.org/10.6724/ERR.201411_(115).0007]

教育部國民及學前教育署（2022）。111學年度學校型態實驗教育學校名單。https://www.k12ea.gov.tw/Tw/Common/SinglePage?filter=CF05E6D1-2C9C-492A-9207-92F064F54461 [K-12 Education Administration, Ministry of Education. (2022). School-based experimental education list in 2022 academic year. https://www.k12ea.gov.tw/Tw/Common/SinglePage?filter=CF05E6D1-2C9C-492A-9207-92F064F54461]
 

許添明（2022）。地區性非營利組織與個人在偏遠地區推動課後照顧的困境與解決策略（MOST110-2410-H003-067）。國立臺灣師範大學。[Hsu, T.-M. (2022). Strategies for after-school program in remote areas: Individual care providers and nonprofit organizations (MOST110-2410-H003-067). National Taiwan Normal University.]
 

郭晏輔（2021）（主持人）。KIST公辦民營學校之教師專業化探究──以社會資本理論與 SECI 模式探悉（ MOST110-2424-H003-001-DR ）。國家科學及技術委員會。
https://grbdef.stpi.narl.org.tw/fte/download4?docId=3043692&responseCode=1637&grb05Id=13867479 [Kuo, Y.-F. (Principal Investigator). (2021). An inquiry of teacher’s professionalization in privatized school– Social capital theory and SECI model (MOST110-2424-H003-001-DR) . National Science and Technology Council. https://grbdef.stpi.narl.org.tw/fte/download4?docId=3043692&responseCode=1356&grb05Id=13867479]
 

陳建志（2024）。自願與非自願轉型有差異嗎？公辦公營實驗教育國民小學校長分布式領導、教師工作動機、促能型學校結構與教師專業發展之模式驗證（NSTC113-2410-H152-021-SSS）。國立臺北教育大學。[Chen, C.-C. (2024). Is there a difference between voluntary and involuntary? Model validation of principal’s distributed leadership, teacher’s work motivation, enabling school structure and professional development in public experimental school (NSTC113-2410-H152-021-SSS). National Taipei University of Education.]
 

陳敦源、張世杰（2010）。公私協力夥伴關係的弔詭。文官制度，2（3），17-71。[Chen, D.-Y., & Chang, S.-J. (2010). The paradoxes of public-private partnerships. Journal of Civil Service, 2(3), 17-71.]
 

陳榮政（2019）。教育行政與治理：新管理主義途徑。學富。[Chen, R.-J. (2019). Educational administration and governance: An approach of new governance. Pro-Ed.]
 

曾大千（2022a）。從學校型態實驗教育類型論其規範特許幅度。教育研究月刊，337，95-113。https://doi.org/10.53106/168063602022050337007 [Tseng, D.-C. (2022a). School-based experimental education and the level of flexibility in regulations. Journal of Education Research, 337, 95-113. https://doi.org/10.53106/168063602022050337007]

曾大千（2022b）。學校型態實驗教育的管制與監督：層級化法制建構之研究（MOST110-2410-H003-067）。國家教育研究院。[Tseng, D.-C. (2022b). Regulation and supervision of school-based experimental education: The hierarchy of legal systems (MOST111-2410-H656-006-MY2). National Academy for Educational Research.]
 

曾大千（ 2024 ）。機構實驗教育法制規範之研究： 以學校型態實驗教育為對照（NSTC113-2410-H656-007-MY2）。國家教育研究院。[Tseng, D.-C. (2024). A study of legal regulations of institutional experimental education: In contrast to school-based experimental education (NSTC113-2410-H656-007-MY2). National Academy for Educational Research.]
 

曾冠球（2017）。良善協力治理下的公共服務民間夥伴關係。國土及公共治理季刊，5（1），67-79。[Tseng, K.-C. (2017). The public-private partnership of public service under good collaborative governance. Public Governance Quarterly, 5(1), 67-79.]
 

曾煥淦、謝傳崇（2021）。實驗教育學校校長轉化型課程領導之研究。教育研究與發展期刊，17（4），1-31。[Tseng, H.-K., & Hsieh, C. C (2021). The study of the transformative curriculum leadership for the principals of experimental education school. Journal of Educational Research and Development, 17(4), 1-31.]
 

黃朝盟、黃東益、郭昱瑩（2018）。行政學。東華書局。[Huang, C.-M., Huang, T.-Y., & Kuo, Y.-Y. (2018). Public administration. Tung Hua.]
 

葉重新（2005）。教育研究法。心理。[Yeh, C.-H. (2005). Educational research methods. Psychological.]
 

潘慧玲（2003）。社會科學研究典範的流變。教育研究資訊，11（1），115-143。[Pan, H.-L. (2003). The evolution of sociological paradigm. Educational Research & Information, 11(1), 115-143.]

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 543-571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032

Ball, S. J. (2007). Education plc: Understanding private sector participation in public sector education. Routledge.

Ball, S. J. (2009). Privatising education, privatising education policy, privatizing educational research: Network governance and the “Competition State”. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 83-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930802419474

Bovaird, T. (2004). Public-private partnerships: From contested concepts to prevalent practice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 70, 199-215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852304044250

Brinkerhoff, J. M., & Brinkerhoff, D. W. (2002). Government-nonprofit partnership: A defining framework. Public Administration and Development, 22(1), 19-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.203

Brinkerhoff, J. M., & Brinkerhoff, D. W. (2011). Public-private partnerships: Perspectives on purposes, publicness, and good governance. Public Administration and Development, 31(1), 2-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.584

Department for Education. (2018). Academy school sectors in England: Consolidated annualreport and account (HC851).

Donahue, J. D. (2009). The transformation of government work: Causes, consequences, and distortions. In J. Freeman & M. Minow (Eds.), Government by contract: Outsourcing and American democracy (pp. 41-62). Harvard University Press.

Eyles, A., & Machin, S. (2019). The introduction of academy schools to England’s education. Journal of the European Economic Association, 17(4), 1107-1146. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvy021

Gerrard, M. B. (2001). Publich and private partnership. Finance and Development, 38(3), 48-51.

Knaak, W. C., & Knaak, J. (2013). Charter schools: Educational reform or failed initiative? Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 79(4), 45-53. https://doi.org/10.5860/CHOICE.37-0460

National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. (n.d.). Charter School FAQ. Retrieved March 12, 2026, from https://www.publiccharters.org/about-charter-schools/charter-school-faq

National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Number and enrollment of public elementary and secondary schools, by school level, type, and charter, magnet, and virtual status: Selected years, 2010-11 through 2021-22. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_216.20.asp

National Charter School Resource Center. (2018). Accessing federal programs: A guidebook for charter school operators and developers. https://charterschoolcenter.ed.gov/index.php/resource/accessing-federal-programs-guidebook-charter-school-operators-and-developers

Osborne, S. P. (2000). Public-private partnerships: Theory and practice in international perspective. Routledge.

Pierson, C. (1998). The new governance of education: The conservatives and education 1988-1997. Oxford Review of Education, 24(1), 131-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498980240110

Roehrich, J., Lewis, M., & George, G. (2014). Are public-private partnerships a healthy option? A systematic literature review. Social Science & Medicine, 113, 110-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.037

Sondel, B. (2015). Market-based pedagogies: Assessment, instruction, and purpose at a “no excuses” charter school. In Only in new orleans (pp. 109-128). Brill Sense.

Springer, S., Birch, K., & MacLeavy, J. (2016). An introduction to neoliberalism. In S. Springer, K. Birch, & J. MacLeavy (Eds.), The handbook of neoliberalism (pp. 1-14). Routledge.

Teisman, G. R., & Klijn, E. H. (2002). Partnership arrangements: Governmental rhetoric or governance scheme. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 189-198. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00170.

Tomlinson, S. (2005). Education in a post-welfare society. Open University Press.

UNISON. (2012). Education and children’s service, academy chains, a briefing for unison activists and organizers. https://www.unison.org.uk/academy-chains/

Verger, A., & Moschetti, M. (2016). Public-private partnerships as an education policy approach: Multiple meanings, risks and challenges. In Education research and foresight series (No. 19, pp. 1-13). UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/node/268820

Vickers, J., & Yarrow, G. (1991). Economic perspectives on privatization. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(2), 111-132. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.2.111

Wang, H., Xiong, W., Wu, G., & Zhu, D. (2017). Public-private partnership in public administrationdiscipline: A literature review. Public Management Review, 20(2), 293-316.

Walford, G. (2014). Academies, free schools and social justice. Research Papers in Education, 29(3), 263-267. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315660431-4

West, A., & Wolfe, D. (2018). Academies, the school system in England and a vision for the future. LSE.

Wiborg, S., Green, F., Talyor-Gooby, P., & Wilde, R. (2018). Free schools in England: “Not unlike other schools”? Journal of Social Policy, 47(1), 119-137. https://doi.org/10.1017/S004727941700023X

Wohlstetter, P., Wenning, R., & Briggs, K. L. (1995). Charter schools in the United States: The question of autonomy. Educational Policy, 9(4), 331-358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904895009004001