本研究旨在建構適用於國民教育階段融合政策評估指標，並實際以新北市為例進行政策評估。本研究採評估研究法，以三個階段進行研究，透過文件分析、專家訪談、問卷調查及焦點團體訪談等方式進行資料蒐集。階段一透過文件分析，分析我國與融合教育相關法令與計畫內容，並與10位利害關係人進行訪談，以歸納出我國融合教育政策目標與政策工具。階段二以專家評估方式建構適用我國融合教育政策評估指標，先由8位專家學者進行審題，審題後由13位專家所組成之專家小組，根據指標題目進行重要性評估及權重排序。階段三為實際運用指標以新北市為例進行評估，採用量化與質性資料進行說明。量化部分，由353位學校人員與家長填寫評估問卷，問卷結果以t考驗及單因子變異數分析(ANOVA)進行分析，部分題目則以官方數據資料ㄉ作為說明；質性部分，則綜合專家學者訪談及焦點團體訪談內容進行說明。綜合本研究主要發現如下：
一、我國融合教育政策目標為「落實零拒絕與合宜的安置理念」、「提供適性教育與均等教育機會」、「提升校園與社會對身心障礙者的接納」及「培養身心障礙學生與社會接軌的能力」等4項。
二、我國融合教育政策工具有「訂定相關法令與相關經費支持」、「相關課程、教學與考試評量調整」、「專業團隊合作與專業人員協助」、「相關支持服務介入與無障礙環境營造」等4項。
三、根據融合教育政策目標與政策工具，擬定出相關指標，經由專家小組評選後，建構出8大層面、16項指標及78題指標題目作為我國融合教育政策評估指標。專家小組認為「提供適性教育與均等教育機會」為我國融合教育首要政策目標，而「相關課程、教學與考試評量調整」則為我國融合教育首要政策工具。
四、新北市融合教育政策目標執行現況普遍而言在水準之上，在「提供均等的教育機會」此項指標最具滿意度；而在政策工具方面，各校所使用的政策工具十分多元，在「建立專業團隊合作」此指標最具滿意度。
五、融合教育政策目標會受教育階段、學校規模而產生成效上的差異，而政策工具不因教育階段不同而產生差異。
六、融合教育執行過程可能遭遇到困難點有7項，其中「不同教育階段及學校規模產生差異與限制」、「專業團隊無法有效發揮功能」、「無障礙環境改進受限於許多條件」、「教師無法有效進行教學與課程調整」及「錯誤觀念阻礙融合教育推動」等5項為專家與學校人員認為共同的困難點。
七、影響融合教育成效的因素有5項，其中「完整的支持服務系統」、「相關教育主管重視、主導與推動」、「導師有效的班級經營」及「周遭環境的接納」等4項因素為專家與學校人員認為共同影響因素。
最後，研究者根據研究結果說明我國融合教育政策，並對相關教育行政機關、學校單位及未來研究提出建議。

The purpose of this study was to construct the indicators of inclusive education for the compulsory education level and take New Taipei City as the case for policy evaluation. This research was conducted in three stages with evaluation research method and the data was collected through document analysis, expert interview, questionnaire survey and focus group interview. In the first stage, document analysis and interview were adopted to collect the data. Via document analysis of inclusive education relevant laws and related programs, together with the interview results with ten related stakeholders, the objectives and instruments of inclusive education policy was summarized. On to the second stage, this study used expert evaluation, which contained a preliminary examination by eight experts and scholars, importance evaluation based on measurement questions, and weight prioritization by a thirteen-expert panel, to build up evaluation indicators for inclusive education policy in Taiwan. In the third stage, this study applied the indicators to examine inclusive education policy in New Taipei City and assess the policy with quantitative and qualitative data. Regarding quantitative information, questionnaires were conducted on three-hundred-fifty-three school personnel and students' parents. Some evaluative data was obtained through official statistics. The result was analyzed through t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Meanwhile, qualitative information was collected by and examined through interviews with experts and focus group interviews. The conclusions of this study were as follow:
1. The objectives of inclusive education policy in Taiwan are: "realizing zero-reject and appropriate idea of placement", "providing adaptive education and equal educational opportunity", "promoting acceptance toward people with disabilities on campuses and in society" and " "letting students with disabilities have enough ability to integrate into society."
2. The instruments of inclusive education policy in Taiwan include: "enactments of regulations and budget support", "adjustments of relevant courses, teaching methods, and examination", "assistance from professionals and inter-professional collaboration", and "establishments of support services and accessible environment."
3. Based on the aforementioned objectives and instruments, this study delineates evaluation indicators. The indicators of inclusive education policy, screened by an expert panel, encompasses eight major aspects, sixteen criteria, and seventy-eight pivot questions, with "providing adaptive education and equal educational opportunity" as the primary objective and "adjustments of relevant courses, teaching methods, and examination" as the prime instrument.
4. The performance of implementing the objectives of inclusive education policy in New Taipei City, generally speaking, is above the average. As the research questionnaires indicate, "providing equal educational opportunity" indicators has the highest satisfaction. In regard to the implementation of the instruments, schools utilize a variety of means, as "inter-professional collaboration" indicators reaches the highest satisfaction.
5. The effectiveness of the objectives of inclusive education policy varies according to educational level and school scales, whereas the implementation of the instruments shows no such difference.
6. Among seven possible difficulties on executing inclusive education policy, there are five common problems both experts and personnel agree with: restrictions and differences occur due to different educational level and school scales, professional groups can not function effectively, the establishment of barrier free environment is restricted by feasibility considerations, teachers can not efficiently adjust teaching methods and courses, and mistaken educational beliefs obstruct the promotion of inclusive educational policy.
7. Among five factors influencing the effectiveness of inclusive education policy, four of them are conceded by both experts and personnel: a comprehensive system of support service, the attention, superintendence, and promotion of relevant education agency, proficient classroom management, and acceptance by the surrounding environment.
Finally, based the conclusions on the research to give advice to educational administration authorities, schools, and future studies for reference in order to promote the inclusive education.

Keywords: Inclusive education, Policy evaluation, Objectives of inclusive education policy, Instruments of inclusive education policy, Evaluation indicators for inclusive education

中文部分
于承平、羅清水、林俞均、王菊生（2013）。我國實施融合教育政策之探討。教育政策論壇，16(2)，115-146。
王天苗（2002）。發展遲緩幼兒在融合教育環境裡的學習。特殊教育學報，23，1-23。
王天苗（2003）。學前融合教育實施的問題與對策—以臺北市國小附幼為例。特殊教育研究學刊，25，1-25。
王文科、王智弘（2014）。教育研究法。臺北：五南。
王雲東（2012）。社會研究方法—量化與質性取向及其應用（第二版）。臺北：威士曼。
王麗雲、侯崇博（2005）。應用方案理論進行評鑑：以嘉義縣市國小週三進修方案為例。載於潘慧玲（主編），教育評鑑的回顧與展望（頁219-249）。臺北：心理。
丘昌泰（1995）。公共政策—當代政策科學理論之研究。臺北：巨流。
朱志宏、丘昌泰（1995）。政策規劃。臺北：空大。
何素華（2001）。在融合的教育環境中如何設計課程。載於陳政見（主編），融合教育論文集（頁133-160）。國立嘉義大學特殊教育中心。
何素華（2013）。新修訂特殊教育課程綱要實施之挑戰與因應措施。特殊教育季刊，126，1-8。
余文珍、尹弘飆（2014）。香港融合教育政策下的教師專業發展。華南師範大學學報（社會科學版），6，44-49。
吳定（2003）。政策管理。臺北：聯經。
吳定（2005）。公共政策辭典（三版）。臺北：五南。
吳武典（1993）。特殊教育的理念與作法。臺北：心理。
吳武典（2004）。融合教育的形式與功能。載於中華民國特殊教育學會九十三年年會暨特教知能研討會會議手冊（6-34頁）。臺北市：中華民國特殊教育學會。
吳武典（2005）。融合教育的迴響與檢討。教育研究月刊，136，28-42。
吳武典（2011）。我國特殊教育之發展與應興應革。載於國家教育研究院（主編），我國百年教育回顧與展望（199-220頁）。新北市：國家教育研究院。
吳武典（2013）。臺灣特殊教育綜論（一）：發展脈絡與特色。特殊教育季刊，129，11-18。
吳政達（2008）。教育政策分析：概念方法與應用（二版）。臺北：高等教育。
吳政達、郭昭佑（1998）。灰色關連分析法在教育政策執行成效評估之應用—以臺北縣85學年度國民中學執行「輔導工作六年計畫」為例。教育政策論壇，1(1)，64-85。
吳啟誠（2013）。檢視融合教育之論述與研究：以臺灣為例。特教論壇，15，20-32。
吳淑美（1998）。學前融合班教學理念篇。臺北：心理。
吳淑美（1999）。融合教育的實施與困境。國教世紀，188，6-11。
吳淑美（2004）。融合班的理念與實務。臺北：心理。
吳瓊恩、李允傑、陳銘薫（2001）。公共管理。臺北：智勝。
吳瓊恩、周光輝、魏娜、盧偉斯（2004）。公共行政學。臺北：智勝。
李允傑、丘昌泰（1999）。政策執行與評估。臺北：空大。
李允傑、丘昌泰（2009）。政策執行與評估（第二版）。臺北：元照。
李慶良（1995）。美國保障身心障礙學生教育權利的法律基礎。國立臺中師範學院初等教育研究季刊，3，161-179。
李慶良（2004）。特殊教育行政與法規。臺北：心理。
李寶琳（2014）。美國《不讓任何孩子落後》法案政策之績效責任探討與省思。臺北市立大學學報，45(1)，1-20。
周台傑（1998）。特殊教育學生融合教育之探討。跨越社會的鴻溝-智障、情障、學障的問題與對策研討會。臺北市：行政院國家科學委員會。
周雅容（1997）。焦點團體法在調查研究上的應用。調查研究，3，51-73。
孟瑛如（2014）。資源教育方案—班級經營與補救教學。臺北：五南。
林子煒（2009）。花蓮縣國民中小學融合教育實施指標意見調查研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立東華大學特殊教育學系，花蓮縣。
林坤燦（2008）。融合教育普通班特殊教育服務方案。花蓮縣：國立東華大學。
林坤燦（2012）。融合教育現場教師行動方案。臺北：教育部。
林貴美（2001）。融合教育政策與實際。載於楊宗仁（主編），融合教育學術論文集（頁11-36）。臺北市：國立臺北師範學院特殊教育中心。
林貴美（2008）。義大利學校制度與融合教育的發展與變革。教育資料集刊，40，147-177。
林寶山、李水源（2000）。特殊教育導論。臺北：五南。
林寶貴（1999）。中華民國特殊教育概況。臺北：教育部特殊教育工作小組。
邱上真（2001）。普通班教師對特殊需求學生之困境措施、所面對之困境以及所需之支持系統。特殊教育研究學刊，21，1-26。
柯懿真、盧台華（2005）。資源教師與普通班教師實施合作教學之行動研究－以一個國小二年級班級為例。特殊教育研究學刊，29，95-112。
柯懿真、盧台華（2015）。臺北市國小普通班實施適應欠佳學生轉介前介入之調查研究。教育研究學報，49(1)，79-106。
洪雯柔（2011）。全球化下的教學與課程議題：聯合國推動之全納教育。教育研究月刊，206，35-48。
洪雯柔（2011）。全球化的教學與課程議題：聯合國推動之全納教育。教育研究月刊，206，35-48。
洪儷瑜（2001）。英國的融合教育。臺北：學富。
洪儷瑜（2012）。由補救教學到三層級學習支援。教育研究月刊，221，13-24。
洪儷瑜（2014）。邁向融合教育之路—回顧特殊教育法立法三十年。中華民國特殊教育學會年刊103年度，21-31。
洪儷瑜、何淑玫（2010）。「介入反應」在特殊教育的意義與運用。特殊教育季刊，115，1-13。
紐文英（2008）。建構生態的融合教育支持模式。中華民國特殊教育學會年刊97年度，31-56。
張世賢（2009）。公共政策分析。臺北：五南。
張佃富（2001）。教育指標理念簡介。載於簡茂發、李琪明（主編），當代教育指標（頁1-25）。臺北：學富。
張紹勳（2012）。模糊多準則評估法及統計。臺北：五南。
張蓓莉（1990）。特殊／資源班與普通班之溝通與交流。特殊教育季刊，35，1-8。
張蓓莉（2009）。臺灣的融合教育。中等教育，60(4)，8-18。
教育部（1995）。中華民國身心障礙教育報告書。臺北：教育部。
教育部（2005）。九十四年度特殊教育統計年報。臺北：教育部。
教育部（2008）。特殊教育發展報告書。臺北：教育部。
教育部（2014a）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。臺北：教育部。
教育部（2014b）。特殊教育統計年報。臺北：教育部。
教育部（2016）。教育部國民及學前教育署特殊教育發展五年計畫。臺北：教育部。
教育部特殊教育通報網（2016）。特殊教育統計查詢。取自https://www.set.edu.tw/Stastic_WEB/sta2/default.asp
曹莉英（2008）。地方稅法通則政策評估之研究：以臺灣省二十一縣市政府為例。未出版之碩士論文，國立東華大學公共行政研究所，花蓮縣。
許碧勳（2001）。幼稚園實施融合教育之研究。臺北市立師範學院學報，32，451-484。
郭昭佑（2001）。教育評鑑指標建構方法探究。國教學報，13，257-285。
陳玉琨（2004）。教育評鑑學。臺北：五南。
陳明耀（2007）。英國教育政策對適應體育發展的影響。適應體育簡訊，39。
曾淑惠（2004）。教育評鑑模式。臺北：心理出版社。
湯絢章（1993）。公共政策。臺北：華泰。
鈕文英（2008）。擁抱個別差異的新典範—融合教育。臺北：心理。
黃松本（2000）。台北市立國民中小學特殊教育經費運用績效之研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所，臺北市。
黃彥融（2011）。融合教育-以社團交流提升融合成效(2011年11月25日)。國語日報，13版。
黃政傑、翁福元、方志華、張美蓮（2000）。我國教育指標系統整合型研究之計畫。科學發展月刊，26(6)，671-681。
黃政傑、張嘉育（2008）。利害關係人評鑑：理念與方法。載於黃政傑（主編），課程評鑑—理念、研究與應用（頁1-22）。臺北：五南。
黃嘉雄（2006）。析論Stake之回應式教育方案評鑑取向。國立臺北教育大學學報，19(2)，1-26。
新北市（2015）。新北市特殊教育統計年報。臺北：新北市教育局。
萬明美（2009）。視覺障礙者教育。載於許天威、徐享良、張勝成（主編），新特殊教育通論（二版）（275-306頁）。臺北：五南。
廖永堃（2010）。國民中小學普通班融合教育現場支援服務方案期末報告。臺北：教育部。
熊琪（2013）。義大利融合教育成功的原因分析及啟示。綏化學院學報，33(1)，67-69。
熊琪、雷江華（2013）。瑞典融合教育的發展特點及其啟示。中國特殊教育，156，9-14。
臺北市（2011）。臺北市身心障礙教育白皮書（第三版）。臺北：臺北市政府。
趙碧華、朱美珍（2000）。研究方法。臺北：學富。
劉明松（2009）。台東地區國中小融合教育實施成效及問題之研究。東臺灣特殊教育學報，11，31-52。
劉博允（2000）。台灣和美國融合教育政策之比較研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立暨南大學比較教育研究所，南投縣。
潘慧玲（2004）。邁向下一代的教育評鑑：回顧與前瞻。教育評鑑回顧與展望學術研討會。臺北市：國立臺灣師範大學教育研究中心。
蔡昆瀛（2000）。談學校融合教育之相關法規與配套措施。國教新知，47(2)，12-17。
蔡昆瀛（2009）。論特殊教育與相關專業巡迴輔導之支援服務。國小特殊教育，48，13-22。
蔡淑娟（2009）。許孩子一個美麗的未來—從國中教學現場談融合教育。中等教育，60(4)，20-31。
鄭津妃（2012）。臺灣普教與特教的現況與未來—繼續統合或行動融合。特殊教育季刊，124，21-28。
鄭麗月（1999）。從特殊兒童的融合教育談學校行政的配合。特教新知通訊，6(1)，1-4。
黎慧欣（1996）。國民教育階段教師與學生家長對融合教育的認知與調查研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育學系，臺北市。
盧台華（2011）。從個別差異、課程調整與區分性教學的理念談新修訂特殊教育課程綱要的設計與實施。特殊教育季刊，119，1-6。
盧台華（2013）。高級中等以下學校特殊教育課程大綱輔導與運作模式建立與推廣工作計畫第二年期末報告。臺北：國立臺灣師範大學。
戴麗緞、吳麗卿、黃贇瑾、張靜玉、楊麗珍、羅心美（2011）。談融合教育。取自http://web.fg.tp.edu.tw/~tispa/blog/epaper/03/word/d1-2.pdf
謝文全（2012）。教育行政學。臺北：高等教育。
簡春安、鄒平儀（2005）。社會工作研究法（第二版）。臺北：巨流。
羅清水、林坤燦（2006）。融合教育「關注本位採用模式」理論建構及其試探研究。東台灣特殊教育學報，8，1-20。
蘇文利、盧台華（2006）。利用自然支援進行融合式班級合作諮詢模式之行動研究。特殊教育研究學刊，30，53-73。
蘇燕華（2000）。融合教育的理想與挑戰—國小普通班教師的經驗。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育學系，臺北。
蘇燕華、王天苗（2003）。融合教育的理想與挑戰—國小普通班教師的經驗。特殊教育研究學刊，24，39-62。
英文部分
Alkin, M. C. (1972). Evaluation theory development. In H. W. Carol (Ed.), Evaluating action programs. MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Anderson, J. E. (2003). Public policymaking: An introduction. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Andrews, S., & Clementson, J. J. (1997). Active learning’s effect upon preserve teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED410217).
Armstrong, A. C., Armstrong, D., & Spandagou, I. (2010). Inclusive education: International policy and practice. London: Sage.
Ashman, A., & Elkins, J. (1998). Educating children with special needs. Sydney: Prentice-Hall.
Babbie, E. R. C. (1998). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub.
Barton, L. (1998). Market, managerialism and inclusive education. In P. Clough (Ed.), Managing inclusive education: From policy to experience. London: Paul Chapman.
Benjamin, S. (2002). The micropolitics of inclusive education: An ethnography. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bickman, L. (1987). The functions of program theory. In L. Bickman (Ed.), Using program theory in evaluation: No. 33 (pp. 5-18). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Birkland, T. A. (2005). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making (2nd). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Bristol, England: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Bristol, England: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.
Booth, T., Ainscow, M., Black-Hawkins, K., Vaughan, M., & Shaw, L. (2002). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. (2nd ed.). Bristol, England: Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education.
Brinkerhoff, D. W., & Crosby, B. L. (2002). Managing policy reform: Concepts and tools for decision-makers in developing and transitioning countries. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., Karvonen, M., & Algozzine, R. (2003). A content analysis of the curricular philosophies reflected in states’ alternate assessment performance indicators. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28, 165-181.
Brown, S. (1997). Special Education 2000: Developing a policy for inclusive education in New Zealand. New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 6, 141-156.
Bryant, D. P., Smith, D. D., & Bryant, B. R. (2008). Teaching students with special needs in inclusive classrooms. New York, NY: Pearson.
Burningham, D. (1992). An overview of the use of performance indicators in local government. In C. Pollitt & S. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of public services management (pp. 33-64). Oxford UK: Blackwell.
Burstein, N., Sears, S., Wilcoxen, A., Cabello, B., & Spagna, M. (2004). Moving toward inclusive practices. Remedial and Special Education, 25(2), 104-116.
Carroll-Lind, J., & Rees, K. (2009). School for all: Children’s rights to an inclusive education in New Zealand. Paper presented at the Making Inclusive Education Happen: Ideas for Sustainable Change, Te Papa, Wellington.
Carter, N. (1989). Performance indicators: ‘backseat driving’ or ‘hands off’ control. Policy and Politics, 17, 131-138
Carter, N., Klein, R., & Day, P. (1992). How organisations measure success: The use of performance indicators in government. London: Routledge.
Chen, H. T., & Rossi, P. H. (1983). Evaluating with sense: The theory-driven approach. Evaluation Review, 7(3), 283–302.
Chen, Y. H., & Lu, T. H. (1994). Segregated special education: Taiwan. In K. Mazurek, & M. A. Winzer (Ed.), Comparative studies in special education. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Clark, C., Dyson, A., Skidmore, D., & Millward, A. (1997). New directions in special needs: Innovations in mainstream schools. London: Cassell.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Cole, C. (2006). Closing the achievement gap series, PartIII: What is the impact of NCLB on the inclusion of students with disabilities. Education Policy Briefs, 4(11), 1-12.
Cuttance, P. F. (1994). Monitoring educational quality through performance indicators for school practice. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(2), 1-26.
Dalton, J. H., Elias, M. J., & Wandersman, A. (2007). Community psychology: Linking individual and communities (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/ Wadsworth.
Duke, J. (2009). The use of the index for inclusion in a regional educational learning community. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/29400/1/c29400.pdf
Dunn, W. N. (2008). Public policy analysis: An introduction (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hill.
Education Review Office (2003). The New Zealand disability strategy in schools. Wellington: Author.
Falvey, M. A. (1989). Community-based curriculum: Instructional strategies students with severe handicap (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MA: Paul H. Brookes.
Fidana, A., Cihan, H., & Özbeyc, F. (2014). An important component in successful inclusion practices: Instructional adaptations. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4894-4898.
Fisher, D., & Kennedy, C. (2001). Inclusive middle schools. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Forlin, C. (1997). Inclusive education in Australia. Special Education Perspectives, 6(1), 21-26.
Forlin, C. (2001). Inclusion: Identifying potential stressors for regular class teachers. Educational Research, 43(3), 235-245.
Forlin, C., & Bamford, G. (2005). Sustaining an inclusive approach to schooling in a middle school location. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 29(2), 172-181.
Forlin, P., & Forlin, C. (1998). Constitutional and legislative framework for inclusive education in Australia. Australian Journal of Education, 42(2), 204-217.
Fowler, F. C. (2000). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
Fried, R. L., & Jorgensen, C. M. (1998). Equity and excellence: Finding common ground between inclusive education and school reform. In C. M. Jorgensen (Ed.), Restructuring high school for all students (pp. 15-28). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2000). Inclusion versus full inclusion. In W. L. Heward (Ed.), Exceptional children: An introduction to special education (6th). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall / Merrill.
Gilliam, A., Davis, D., Barrington, T., Lacson, R., Uhl, G., & Phoenix, U. (2002). The value of engaging stakeholders in planning and implementing evaluations. AIDS Education & Prevention, 14, 5.
Gladding, S. T., & Newsome, D. W. (2004). Community and agency counseling (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/ Prentice-Hall.
Glasman, N. S., & Nevo, D. (1988). Evaluation in decision making: The case of school administration. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gow, L., Ward, J., Balla, J., & Snow, D. (1988). Directions for integration in Australia: Overview of a report to the Commonwealth Schools Commission Part II. Exceptional Child, 35(1), 5-22.
Children and Families Act (2014).
Grimble, R., & Wellard, K. (1997). Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: A review of principle, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agricultural System, 55(2), 173-193.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hammeken, P.A. (2000). Inclusion: 450 strategies for success: A practical guide for all educators who teach students with disabilities. Minnetonka, MN: Peytral Publications.
Hocutt, A., Martin, E., & McKinney, J. D. (1991). Historical and legal context of mainstreaming. In J. W. Lloyd, N. N. Singh, & A. C. Repp (Eds.), The regular education initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues and models (p.18-28). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Publishing Company.
Hood, C. C. (1983). The tools of government. London: Macmillan.
Ishikawa. A. & Amagasa. T. & Tamizawa. G. & Totsuta. R. & Mieno. H. (1993). The Max-Min Delphi Method and Fuzzy Delphi Method via fuzzy integration. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 55, 241-253.
Janney, R. E., Snell, M. E., Beers, M. K., & Raynes, M. (1995). Integrating students with moderate and severe disabilities into general education classes. Exceptional Children, 61(5), 425-439.
Jorgensen, C. M., Schuh, M. C., & Nisbet, J. (2006). The inclusion facilitator’s guide. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.
Karagiannis, A., Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1996). Historical Overview of Inclusion. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Inclusion: A Guide for Educators (pp. 17- 28). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
Kauffman, J. M. (1995). The regular education initiative as Reagan-Bush education policy: A trickle down theory of education of the hard-to-teach. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon. Austin, TX: ProEd.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). History, rhetoric and reality. Remedial and Special Education, 21(5),279-297
Kay, J. (1997). The stakeholder corporation. In G. Kelly, D. Kelly, & A. Gamble (Eds.), Stakeholder capitalism (pp. 125-141). London: Macmillian.
Kerbeshian, L. A. (1986). A curriculum evaluation using the stakeholder approach as a change strategy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED295997).
Kirk, S. A., Gallagher, J. J., & Anastasiow, N. T. (2003). Educating exceptional children (10th). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Kochhar, C. A., & West, L. L. (1996). Handbook for successful inclusion. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
Kochhar, C. A., West, L. L., & Taymans, J. M. (2000). Successful inclusion: Practical strategies for a shared responsibility. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kozleski, E. B., Yu, T., Satter, A. L., Francis, G. L., & Haines, S. J. (2015). A never ending journey: Inclusive education is a principle of practice, not an end game. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilites, 40(3), 211-226.
Krueger, R. A. & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Leithwood, K.A., & Montgomery, D.J. (1982). The role of the elementary school principal in program improvement. Review of Educational Research, 52, 309-339.
Lindsay, G. (1997). Values, rights and dilemmas. British Journal of Special Education, 24(2), 55-59.
Loreman, T. J. (1999). Integration: Coming from the outside. Interactions, 13(1), 21- 23.
Lowi, T. J. (1969). The end of Liberalism: The second Republic of the United States. NY: W. W. Norton.
MacRae, J. D. (1985). Policy indicators: Links between social science and public debate. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
MAXQDA (2016). The history of MAXQDA. Retrieved March 14, 2016, from http://www.maxqda.com/products/maxqda
McCrimmon, A. W. (2015). Inclusive education in Canada: Issues in teacher preparation. Intervention in School and Clinic, 50(4), 234-237.
McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (1999). Logic models: A tool for telling your program's performance story. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22(1), 1-15.
Merten, B. V. (2004). Five generations of evaluation: A meta-evaluation. Retrieved from http://theorywatch.com/ist501/evalact.html
Mertens, D. M., & Wilson, A. T. (2012). Program evaluation theory and practice: A comprehensive guide. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Mindel, C. (2002). Outcomes: What are they? Paper presented at Non-Profit Leadership Institute, Critical Components for Building High Performance Teams. Dubuque, Iowa, USA.
Ministry of Education (2014). Education in Taiwan 2013-2014. Taipei: Ministry of Education.
Morgan, D. L. (1993). Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of art. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Nachmias, D. (1979). Public policy evaluation: Approaches and methods. NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Nakamura, R., & Smallwood, F. (1980). The politics of policy implementation. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.
Nedwdk, B. P., & Neal, J. E. (1994). Performance indicators and rational management tools: A comparative assessment of projects in North America and Europe. Research in Higher Education, 35(1), 75-103.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pearce, M. (2009). The inclusive secondary school teacher in Australia. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 5(2), 1-15.
Perpoint, J. (1989). Reflection on a quality education for all students. In W. Stainback, S. Stainback, & M. Forest (Eds.). Educating all students in the mainstream of regular education (pp 249-254). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Peters, S. J. (2004). Inclusive education: An EFA strategy for all children. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Posavac, E. J., & Carey, R. G. (2007). Program evaluation: Methods and case studies (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Putnam, J. W. (1993). The process of cooperative learning. In J. W. Putnam (Ed.), Cooperative learning and strategies for inclusion: Celebrating diversity in the classroom. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Renzaglia, A., Karvonen, M., Drasgow, E., & Stoxen, C. C. (2003). Promoting a lifetime of inclusion. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18(3), 140-149.
Reynolds, C. R. (1962). A framework for considering some special issues in special education. Exceptional Children, 28, 367-370.
Reza, K., & Vassilis, S. M. (1988). Delphi hierarchy process (DHP): A methodology for priority setting derived form the Delphi method and Analytical Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research, 37, 347-354.
Roger, P. J., Petrosino, A., Huebner, T. A., & Hacsi, T. A. (2000). Program theory evaluation: Practice, promise, and problems. New Directions for Evaluation, 87, 5-13.
Rossi, P. H., & Freeman, H. E. (1982). Analysis for public decisions. NY: Elsevier Science.
Rossi, P. H., Freeman, H. E., & Lipsey, M. W. (1999). Evaluation: A systematic approach (6th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Sage.
Russell, B. (1970). Education and the good life. New York: Boni and Liveright.
Sailor, W., Gee, K., & Karasoff, P. (1996). School restructuring and full inclusion. In M. Snell (Ed.), Systematic instruction of persons with severe handicaps (4th ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.
Salend, S. J. (2008). Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective practices. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus (4th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Shogren, K. A., McCart, A. B., Lyon, K. J., & Sailor, W. S. (2015). All means all: Buliding knowledge for inclusive schoolwide transformation. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40(3), 173-191.
Skrtic, T. M., & Sailor, W. (1996). School-linked services integration: Crisis and opportunity in the transition to postmodern society. Remedial and Special Education, 17(5), 271-283.
Smith, P. (1993). Outcome-related performance indicators and organizational control in the public sector. British Journal of Management, 4, 135-151.
Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1990). Inclusive schooling. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.). Support networks for inclusive schooling: Interdependent integrated education (pp. 3-23). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1984). A rationale for the merger of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 51, 102-111.
Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1995). Contemplating inclusive education from a historical perspective. In R. A. Villas & J. S. Thousand (Eds.), Creating an inclusive school (pp. 6-27). Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Stake, R. E. (2000). Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation. In D. L. Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus & T. Kellaghan (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (pp.343-362). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, and applications. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Suchman, E. A. (1967). Evaluative research: Principles and practice in public service and social action programs. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Symes, W., & Humphrey, N. (2010). Peer-group indicators of social inclusion among pupils with autistic spectrum disorders (ASD) in mainstream secondary schools: A comparative study. School Psychology International, 31(5), 478–494.
Taylor, P. D. (1988). Inclusive fitness models with two sexes. Theoretical Population Biology, 34(2), 145-168.
Titone, C. (2005). The philosophy of inclusion: Roadblocks and remedies for the teacher and the teacher educator. The Journal of Educational Thought, 39(1), 7-32.
Turnbull, A. P., & Turnbull, H. R. (2001). Families, professionals, and exceptionality: Collaborating for empowerment (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2007). Exceptional lives: Special education in today’s education (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
United Nations (1948). The universal declaration of human rights. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a2
United Nations (1975). Declaration on the rights of disabled persons. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/RightsOfDisabledPersons.aspx
United Nations (1993). The standard rules on the equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/dissre00.htm
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Culture Organization (1994). The UNESCO Salamanca Statement. Retrieved from http://www.csie.org.uk/inclusion/unesco-salamanca.shtml
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Culture Organization (2009a). Policy guidelines on inclusion in education. Paris: Author.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Culture Organization (2009b). Defining an inclusive education agenda: Reflections around the 48th session of international conference on education. Retrieved from http://www.ibe.unesco.org/filedmin/user_upload/Policy_Dialogue/48th_ICE/Defining_Inclusive_Education_Agenda_2009.pdf
Van Laarhoven, T. R., Munk, D. D., Lynch, K., Bosma, J., & Rouse, J. (2007). A model for preparing general education preservice teachers for inclusive education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(5), 440-455.
Waldron, K. A. (1996). Introduction to a special education: The inclusive classroom. New York: Delman Publishers.
Webber, J. (1997). Responsible inclusion: Key components for success. In P. Zionts (Ed.), Inclusion strategies for students with learning and behavior problems: Perspectives, experiences, and best practices (pp.27-55). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Weiss, C. (1983). The stakeholder approach to evaluation: Origins and promise. In A. Bryk (Ed.), Stakeholder-Based evaluation (pp. 3-14). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Will, M. C. (1986). Education children with learning problems: A shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52(5), 411-416.
Wolfensberger, W. (2000). A brief overview of the principles of social valorization. Mental Retardation, 38, 105-124.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., & Thurlow, M. L. (2000). Critical issues in special education. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.