平成 22 年度プロジェクト研究報告書教育制度 -027 学校組織開発と教職員配置の在り方に関する総合的研究第一年次報告書平成 23 年 (2011 年 )3 月研究代表者葉養正明 ( 国立教育政策研究所教育政策評価研究部 )

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "平成 22 年度プロジェクト研究報告書教育制度 -027 学校組織開発と教職員配置の在り方に関する総合的研究第一年次報告書平成 23 年 (2011 年 )3 月研究代表者葉養正明 ( 国立教育政策研究所教育政策評価研究部 )"

别卯印
5 years ago
Views:

1 平成 22 年度プロジェクト研究報告書教育制度 -027 学校組織開発と教職員配置の在り方に関する総合的研究第一年次報告書平成 23 年 (2011 年 )3 月研究代表者葉養正明 ( 国立教育政策研究所教育政策評価研究部 )

2 OECD PISA TIMSS OECD PISA 23 co-teaching staff

6 PDCA co-teaching staff

7 co-teaching staff co-teaching staff

8 1,750 3, ,500 1/3 10

22 22 10 ICT

24 PTA

25 E 1 1 ICT ICT

26 ICT

28 ICT

29 ICT

30 3 2

34 18 TIMSS 2007, , PTA 2007p.204 1%

35 %

36 1

37 2

38 3

39 4

40 5

41 6

42 1

43 2

44 3

45 4

46 5

47 6

50 % 8.5% % % , ,

51 2 5

52 4 PTA PTA 1 ( )

53 % PTA

55 1% %

58 pp.75-93

59 PTA PTA

63 , , ,

66 1) ) ) 4)

69 2 4 PTA PTA 1 2

70 2 PTA

71 22 2 5

72 PTA 5 3

74 PTA PTA PTA PTA 3

77 H20 H21 H22 H20 H21 H22 H20 H21 H

81 OJT

82 PTA PTA PTA

83 Head TeacherTeacher s Head 1 2

84 ICT OJT

87 distributed leadership

89 OJT OJT

ቇ ㆇ༡ද ળᵴ ࠍㅴ ࠆ ߢߩ 㗴㧔ਛቇ 㧕㩿 ㅀ㪋㪐䇮㪏㪐ઙ䉕ᢛℂ䋩 ᐲ䊶㩿㪈㪎㪀 ද ળ䈱ᓎ ቇ ᡰ 䈱㩿㪍㪀䌐䌔䌁䈫䈱 ᢛ㩿㪊㪀䋯ቇ ᡰ 䈫䈱 ᢛ ታ

䈫䈱㑐ଥ㩿㪊㪀 ᢎᆔ䈱ᡰ 䈏ᒙ䈇䋯ㅪ៤䉕䉎㩿㪉㪀 ᵴ 䈱ផㅴ㩿㪉㪇㪀 ද ળ䈱ᵴᕈ ᵴ 䈱ᵴᕈൻ㩿㪋㪀䉕䉇䉎䈎ᬌ 㩿㪉㪀䋯䈱ᑧ㐳䋯లታ ൻ㩿㪏㪀䈱ข 㩿㪉㪀 ቇ

ኈ㩿㪏㪀 ᵴ ᣇ 㩿㪉㪀 ᣇ 䊶ᣇะ䈱 ൻ䋯 ଔ䈱䈅䉍ᣇ ቇ ᡰ 㩿㪉㪀 ᢎ⑼ቇ 䈱䊗䊤䊮䊁䉞䉝䋯 ᧚䊋䊮䉪䈱ᵴ ዊਛ ᢎ 㩿㪋㪀 ዊਛ ᢎ 䈱ડ

ᄙᔔ䊶 ᜂ㩿㪐㪀 ද ળᣣ ᢛ㩿㪋㪀 ᢛ䈏㔍䈚䈇㩿㪋㪀䈱 ᵴ 䋯ታ ㇱ㓌䋯ᆔ 䈱㩿㪉㪀䋯䈏ㆃ䈇 ℂ 䊶㩿㪐㪀 ᐲ䉇ቇ 䈱ℂ 㩿㪍㪀 ℂ ਇ 㩿㪉㪀䋯ℂ 䈮

㩿㪈㪊㪀 ቇ 䈱ᄙᔔൻ䋨㪌㪀㑆䉇䉍䈒䉍䉇 ᜂ䈏ᄢ㩿㪋㪀䋯 ㅪ៤䈱㑆䈏ᄢᄌ ᵴ ਥ 䈱⒖ⴕ㩿㪌㪀 ቇ ਥዉ䈮䈭䈦䈩䈇䉎㩿㪋㪀䋯ᆔ ਛᔃ䈻䈱⒖ⴕ ᵴ 䈱䈱䍃లታ㩿㪌㪀

ᓤ䈱㑐䉒䉍ᣇ 㐿䈎䉏䈢ቇ 䈨䈒䉍㩿㪉㪀 ᢎ ജ ᚑ 㩿㪊㪀䈪䈩䉎 ㆇ䈨䈒䉍䋯䈍䈖䈚䈮䋯ㅪ៤䈱 ᄢ 䈱䈫䈱㑐ଥ㩿㪋㪀 ᡰ 䈨䈒䉍㩿㪋㪀 ᧚ 䈱ㅪ៤ ᗧ ឭ ᢎ 䈱ℂ

91 ቇ ㆇ༡ද ળᵴ ࠍㅴ ࠆ ߢߩ 㗴㧔ਛቇ 㧕㩿 ㅀ㪋㪐䇮㪏㪐ઙ䉕ᢛℂ䋩 ᐲ䊶㩿㪈㪎㪀 ද ળ䈱ᓎ ቇ ᡰ 䈱㩿㪍㪀䌐䌔䌁䈫䈱 ᢛ㩿㪊㪀䋯ቇ ᡰ 䈫䈱 ᢛ ታ 䈏䈭䈇䋯 ᚑ䈜䉎䋯䈱ᢎ ജ䉕ᵴ䈎䈜㩿㪉㪀 ᡰ 䈱 ᧚ ㅪ៤䈱ᐢ ൻ ቇ 䈫ද ળ ቇ ㆇ༡䈮䈬䈖䉁䈪䉂ㄟ䉃䈎㩿㪋㪀 ᢎ 䈱ℂ 䈫දജ㩿㪉㪀䋯ᢎ 䈱ᗧ ᡷ㕟 ⴕ 䈫䈱㑐ଥ㩿㪊㪀 ᢎᆔ䈱ᡰ 䈏ᒙ䈇䋯ㅪ៤䉕䉎㩿㪉㪀 ᵴ 䈱ផㅴ㩿㪉㪇㪀 ද ળ䈱ᵴᕈ ᵴ 䈱ᵴᕈൻ㩿㪋㪀䉕䉇䉎䈎ᬌ 㩿㪉㪀䋯䈱ᑧ㐳䋯లታ ൻ㩿㪏㪀䈱ข 㩿㪉㪀 ቇ ㆇ༡䈮䋯ቇ 䈫䉕䈧䈭䈓 ዊਛ ᢎ 䈱ข 㩿㪉㪀 ዊ䈏ⶄᢙ䈪䈲䈮ήℂ䋯䈱ข 䈏㔍䈚䈇䈫䈱ㅪ៤䊶දജ䈱ଦㅴ㩿㪋㪀䌐䌔䌁㩿㪉㪀䋯䉮䊚䊠䊆䊁䉞䉶䊮䉺䊷㩿㪉㪀 ข 䉃 ኈ㩿㪏㪀 ᵴ ᣇ 㩿㪉㪀 ᣇ 䊶ᣇะ䈱 ൻ䋯 ଔ䈱䈅䉍ᣇ ቇ ᡰ 㩿㪉㪀 ᢎ⑼ቇ 䈱䊗䊤䊮䊁䉞䉝䋯 ᧚䊋䊮䉪䈱ᵴ ዊਛ ᢎ 㩿㪋㪀 ዊਛ ᢎ 䈱ડ 䊶ታ〣㩿㪉㪀䋯ዊਛㅪ៤㩿㪉㪀 ᆔ 㩿㪉㪌㪀 ᆔ 䈱છ 㩿㪎㪀 ᆔ 䈱㩿㪌㪀䈪䈐䉎ᆔ 㩿㪉㪀䋯ਛ 䈫䈭䉎ᆔ 䈱 ᚑ䊶 ជ䋨㪊㪀 ᆔ 䈱 ቯ䋯ᆔ ᦧ䈮䉋䉎ᆔ 㑆䈱 ᐲᏅ ᄙᔔ䊶 ᜂ㩿㪐㪀 ද ળᣣ ᢛ㩿㪋㪀 ᢛ䈏㔍䈚䈇㩿㪋㪀䈱 ᵴ 䋯ታ ㇱ㓌䋯ᆔ 䈱㩿㪉㪀䋯䈏ㆃ䈇 ℂ 䊶㩿㪐㪀 ᐲ䉇ቇ 䈱ℂ 㩿㪍㪀 ℂ ਇ 㩿㪉㪀䋯ℂ 䈮㑆㩿㪉㪀䋯䈏ᔅⷐ㩿㪉㪀 ද 䈱 ᣇ㩿㪊㪀㐳ᗧ 䉕ήⷞ䋯ㇱᆔ 䈮Ꮐฝ䋯ዊਛᆔ 䈪ኻ ᵴ ઙᢛ 㩿㪈㪐㪀 ភ ዪ䈱ᄙᔔൻ㩿㪊㪀 ዪ䈏ᄙᔔ䈮䈭䉎㩿㪉㪀䋯 ᜂ䈏ᄢ䈐䈇㩿㪈㪊㪀 ቇ 䈱ᄙᔔൻ䋨㪌㪀㑆䉇䉍䈒䉍䉇 ᜂ䈏ᄢ㩿㪋㪀䋯 ㅪ៤䈱㑆䈏ᄢᄌ ᵴ ਥ 䈱⒖ⴕ㩿㪌㪀 ቇ ਥዉ䈮䈭䈦䈩䈇䉎㩿㪋㪀䋯ᆔ ਛᔃ䈻䈱⒖ⴕ ᵴ 䈱䈱䍃లታ㩿㪌㪀 ᆔ ㊄䋯䋯 ភ 㩿㪉㪀䋯 ᣇᴺ䈱ᬌ 㩿㪍㪀䊐䉜䊮䊄䈏䈘䉏䈩䈇䈭䈇䈻䈱ኻᔕ㩿㪈㪇㪀 ᖱႎ 㩿㪌㪀 ᵴ 䈱䌐䌒㩿㪊㪀䋯䊶䈻䈱㩿㪉㪀 ቇ ᡰ ᗧ 䉕㜞䉄䉎䋯䈫 ᓤ䈱㑐䉒䉍ᣇ 㐿䈎䉏䈢ቇ 䈨䈒䉍㩿㪉㪀 ᢎ ജ ᚑ 㩿㪊㪀䈪䈩䉎 ㆇ䈨䈒䉍䋯䈍䈖䈚䈮䋯ㅪ៤䈱 ᄢ 䈱䈫䈱㑐ଥ㩿㪋㪀 ᡰ 䈨䈒䉍㩿㪋㪀 ᧚ 䈱ㅪ៤ ᗧ ឭ ᢎ 䈱ℂ 㩿㪊㪀 ࡒࡘ ߩᵴ ߇లታߒ ޔ ᥉ ߔࠆߚ ߩ ઙ 1 1 ߪ ޔ ᐔᚑ 20 ᐕᐲ⑼ ߩ ࡘࡒ ޟ ㆇ༡ߣᚑᨐߦ㑐ߔࠆ ᩏ ޠ ઍ 㧦ደᢝ㧕ߦࠃࠆቇ ᩏ㧔ᐔᚑ 21 ᐕ 2 ታᣉ ޔ ਛቇ 76.3 㧑㧕ߩᚑᨐߩ ㇱߢ ࠆ ޕ 86

96 4 1) 2) 3) 4)

97 km

100

101 Oregon % John A. Kitzhaber2 Theodore R. Kulongoski school district 2001 P/T , , ,557.41

102 2) Teachers 28, % Educational Assistants 10, % District Administrators % School Administrators 1, % Guidance Counselors 1, % Library and Media 1, % Support Staff 18, % Special Education Specialists 1, % 62, % Portland Public Schools ; PPS K K K ,800 3) Student-Teacher Ratios ) % 93% %25 5)

103 The Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century21 6) proficiency ) 40% ) Full Time EquivalentFTE 1 2

104 FTE Pre K teachers 49 KG teachers 1,022 Elementary teachers 10,822 Secondary teachers 9,795 Unclassified teachers 5,044 Educational aides 8,466 Curriculum specialists 406 Elementary counselors 442 Secondary counselors 672 Library/media specialists 461 Library/media assistants 791 District administrators 613 District administrator support 1,704 School administrators 1,539 School administrator support 2,907 Other professional 1,621 Other support 7,918 54,272 FTE Full Time Equivalent School Equalization Formula FTE Measure Measure % % 9) 4 State School Fund 7

105 % % 10) % % 11) 21 Oregon Report Card 12) School Staffing Formula 13) Tier Tier K-3, PK-5, K-5, PK-6, K-6 Tier K-8, PK-7, PK-8 Tier 6-8, 7-8, K-12 Tier administrative support ratio FTESocial-economic Status(SES) FTE 3 14)

106 K-3, PK-5, K-5, PK-6, K-6 FTE administrative support 1FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE 1/2 FTE 0.5FTE 1 ratio FTE 23.5:1 FTE Social-economic Status(SES) FTE 2005 FTE K % 1.88 FTE FTE 0.20 FTE FTE FTE K-8, PK-7, PK-8 FTE administrative support 1FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE 1/2 FTE 0.5FTE 1 ratio FTE 23.5:1 FTE Social-economic Status(SES) FTE 2005 FTE PK %

107 2.88 FTE FTE 0.70 FTE FTE FTE , 7-8, K-12 FTE 1 12 administrative support 1FTE FTE FTE 1/2 FTE 0.5FTE 1 2 1FTE ratio FTE 23.5:1 FTE Social-economic Status(SES) FTE 2005 FTE % 3.50 FTE FTE 0.95 FTE FTE FTE

108 ) [last access ] 2) The Oregon Statewide Report Card, Oregon Department of Education, [last access ] 3) [last access ] 4) The Oregon Statewide Report Card, Oregon Department of Education, [last access ]The Oregon Statewide Report Card, Oregon Department of Education, [last access ] 5) K-3 Class Sizes in Portland, Oregon. (Minority Staff Report). Special Investigations Division, Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives [last access ] 6) Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century; Educational Improvement and Reform. ORS [last access ] 7) [last access ] 8) Oregon Public School Facts, Fact-sheets [last access ] 9) Jan McComb,Background Brief on Funding K-12 Schools, Background Brief, Legislative Committee Services, ) Annual Budget For the fiscal year 2006/07, School District No. 1, Multnomah County, Oregon, Portland Public Schools, [last access ] 11) Ibid. 12) Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century; Educational Improvement and Reform. ORS

109 13) Annual Budget For the fiscal year 2006/07, School District No. 1, Multnomah County, Oregon, Portland Public Schools, [last access ] 14) Annual Budget For the fiscal year 2006/07, School District No. 1, Multnomah County, Oregon, Portland Public Schools, [last access ]

110

111 1 1

112 1

113 A B C A B A B

114

115

116 11 5

117 2003 Katsuno A.Challen et al Marsden and Belfield2006 A.Atkinson et al.2009 P.Mahony et al.2004 Jacob and Lefgren2008 J. Stronge et al

118 Katsuno

119 % 17%

120 50 2 A.Challen et al Perfoemance Related Pay, PRP Marsden and Belfield

121 A.Atkinson et al P.Mahony et al

122 Jacob and Lefgren % 70% 33% J. Stronge et al.2007 Jacob and Lefgren

123

124 2003Katsuno2010 Marsden and Belfield

125 A B

126

127 11 C

128

129 22003Katsuno Marsden and Belfield2006 A.Atkinson et al /1000 /1000 /

130 A A.Atkinson et al

131 20 u Z X Y ij i i 1,2,...,4) ( : 1,2,...,4) ( : 1,2,...,34) : : : : k k j j i i Z X Y B ji ji ji i X X Y E P exp 1 1 ) 1 ( 1,2,...,8) ( : 1,2,...,34) ( : : : j j i i X Y

132 2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-1 A.Atkinson et al.2009 Marsden and Belfield2006 A-2 A-1 A-3 A-4 4 B-1 B-2 B B

133 A 19 10% F

134 4 A-1 A-2 3 A-3 A-4 23

135 B 1 5% 1% B-1 24

136 B

137

138 Jacob and Lefgren2008 J. Stronge et al Wooldridge(2002) 2 (latent variable)

139 A.Atkinson, S.Burgess, B.Croxson, P.Gregg, C.Propper, H.Slater and D.Wilson2008 Evaluating the impact of performance-related pay for teachers in England, Labour Economics, vol.16, pp A.Challen, S.Machin and S.McNally2008 Schools in England: Structures, Teachers and Evaluation, Programma Education FGA Working Paper N.1 Jacob, B.A. and Lefgren, L.2008 Can Principals Identify Effective Teachers? Evidence on Subjective Performance Evaluation in Education, Journal of Labor Economics, 261, pp Marsden, D. and Belfield, R.2006 Pay for Performance Where Output is Hard to Measure: the Case of Performance Pay for School Teachers, CEP Discussion Paper No.747 M.Katsuno2010 Teacher Evaluation in Japanese schools: an examination from a micro-political or relational viewpoint, Journal of Education Policy, vol.25,pp P.Mahony, I.Menter and I.Hextall2004 The emotional impact of perfprmance-related pay on teachers in England, British Educational Research Journal, Vol.30, No No.752 pp No.752 pp No Vol

140

141 1 3 30

142 2 31

143 3 32

144 4 33

145 5 34

146 6 35

147 7 36

148 8 37

149 A B 2 { A B A B /} HP HP HP HP 21 38

150

151

152 12 19 *** 1%** 5%* 10%

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162 27 52

163 28 53

164 29 54

165 30 55

166 1 1 56

167 57

168 1 1 58

169 59

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

2006, p.288 / Baggioni1997, pp ) ( European Council EU (European Parliament report with recommendations to the Comm

2006, p.288 / Baggioni1997, pp ) ( European Council EU (European Parliament report with recommendations to the Comm 1960 Language Planning 1 (Language Policy and Planning, LPP) 2 2009 10 Anem,òc! Per la lenga occitana! Cooper 1989, p.98 1. EU 19 2008) 3 EU EU 2006, p.268 1 (politique linguistique)...) (Calvet 1996,

平成 22 年度プロジェクト研究報告書教育制度 -027 学校組織開発と教職員配置の在り方に関する総合的研究 第一年次報告書 平成 23 年 (2011 年 )3 月 研究代表者葉養正明 ( 国立教育政策研究所教育政策 評価研究部 )

平成 22 年度プロジェクト研究報告書教育制度 -027 学校組織開発と教職員配置の在り方に関する総合的研究第一年次報告書平成 23 年 (2011 年 )3 月研究代表者葉養正明 ( 国立教育政策研究所教育政策評価研究部 )