» 展開更多

1. 人民團體法（2011）。【Civil Associations Act (2011).】
2. 工會法（2010）。【Labor Union Act (2010).】 
3. 中央社（2010，1月31日）。學者：5都選舉　關鍵在3中選民。取自http://www.coolloud.org.tw/ node/50291【CNA News. (2010, January 31). Scholar: Elections in five municipalities will be determined by three types of voters. Retrieved from http://www.coolloud.org.tw/node/50291】
4. 中華民國憲法（1947）。【Constitution of the Republic of China (1947).】
5. 公職人員選舉罷免法（2011）。【Civil Sevvants Election and Recall Act (2011).】
6. 反活化課程聯盟（2011）。反活化課程－再加三節課的童年臉書。取自http://www.ntp.gov.tw/ 1-5-5.php?board=5【Anti-Language Enrichment Curriculum Alliance. (2011). Facebook of anti-language enrichment curriculum: Childhood with additional three classes. Retrieved from http://www.ntp.gov.tw/1-5-5.php?board=5】 
7. 王彩鸝（2010，7月26日）。九年一貫大調整／選書授權地方、須遵守課綱。聯合晚報。取自http://mag.udn.com/mag/campus/storypage.jsp?f_ART_ID=261505【Wang, C.-L. (2010, July 26). Adjustment of grade 1-9 curriculum: Empower local government’s textbook selection right under the condition that they comply with curriculum guideline. United Evening News. Retrieved from http://mag.udn.com/mag/campus/storypage.jsp?f_ART_ID=261505】 
8. 王麗雲（2007）。地方教育治理模式分析。教育政策論壇，10（1），189-228。【Wang, L.-Y. (2007). Three models of local educational governance compared: Experiences from the U.S. and Taiwan. Educational Policy Forum, 10(1), 189-228.】 
9. 王麗雲（2008，11月）。臺灣縣市教育治理現況：模式與反省。論文發表於地方教育發展學術研討會，臺北市。【Wang, L.-Y. (2008, November). Taiwan local educational government: Models and reflections. Paper presented at the meeting of the Local Education Development, Taipei, Taiwan.】 
10. 王麗雲（2009，5月）。教育政策規劃的力與美，或空與無？由地方教育審議委員會談起。論文發表於教育行政的力與美國際研討會，臺北市。【Wang, L.-Y. (2009, May). Strength, excellence, or futility in educational planning? Examining Local Education Committee. Paper presented at the meeting of the Strength and Excellence of Educational Administration, Taipei, Taiwan.】 
11. 地方制度法（2014）。【Local Government Act (2014).】 
12. 江大樹（2006）。邁向地方治理：議題、理論與實務。臺北市：元照。【Jiang, D.-S. (2006). Local governance: Issue, theory, and practice. Taipei, Taiwan: Angel.】
13. 余致力、毛壽龍、陳敦源、郭昱瑩（2007）。公共政策。臺北市：智勝。【Yu, C., Mao, S.-L., Chen, D.-Y., & Kuo, Y.-Y. (2007). Public policy. Taipei, Taiwan: Best-Wise.】 
14. 吳政達（2005）。我國地方政府層級教育課責系統建構之評估：模糊德菲法之應用。教育與心理研究，28（4），645-665。【Wu, C.-T. (2005). The evaluation of constructing educational accountability system in Taiwan local government: The application of fuzzy Delphi method. Journal of Education & Psychology, 28(4), 645-665.】 
15. 吳清山、蔡菁芝（2006）。英美兩國教育績效責任之比較分析及其啟示。師大學報：教育類，51（1），1-21。 doi:10.3966/2073753X2006045101001【Wu, C.-S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2006). A comparative analysis of educational accountability in the UK and USA. Journal of National Taiwan Normal University: Education, 51(1), 1-21. doi:10.3966/2073753X2006045101001】 
16. 吳敬田（2003）。公共部門課責管理之研究－以臺北市政府警察局近四年（1999-2002）風紀狀況為例（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺北大學，臺北市。【Wu, C.-T. (2003). Research on the accountability in the public sector: A case study of police disciplines in Taipei City Government (1999-2002) (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taipei University, Taipei, Taiwan.】 
17. 呂育誠（2008）。地方政府與自治。臺北市：一品文化。【Lue, Y.-C. (2008). Local government and self-governing. Taipei, Taiwan: Bestbooks.】
18. 李文欽（2008）。美國NCLB法案之課責系統在我國可行性之研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立高雄師範大學，高雄市。【Li, W.-C. (2008). A study of the feasibility of accountability system of NCLB act in Taiwan (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.】 
19. 李育真（2009，6月24日）。活化課程爭議　北縣邀老師溝通。台灣立報。取自http://www. lihpao.com/?action-viewnews-itemid-14833【Li, Y.-Z. (2009, June 24). Dispute of language enrichment curriculum: Taipei County Government communicate with teachers. Lihpao. Retrieved from http://www.lihpao.com/?action-viewnews-itemid-14833】 
20. 周志宏（2010）。臺北縣活化課程的法律爭議。教育研究月刊，198，5-11。【Chou, C.-H. (2010). Legal disputes of Taipei County language enrichment curriculum. Journal of Education Research, 198, 5-11.】 
21. 林天祐（2004）。教育政治學。臺北市：心理。【Lin, T.-Y. (2004). Politics of education. Taipei, Taiwan: Psychology.】 
22. 林佩璇（2000）。個案研究及其在教育研究上的應用。載於國立中正大學教育學研究所（主編），質的研究方法（pp. 239-262）。高雄市：麗文。【Lin, P.-S. (2000). Case study and its application in educational research. In Graduate Institute of Education, National Chung Cheng University (Ed.), Qualitative research (pp. 239-262). Kaohsiung, Taiwan: Liwen.】 
23. 林美姿、黃漢華（2009）。縣市長施政滿意度大調查。遠見雜誌，276，108-120。【Lin, M.-Z., & Huang, H.-H. (2009). Poll on satisfaction of administrative implementation of mayors. Global Views Monthly, 276, 108-120.】 
24. 國立臺灣師範大學教育研究與評鑑中心（2010）。競爭力或壓力？國小英語課程的活化之道。臺北市：作者。【Center for Educational Research and Evaluation. (2010). Competiveness or pressure? Ways to enriching English curriculum in elementary schools. Taipei, Taiwan: Author.】 
25. 張世杰（2009）。公共部門的多元課責關係困境：臺灣全民健康保險制度的個案分析。法政學報，22，107-142。【Chang, S.-J. (2009). The dilemmas of multiple accountability relationship in the public sector: A case study of Taiwan’s national health insurance. Journal of Law and Political Science, 22, 107-142.】 
26. 張世熒（2000）。利益團體影響政府決策之研究。中國行政評論，9（3），23-52。【Chang, S.-Y. (2000). The influence of interest groups on government policy-making. The Chinese Public Administration Review, 9(3), 23-52.】 
27. 張四明、胡龍騰（2013）。後新公共管理時期政府績效管理的公共價值意涵。公共治理季刊，1（1），73-83。【Chang, F.-S., & Hu, L.-T. (2013). Meanings of public value in government accountability in post-new public management period. Public Governance Quarterly, 1(1), 73-83.】 
28. 張明貴（2005）。地方自治概要。臺北市：五南。【Chang, M.-G. (2005). Introduction to local self-government. Taipei, Taiwan: Wu-Nan Book.】 
29. 張雪梅（2006）。以學生學習為中心的大學評鑑：大學生能力及其與大學評鑑結果關係初探。教育政策論壇，9（4），49-76。【Chang, S.-M. (2006). The university evaluation pertaining to student learning: The exploration of college students’ competence and consistencies between the competence and the results of university evaluations. Educational Policy Forum, 9(4), 49-76.】 
30. 教育基本法（2013）。【Educational Fundamestal Law (2013).】 
31. 教師法（2014）。【Teachers Act (2014).】
32. 許盟顯（2010）。監察院糾彈權與公務員課責之研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺灣大學，臺北市。【Hsu, M.-H. (2010). Censure and impeachment of control yuan and accountability of public employees (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.】
33. 陳向明（2002）。社會科學質的研究。臺北市：五南。【Chen, X.-M. (2002). Qualitative research in social science. Taipei, Taiwan: Wu-Nan Book.】
34. 陳志瑋（2003）。政策課責的設計與管理（未出版博士論文）。國立臺灣大學，臺北市。【Chen, C.-W. (2003). The design and management of policy accountability (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.】 
35. 陳佩英、卯靜儒（2010）。落實教育品質和平等的績效責任制：美國《NCLB法》的挑戰與回應。當代教育研究，18（3），1-47。 doi:10.6151/CERQ.2010.1803.01【Chen, P.-Y., & Mao, C.-J. (2010). Accountability for quality and equity: The challenges and responses of NCLB act. Contemporary Educational Research Quarterly, 18(3), 1-47. doi:10.6151/CERQ.2010.1803.01】 
36. 陳敦源（2003，4月）。透明與課責：行政程序控制的資訊經濟分析。論文發表於倡廉反貪與行政透明學術研討會，臺北市。【Chen, D.-Y. (2003, April). Transparency and accountability: Information economical analysis of administrative procedure control. Paper presented at the meeting of the Anti-corruption and Transparent Administration, Taipei, Taiwan.】 
37. 陳敦源（2009）。透明之下的課責－台灣民主治理中官民信任關係的重建基礎。文官制度季刊，1（2），21-55。【Chen, D.-Y. (2009). Accountability through transparency: The foundation of rebuilding trust between government officials and citizens under democratic governance in Taiwan. Journal of Civil Service, 1(2), 21-55.】 
38. 陳朝建（2005）。地方制度法專題：地方議會預算審議附帶決議之實務見解。取自http://www.lawtw.com/article.php?template=article_content&area=free_browse&parent_path=,1,2189,&job_id=72169&article_category_id=1475&article_id=33723【Chen, M. (2005). Special issue on Local Government Act: Practical insights of the attached resolution of local council budget review. Retrieved from http://www.lawtw.com/article.php?template=article_content&area= free_browse&parent_path=,1,2189,&job_id=72169&article_category_id=1475&article_id=33723】 
39. 陳朝建（2008）。地方制度法教室：三都十五縣的戈甸難結。取自http://mypaper.pchome.com. tw/macotochen/post/1310983006【Chen, M. (2008). Classroom of Local Government Act: Unresolved issues among three municipalities and fifteen counties. Retrieved from http://mypaper.pchome.com.tw/macotochen/post/1310983006】 
40. 陳無邪（2010）。地方治理的課責研究－以北北基一綱一本政策為例（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺灣大學，臺北市。【Chen, W.-S. (2010). The accountability of local governance－A case study of textbook co-selection policy on Taipei City, Taipei County and Keelung County area (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.】 
41. 陳菁雯（2006）。官僚組織課責行為模式之研究：理論建構與實務驗證（未出版博士論文）。中國文化大學，臺北市。【Chen, C.-W. (2006). A study on the behavioral pattern of bureaucratic accountability: Theory formulation and empirical verification (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Chinese Culture University, Taipei, Taiwan.】 
42. 曾德峰（2011，4月16日）。活化課程轉彎　提供多元學習不限英語。自由時報。取自http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2011/new/apr/16/today-taipei1.htm【Tseng, D.-F. (2011, April 16). Adjustment of language enrichment curriculum: Multiple ways of learning not limited to English. Liberty Times. Retrieved from http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2011/new/apr/16/today- taipei1.htm】 
43. 曾靜萍（2011）。新北市活化課程實驗方案之政策論證與審議（未出版碩士論文）。國立政治大學，臺北市。【Tseng, C.-P. (2011). Policy argument and deliberation: The case of activation curriculum in New Taipei City (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.】 
44. 集會遊行法（2002）。【Assembly and Parade Act (2002).】 
45. 新北市議會議事規則（2013）。【New Taipei City Council Rules of Procedure (2013).】 
46. 臺北縣教師會（2010）。2010新北市選舉專報。臺北縣：作者。【Taipei County Teachers’ Association. (2010). Special report on 2010 New Taipei City election. Taipei County, Taiwan: Author.】 
47. 臺北縣政府（2010）。臺北縣辦理活化課程實驗方案問答集。取自http://www.ntpc.edu.tw【Taipei County Government. (2010). Q&A for the language enrichment curriculum experimental program in Taipei County. Retrieved from http://www.ntpc.edu.tw】 
48. 趙永茂（2007）。從地方治理論臺灣地方政治發展的基本問題。政治科學論叢，31，1-38。 doi:10.6166/TJPS.31(1-38)【Chao, Y.-M. (2007). Problems with the development of local politics in Taiwan: A perspective on local governance. Taiwanese Journal of Political Science, 31, 1-38. doi:10.6166/TJPS.31(1-38)】 
49. 劉坤億（2009）。政府課責性與公共治理之探討。研考雙月刊，33（5），59-72。【Liu, K.-I. (2009). Examining government accountability and public governance. Government Resource Planning, 33(5), 59-72.】 
50. 蕭怡靖（2013）。臺灣民眾政治課責觀之初探─認知、評價與影響。臺灣民主季刊，10（2），73-104。【Hsiao, Y.-C. (2013). The perception, evaluation, and impact of political accountability in Taiwan. Taiwan Democracy Quarterly, 10(2), 73-104.】 
51. Harmon, M. M.（1993）。公共行政的行動理論（吳瓊恩、陳秋杏、張世杰，合譯）。臺北市：五南。（原著出版於1981年）【Harmon, M. M. (1993). Action theory for public administration (Q.-E. Wu, Q.-X. Chen, & S.-J. Chang, Trans.). Taipei, Taiwan: Wu-Nan Book. (Original work published 1981)】 
52. Adsera, A., Boix, C., & Payne, M. (2003). Are you being served? Political accountability and quality of government. The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 19(2), 445-490. doi:10.1093/ jleo/ewg017
53. Anderson, J. A. (2005). Accountability in education. Paris, France: The International Institute for Educational Planning. 
54. Ashworth, S. (2012). Electoral accountability: Recent theoretical and empirical work. Annual Review of Political Science, 15(1), 183-201.  doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-031710-103823
55. Bauhr, M., & Grimes, M. (2013). Indignation or resignation: The implications of transparency for societal accountability. Governance, 27(2), 291-320.  doi:10.1111/gove.12033
56. Beetham, D. (1996). Theorising democracy and local government. In D. King & G. Stocker (Eds.), Rethinking local democracy (pp. 28-49). London, UK: Macmillan Press. 
57. Behn, R. (2001). Rethinking democratic accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. 
58. Blair, H. (2000). Participation and accountability at the periphery: Democratic local governance in six countries. World Development, 28(1), 21-39. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00109-6
59. Bovens, M. (1998). The quest for responsibility-accountability and citizenship in complex organizations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 
60. Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447-468. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x
61. Cohen, J. (1997). Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy. In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy (pp. 405-437). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 
62. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 
63. Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1047-1085. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00372.x
64. Darling-Hammond, L., & Ascher, C. (1991). Accountability mechanisms in big city school systems. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED334311) 
65. Dunn, D. D. (2003). Accountability, democratic theory, and higher education. Educational Policy, 17(1), 60-79. doi:10.1177/0895904802239286
66. Eckardt, S. (2008). Political accountability, fiscal conditions and local government performance-cross-sectional evidence from Indonesia. Public Administration and Development, 28(1), 1-17. doi:10.1002/pad.475
67. Flinders, M. V. (2001). The politics of accountability in the modern state. London, UK: Ashgate. 
68. Flinders, M. V. (2008). Delegated governance and the British state: Walking without order. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 
69. Gillies, D. (2008). Developing governmentality: Conduct3 and education policy. Journal of Education Policy, 23(4), 415-427. doi:10.1080/02680930802054388
70. Gutman, A. (1999). Democratic education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.  
71. Jabbra, J. G., & Dwivedi, O. P. (Eds.). (1988). Public service accountability: A comparative perspective. West Hartford, CO: Kumarian Press. 
72. Kearns, K. P. (1996). Managing for accountability. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 
73. Khemani, S. (2006). Local government accountability for health service delivery in Nigeria. Journal of African Economies, 15(2), 285-312. doi:10.1093/jae/eji029
74. Klechtermans, G. (2007). Macropolitics caught up in micropolitics: The case of the policy on quality control in Flanders. Journal of Education Policy, 22(4), 471-491. doi:10.1080/026809307013 90669
75. Kluvers, R. (2003). Accountability for performance in local government. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62(1), 57-69. doi:10.1111/1467-8500.00314
76. Leat, D. (1988). Voluntary organisation and accountability. London, UK: NCVO. 
77. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. New York, NY: Sage. 
78. Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1994). Designing bureaucratic accountability. Law and Contemporary Problems, 57(1), 91-126. doi:10.2307/1191988
79. MacPherson, R., Cibulka, J. G., Monk, D. H., & Wong, K. (1998). The politics of accountability: Research in prospect. In R. MacPherson (Ed.), The politics of accountability: Educative and international perspectives (pp. 210-222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 
80. McNeil, M., & Mumvuma, T. (2006). Demanding good governance: A stocktaking of social accountability. Washington, DC: World Bank Institute.  
81. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
82. Moller, J. (2009). School leadership in an age of accountability: Tensions between managerial and professional accountability. Journal of Educational Change, 10(1), 37-46. doi:10.1007/s10833- 008-9078-6
83. Mulgan, R. (1997). The processes of public accountability. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 56(1), 25-36. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8500.1997.tb01238.x
84. Mulgan, R. (2000). “Accountability”: An ever-expanding concept? Public Administration, 78(3), 555-573. doi:10.1111/1467-9299.00218
85. Mulgan, R. (2003). Holding power to account: Accountability in modern democracy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. 
86. O’Day, J. A. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 293-329.   
87. O’Loughlin, M. G. (1990). What is bureaucratic accountability and how can we measure it? Administration & Society, 22(3), 275-302. doi:10.1177/009539979002200301
88. Popham, W. J. (2004). All about accountability/Why assessment illiteracy is professional suicide. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 82-83.  
89. Radnor, H. A., Ball, S. J., & Vincent, C. (1998). Local educational governance, accountability, and democracy in the United Kingdom. Educational Policy, 12(1), 124-137. doi:10.1177/ 0895904898012001009 
90. Ranson, S. (2010). Public accountability in the age of neo-liberal governance. Journal of Education Policy, 18(5), 459-480.  doi:10.1080/0268093032000124848
91. Roberts, N. C. (2002). Keeping public officials accountable through dialogue: Resolving the accountability paradox. Public Administration Review, 62(6), 658-669. doi:10.1111/1540- 6210.00248
92. Romzek, B. S. (2000). Dynamics of public sector accountability in an era of reform. International Review of Administrative Science, 66(1), 21-44. doi:10.1177/0020852300661004
93. Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3), 227-238. doi:10.2307/975901
94. Rosenbloom, D. H., Kravchuk, R. S., & Clerkin, R. M. (Eds.). (2009). Public administration: Understanding management, politics, and law in the public sector. New York, NY: McGraw- Hill. 
95. Smart, M., & Sturm, D. M. (2013). Term limits and electoral accountability. Journal of Public Economics, 107, 93-102. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2013.08.011
96. Snyder, J. M., & Stromberg, D. (2008). Press coverage and political accountability (NBER Working Paper Series No. 13878). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.  
97. Spring, J. (2005). Conflicts of interest: The politics of American education. Boston, MA: McGraw- Hill. 
98. Thomas, S. (2006). Education policy in the media: Public discourses on education. Teneriffe, Australia: Post Press. 
99. World Bank. (2007). Local government discretion and accountability: A local governance framework (Economic and sector work report No. 40153). Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/7859/401530Local1Go1ountability01PUBLIC1.pdf?sequence=1 
100. Yilmaz, S., Beris, Y., & Serrano-Berthet, R. (2008). Local government discretion and accountability: A diagnostic framework for local governance (Local Governance & Accountability Series No. 113). Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/ Resources/244362-1193949504055/LocalGovernmentDiscretionandAccountability.pdf 
101. Younis, T. A., & Mostafa, I. M. D. (2000). Accountability in public management and administration in Bangladesh. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. 

中文APA引文格式	賴彥全、王麗雲(2014)。地方政府教育課責系統現況與成效探究。教育科學研究期刊，59(3)，97-132。doi:10.6209/JORIES.2014.59(3).04
APA Format	Lai, Y.-C., & Wang, L.-Y. (2014). Educational Accountability System in Local Government: Current Conditions and Impact. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 59(3), 97-132. doi:10.6209/JORIES.2014.59(3).04

    The emerging influences of the “New Right” and the “New Public Management” have prompted the government to incorporate additional ideas of market principles and responsiveness in their management. A public accountability system is established when the demands for efficiency and answerability increase. Because local governments are currently the major providers of education, examining how the educational accountability system functions in local government is crucial.
    The concepts, types, and operations of accountability systems in local governments were examined. Five types of accountability system, namely hierarchical accountability, legal accountability, political accountability, professional accountability, and social accountability, were considered. Language Enrichment Curriculum of Taipei County (now New Taipei City) was used as the case for study. Document analysis and interviews were used to collect information on how the five types of accountability system functioned in this case.
    Hierarchical accountability lacks the coercive power it is intended to exert. Legal accountability relies mainly on financial control and is often subjected to political intervention. Political accountability has limited influence because of its poor connection with elections. Professional accountability is weak for cultural reasons. Social accountability is vigorous but mainly dominated by interest groups. Conflicts among different accountability systems are often observed and political interventions are common. In addition, suggestions are provided.