實驗教育三法的形成：另類教育與教育實驗的匯聚與張力 更多文章

Institutionalizing “Experimental Education” : The Tension Between Alternative Education and State-Led Educational Experiments

研究目的

2014年，臺灣立法通過「實驗教育三法」。這三個法律共同規範出「學校」與「非學校」兩大型態之實驗教育，當中又可細分為公立、公辦民營以及私立三種類型的實驗學校，以及個人自學、團體共學以及機構辦學三種類型的非學校型態實驗教育，以此讓各種稍異於體制教育的教育實踐都能夠取得合法化的空間，並因而被視為教育創新的里程碑。然而，在三法促進實驗教育蓬勃發展的表面之下，卻存在著類型發展不均之隱憂，以及真假實驗教育之爭論。類型發展不均反映在，儘管實驗教育源自於體制外的另類教育實踐，在三法通過後迎來快速成長的，卻是體制內的公立實驗學校，其數目在當前已是私立實驗學校的十倍有餘。公、私立學校的發展落差，更使得實驗教育的「實驗」性質蒙受質疑，進而引發何謂實驗教育之爭論。在實驗教育三法邁入第二個十年的當前，本研究探究實驗教育制度的形成過程，旨在分析當前隱憂與爭論的來源，從而對未來的發展提出省思。

主要理論或概念架構

本研究提出，要理解實驗教育三法的形成，不可忽略1950年代起的體制內教育實驗制度，尤其是此制度如何影響1990年代體制外另類教育實踐的合法化歷程。為此，本研究援引歷史制度論的觀點，透過路徑依賴的概念，重建教育實驗、另類教育與實驗教育三者之間的關係，進而回答兩個研究問題：為何另類教育會以「實驗教育」之名合法化？又為何實驗教育會採用三個法律、兩大型態、六種類型之劃分？

研究設計／方法／對象

本研究使用文本分析法，以新聞報導、政府文件與行動者論述為三類主要的資料來源，並輔以學位論文、期刊文章、專書著作等學術文獻。

研究發現或結論

1990年代，另類教育實踐湧現於體制之外，當中包含理念學校與在家自學兩股支流。為了爭取到最初的合法性空間，另類教育的兩股支流共同依附於自1950年代即存在於體制之內的教育實驗法制。然而，典型的教育實驗是由上而下推動、參照科學實驗並尋求可推廣性，新興的另類教育卻是由下而上發起、強調人本精神並關注特殊需求，兩者之間存在張力。於是，當源流迥異的兩者相匯聚，它們意外催生出此前未見的「實驗教育」制度：以「非學校型態」之名，同時把在家自學與理念學校納入規範。然而，一方面是理念學校以實驗教育機構之名遁入非學校型態，另方面是實驗教育從非學校型態延伸到學校型態，進而納入公立學校，最終導致三法六類的複雜劃分，以及何謂實驗的難解爭論。

理論或實務創見／貢獻／建議

本研究使用跨度六十餘年的資料，嘗試在過往研究的基礎上，為教育實驗、另類教育與實驗教育三者之間的相互關係與先後發展，提供一個融貫的分析與解釋框架，從而為日後的教育研究與實踐提供洞見與指引。

Purpose

Taiwan has enacted the three laws of experimental education in 2014. These laws regulate two main forms of experimental education– school-based and non-school-based– which are further subdivided into six types: public, charter, and private experimental schools, as well as individual, group, and institution-based non-school formats. This legislation has established a legal framework for diverse educational practices that differ from the conventional system and has been celebrated as a milestone in fostering educational innovation.

However, beneath the surface of this flourishing development, concerns have arisen over uneven development across different types and ongoing debates about the authenticity of certain practices. This uneven development is reflected in the fact that although experimental education originated from alternative education practices outside the formal system, it is the public experimental schools within the system that have experienced rapid growth since the laws’ passage, now outnumbering private experimental schools by more than tenfold. This developmental gap has cast doubt on the “experimental” nature of such education, fueling disputes over what truly constitutes experimental education.

As the three laws approach their second decade, this study examines the process of institutionalizing experimental education, aiming to trace the origins of these concerns and debates and to offer reflections on future directions.

Main Theories or Conceptual Frameworks

This study posits that to understand the formation of the three laws of experimental education, one cannot overlook the institutional framework for educational experiments that has existed within the formal system since the 1950s, particularly how this framework influenced the legalization process of alternative education practices that emerged outside the system in the 1990s. To this end, this study adopts the perspective of historical institutionalism and applies the concept of path dependence to reconstruct the relationships among educational experiments, alternative education, and experimental education. This framework, in turn, addresses two key research questions: Why was alternative education legalized under the name of “experimental education”? And why does experimental education adopt a classification of three laws, two forms, and six types?

Research Design/Methods/Participants

This study employs text analysis, drawing on three primary sources: news reports, government documents, and the discourse of key actors. These are supplemented with academic literature, including dissertations, journal articles, and scholarly books.

Research Findings or Conclusions

In the 1990s, alternative education practices emerged outside the formal system, taking two main forms: ideal-based schools and homeschooling. To secure initial legal recognition, both aligned themselves with the legal framework for educational experiments that had existed within the formal system since the 1950s. However, tension existed between the two traditions: whereas archetypal educational experiments were initiated in a top-down manner, designed in the image of scientific experiments, and aimed at scalability, the new wave of alternative education was initiated from the bottom up, rooted in humanistic values, and tailored to specific needs. Consequently, when these two distinct traditions converged, they unexpectedly gave rise to a new institutional framework for “experimental education” that regulated both homeschooling and ideal-based schools under the designation of “non-school-based.” The subsequent process– whereby ideal-based schools were categorized as “institutions” within the non-school form, coupled with the extension of experimental education from non-school to school-based forms to include public schools– ultimately led to the complex classification of three laws and six types, sparking the intractable dispute over what truly counts as “experimental.”

Theoretical or Practical Insights/Contributions/Recommendations

Drawing on more than sixty years of data, this study builds on previous research to offer an integrated analytical framework for understanding the interrelations and chronological development of educational experiments, alternative education, and experimental education. This framework provides insights and guidance for future research and practice in the field of education.