國家教育研究院

　　十二國民基本教育課程綱要的推動下，如能將課綱精神融入於高中校務評鑑及校長辦學績效評鑑，則可確保新國家課綱的實施及教育品質的提升，故本研究探討如何將十二年國民基本教育課程綱要之內涵融入於高中校務評鑑及高中校長績效考核，以供教育相關單位發展高中校務評鑑及校長績效考核之參考，以確保十二年國民基本教育課程實施之教育品質。

　　整體說來，透過文獻探討、文件分析、訪談法及研究結果，本研究主要結論如下：(一)高中校務評鑑在國家課程檢核重點之「課程設計與實施」方面較少著墨於十二年國教課綱之核心素養、落實彈性課程學習、建立課程協調機制、課程召集人等；(二)高中校務評鑑在國家課程檢核重點之「教師教學與發展」方面較少著墨於差異化教學、教學活動過程建立正向親師生關係；(三)高中校務評鑑在國家課程檢核重點之「學生學習與展能」方面較少著墨於學生多元選修課程的學習機會、營造全人教育的學習環境、適性輔導；(四)國立高中校長辦學績效評估在國家課程檢核重點之「課程設計與實施」方面較少著墨於提供多元選修課程、 規劃全人教育的課程設計與活動、落實彈性學習課程教學、回應十二年國教課綱之核心素養、協助教師課程協調機制及中層課程領導機制等；(五)國立高中校長辦學績效評估在國家課程檢核重點之「教師教學與發展」方面較少著墨於提供差異化教學、鼓勵發展教師專業學習社群、建立正向親師生關係、協助教師發展教學專業及導引的能力、落實教學正常化及兼顧五育均衡發展、提供教師課程與教學精進之學習資源等；(六)國立高中校長辦學績效評估在國家課程檢核重點之「學生學習與展能」方面較少著墨於落實適性學習輔導、提供多元學習機會、鼓勵學生自主學習、採取有效學習評量方式及評量回應核心素養、落實以證據為本的學生學習評量、營造全人教育的校園環境等。

　　依據研究結論，提出以下主要建議：(一)國家課程檢核重點融入於高中校務評鑑指標內容方面可持續評估其成效；(二)國家課程檢核重點融入於國立高中校長辦學績效評估指標方面可持續評估其成效；(三)國家課程檢核重點融入於高中校務評鑑及國立高中辦學績效評估之指標建構方面，可依需求採融入式或重新建構方式；(四)國家課程檢核重點融入於國立高中校長辦學績效評估指標評鑑指標內容方面可先於教育現場進行個案之實驗；(五)國家課程檢核重點的內涵融入評鑑指標後仍宜有配套措施，並可將本研究研擬之國家課程轉化高中校務評鑑及校長辦學績效考評指標為基礎加以推廣。

　　Driven by the twelve-year national fundamental education curriculum, if the program spirit is integrated into high school evaluation and school principals performance evaluation, the implementation of the new program could be ensured and the quality of education could be improved. The purpose of this research was to investigate how to integrate the twelve-year national fundamental education into high school evaluation and principals’ performance evaluation, serving as a reference for related education units developing high school evaluation and principals’ performance evaluation to ensure the quality of the twelve-year national fundamental education curriculum.

　　Overall, based on literature review, document analysis, interviews and research results, the main conclusions of this study are as follows: (I) In terms of “Curriculum Design and Implementation”, evaluation of high school curriculum did not focus much on the core value of the twelve-year national fundamental education curriculum, the implementation of the flexible courses, the establishment of curriculum coordination mechanisms, or curriculum coordinators; (II) In terms of “Teachers’ Teaching and Development”, evaluation of high school curriculum did not focus much on the differentiated instruction or teaching activities that establish a positive relationship between teachers and students; (III) In terms of “Students' Learning and Skills”, evaluation of high school curriculum hardly put emphasis on the provision of divers elective courses for students, the holistic education environment and adaptive counseling. (IV) In aspect of “Curriculum Design and Implementation”, national high school principals’ performance evaluation focused less on the provision of diverse elective courses, holistic education curriculum design and activities, the implementation of flexible learning courses, responding to the core values of the twelve-year national fundamental education, assisting teachers with curriculum coordination mechanisms, and middle courses leading mechanism. (V) In aspect of “Teachers’ Teaching and Development” national high school principals’ performance evaluation focused less on providing differentiated instructions, encouraging the development of teachers' professional learning communities, establishing a positive relationship among parents, teachers, and students, assisting teachers to develop the teaching profession and guiding competence, implementing the normality of teaching and balanced development of five learning dimensions, and providing learning resources for teachers to improve their teaching methods. (VI) In terms of “Students’ Learning and Skills", national high school principals’ performance evaluation focused less on adaptive learning counseling, providing a variety of learning opportunities, encouraging proactive learning, adopting effective learning assessment methods and assessments that respond to the core values, implementing the evidence-centered assessment of learning, and creating a learning environment suitable for holistic education.

　　According to research findings, the key recommendations are as follows: (I) The effectiveness of the integration of national curriculum core assessment into high school evaluation indicator contents could be continuously assessed. (II.) The effectiveness of the integration of national curriculum core assessment into high school principals’ performance evaluation indicators could continuously assessed. (III) In terms of index construction of integration of national curriculum core assessment into high school administrative affairs evaluation and national high school performance evaluation, integration or new construction approaches could be adopted based on the needs. (IV) Case studies on educational sites could help create indicator contents of integration of national curriculum core assessment into high school principals’ performance evaluation. (V) Complementary measures are still needed after the integration of national curriculum evaluation core into evaluation indicators. It is recommended to promote national curriculum transformation high school administrative affairs evaluation and principals’ performance evaluation indicators proposed by this study as a foundation.