第六十四輯.第三期 - 2018-09-30

教育政治歧見之處理: 由A. Gutmann民主教育觀點反思 高中課綱微調爭議與出路

Resolving Political Disagreement: Reflecting on High School Curriculum Guideline Adjustment Policyfrom A. Gutmann’s Democratic Education

作 者:
王麗雲、賴彥全 / Li-Yun Wang, Yen-Chywan Lai
關鍵字:
A. Gutmann、公共思辨、民主教育、教育政治、課程決定 / A. Gutmann, public deliberation, democratic education, politics of education, curriculum decision-making
  • 摘要
  • 英文摘要
  • 參考文獻
  • 學術引用
2014年高中課綱微調爭議成為全國焦點,法律與歷史攻防鬧得沸沸揚揚,對 於課程內容、課程決定的程序、課程決定的權威,都有對立與激烈的討論。本 文跳脫法律與歷史爭議,由政治面出發,討論教育政治歧見的處理方式。教育內 容常位於政治十字路口,如何在嚴重歧見中繼續教育下一代,實為重要議題。本 文以A. Gutmann的民主教育理論為架構,在有意識社會再製的前提下,根據不壓 迫與不歧視原則,分析課程綱要歧見的處理方式。由程序面、內容面、決定權威 面,討論課程綱要的決定原則。而回到教育面,更重要的是培育學生進行公共思 辨與公共參與的能力,以踐行民主社會。
In 2014, High School Curriculum Guideline Adjustment has become a national controversial issue with furious legal and historical debates. The issues that have emerged include the content of curriculum, procedures for curriculum decision-making, and the authority of curriculum decision-making. Rather than focusing on the legal and historical dimensions of the debates, this paper focuses on the political dimension of curriculum decision using Amy Gutmann’s Democratic Education Theory. Under the assumption of conscious social reproduction and following the rule of non- discrimination and non-repression, this paper discusses how political disagreement about curriculum should be handled. Cultivating the ability of public deliberation and public participation is critical for a democratic society and should be included in education.

王健文(2015)。讓歷史課綱回歸歷史知識與教育本質。師友,58215-19
[Wang, C.-W. (2015). Reconsider history knowledge and nature of education in history curriculum guideline. The Educator Bimonthly, 582, 15-19.]

王麗雲(2002)。中文拼音政策的爭議與課程政治面向的反省。教育研究集刊,48(1),95-131。 

[Wang, L.-Y. (2002). Controversial issues in Chinese Pin-Yin policy: Reflections on the political dimension of curriculum. Bulletin of Educational Research, 48(1), 95-131.]

王麗雲(2013)。教育行政的政治面向。載於謝文全(主編),教育行政學:理論與案 例(頁129-158)。臺北市:五南。

[Wang, L.-Y. (2013). The political dimension of educational administration. In W.-C. Hsieh (Ed.), The educational administration: Theory and case studies (pp. 129-158). Taipei, Taiwan: Wu-Nan Book.]

王麗雲(2014)。多元或統合:縣市家長會功能及限制探究。縣市教育力與教育發展研 討會,國立臺灣師範大學,臺北市。

[Wang, L.-Y. (2002). Pluralism or corporatism: The function and limitation of the county level parents’ association. Paper presented at Conference on County and City Educational Power and Development, Taipei, Taiwan.]

白亦方、盧曉萍(2005)。性別課程的回顧與前瞻。課程與教學季刊,8(4),117- 130

[Pai, Y.-F., & Lu, S.-P. (2005). Review and prospect of gender curriculum. Curriculum & Instruction Quarterly, 8(4), 117-130.]

余祥、吳敏菁(2016729日)。國中小學生未入列課審會學生代表,反課綱6生 出線。中時電子報。取自http://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20160729000429- 260102

[Yu, H., & Wu, M.-C. (2016, July 29). Junior and elementary students are excluded from student representatives of curriculum advisory committee, and six students from Anti-Curriculum Guideline Adjustment Group are selected. China Times. Retrieved from http://www. chinatimes.com/newspapers/20160729000429-260102]

吳玫茵(2014)。教育部課綱微調程序說明。教育部即時新聞。取自http://www.edu.tw/ news1/detail.aspx?Node=1088&Page=22571&Index=1&WID=ddc91d2b-ace4-4e00- 9531-fc7f63364719

[Wu, M.-Y. (2014). Statement of curriculum guideline adjustment process by Ministry of Education. News of Ministry of Education. Retrieved fromhttp://www.edu.tw/news1/ detail.aspx?Node=1088&Page=22571&Index=1&WID=ddc91d2b-ace4-4e00-9531- fc7f63364719]

吳澤玫(2014)。審議民主與多元社會的穩定。政治與社會哲學評論,491-58
[Wu, T.-M. (2014). The stability of a pluralist society: On public reason, deliberative democracy, and civic virtues. SOCIETAS: A Journal for Philosophical Study of Public Affairs, 49, 1-58.] 

李欣芳、林曉雲(201426日)。課綱調整,民進黨6縣市抵制。自由電子報。取自http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/focus/paper/751921

[Li, S.-F., & Lin, S.-Y. (2014, February 6). Six DPP counties oppose curriculum guideline adjustment. Liberty Times Net. Retrieved from http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/focus/paper/751921]

李建宏(2005)。Amy Gutmann的「民主教育」理論省思臺灣的民主教育(未出版之碩士論文)。東吳大學,臺北市。

[Lee, C.-H. (2005). Reflecting on democratic education of Taiwan from Amy Gutmann’s “Democratic Education” theory (Unpublished master’s thesis). Soochow University, Taipei, Taiwan.]

周志宏(2014)。高中課綱微調的法律問題。司法改革雜誌,10058-59
[Chou, C.-H. (2014). Legal issues of high school curriculum guideline adjustment policy.Journal of Judicial Reform, 100, 58-59.]

周婉窈(2015723日)。解構臺灣史課綱所謂十七項「爭議」根本是假議題,不要跟著起舞!取自https://www.facebook.com/notes/chou-wan-yao

[Chou, W.-Y. (2015, July 23). Deconstructing the so-called 17 “Controversies” in the curriculum guideline of Taiwan history: Fake issues. Do not follow. Retrieved fromhttps://www.facebook.com/notes/chou-wan-yao] 

林子倫、陳亮宇(2009)。重返民主的政策科學審議是政策分析概念意涵與途徑之探討。臺灣民主季刊,6(4),1-47

[Lin, T.-L., & Chen, L.-Y. (2009). Return to the policy science of democracy: The concept and approach of deliberative policy analysis. Taiwan Democracy Quarterly, 6(4), 1-47.] 

火旺(2005)。審議民主與公民養成。國立臺灣大學哲學評論,2999-143

[Lin, H.-W. (2005). Deliberative democracy and civic education. National Taiwan University Philosophical Review, 29, 99-143.]

林志成、林雙傑(2017102日)。國文課綱文言文比例翻案?教長:已最後決定。時電子報。取自http://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20171002001900-260405

林佳範(2014)。教育與政治:違反教育中立的課綱微調。司法改革雜誌,10060-61

[Lin, C.-F. (2014). Education and politics: Curriculum guideline adjustment policy violates educational neutrality. Journal of Judicial Reform, 100, 60-61.] 

林國明(2009)。國家、公民社會與審議民主:公民會議在台灣的發展經驗。臺灣社會 學,17161-217

[Lin, K.-M. (2009). State, civil society, and deliberative democracy: The practices of consensus conferences in Taiwan. The Taiwanese Journal of Sociology, 17, 161-217.]

林國明(2013)。多元的公民審議如何可能?程序主義與公民社會觀點。臺灣民主 季刊,10(4),137-183

[Lin, K.-M. (2013). Inclusion in public deliberation: Proceduralism and civil society perspectives. Taiwan Journal of Democracy, 10(4), 137-183.]

洪維晟(2012)。近年來國內歷史教育的改革與檢討以高中臺灣史課綱為例。臺灣 史料研究,3921-46

[Hung, W.-C. (2012). History education reform and review in recent years: Focus on high school Taiwan history curriculum guideline. Taiwan Historical Materials Studies, 39, 21-46.]

唐嘉雲(2014)。論古德曼的審議民主(未出版之碩士論文)。南華大學,嘉義縣。

[Tang, C.-Y. (2014). On the deliberative democracy of Amy Gutmann (Unpublished master’s thesis). Nanhua University, Chayi, Taiwan.]

國家教育研究院(2015)。新舊課綱變動差異之說明新聞稿。取自http://www.naer.edu.tw/files/14-1000-9474,r13-1.php?Lang=zh-tw

[Natonal Academy for Educational Research. (2015). Statement of curriculum guideline adjustment differences by Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.naer.edu.tw/files/14-1000-9474,r13-1.php?Lang=zh-tw]

張亞中(2014620日)。新課綱是台灣的三個提升。中國評論新聞網。取自http://hk.crntt.com/doc/1030/3/0/6/103030695.html

[Chang, Y.-C. (2014, June 20). Three improvements of Taiwan by new curriculum guideline. China Review News. Retrieved fromhttp://hk.crntt.com/doc/1030/3/0/6/103030695.html ] 張茂桂(2014)。

黑不黑箱有關係:從課綱修訂到服貿協議、審視台灣民主問題。教育研究月刊,2445-17

[Chang, M.-K. (2014). “Black Box” matters: A critical examination of Taiwan’s democracy from amending high school curriculum guideline to passing the cross-Strait service trade agreement. Journal of Education Research, 244, 5-17.]

郭復齊(201578日)。連種子教師也不知課綱微調了什麼。蘋果日報。取自http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/new/20150708/643784/

[Kuo, F.-C. (2015, July 8). Even the core teachers don’t know the adjustment of curriculum guideline. Apple Daily. Retrieved from http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/new/20150708/643784/]

陳宛君(2015)。Amy Gutmann審議式民主理論及其在臺灣教育改革/政策之應用(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,臺北市。

[Chen, W.-C. (2015). The exploration of Amy Gutmann’s theory of democratic education and it’s implications for education reform in Taiwan (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwn Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.]

陳東升(2006)。審議民主的限制台灣公民會議的經驗。臺灣民主季刊,3(1), 77-104

[Chen, D.-S. (2006). The limits of deliberative democracy: The experience of citizen conferences in Taiwan. Taiwan Journal of Democracy, 3(1), 77-104.]

陳閔翔、黃瑞祺(2013)。從審議民主到後國族民主:哈伯瑪斯民主理論的發展與反 思。政治與社會哲學評論,4765-118

[Chen, M.-S., & Hwang, R.-C. (2013). From deliberative democracy to postnational democracy: Reflections on Jürgen Habermas’s democratic theory. SOCIETAS: A Journal for Philosophical Study of Public Affairs, 47, 65-118.]

程彥森、李菁菁(201582日)。教育部就法論法回應微調課綱效力。教育部即時新 聞。取自https://www.edu.tw/news_Content.aspx?n=9E7AC85F1954DDA8&s=DC73756 155342E04

[Cheng, Y.-S., & Li, C.-C. (2015, Augest 2). Response of legal validity of curriculum guideline adjustment by Ministry of Education. News of Ministry of Education. Retrieved from https://www.edu.tw/news_Content.aspx?n=9E7AC85F1954DDA8&s=DC73756155342E0 4]

程晏鈴(2015617日)。高中教科書課綱爭議到底在吵什麼?天下雜誌。取自http:// www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5068417

[Cheng, Y.-L. (2015, June 17). High school textbook curriculum guideline controversy. CommonWealth Magazine. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cw.com.tw/article/article. action?id=5068417]

黃心華(2015611日)。反課綱微調沒告訴你的事。中國時報。取自http://www. chinatimes.com/newspapers/20150611000516-260109

[Huang, H.-H. (2015, June 11). What “Anti Curriculum Guideline Adjustment” didn’t tell you. China Times. Retrieved from http://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20150611000516-260109]

黃政傑(2015)。評高中生反課綱微調事件。臺灣教育評論月刊,4(8),33-44

[Huang, J.-J. (2015). Comment on anti high school curriculum guideline adjustment of high school students. Taiwan Educational Review Monthly, 4(8), 33-44.] 

黃政傑(2016)。評高中微調課綱廢止後的震盪。臺灣教育評論月刊,5(8),50-58

[Huang, J.-J. (2016). Comment on the impact of high school curriculum guideline adjustment. Taiwan Educational Review Monthly, 5(8), 50-58.]

鄒景雯、黃以敬(2014)。12年國教砍數學時數 逾90院士促懸崖勒馬。自由時報。取自http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/focus/paper/783038 

劉正山(2009)。當前審議式民主的困境及可能的出路。中國行政評論,17(2),109-132

[Liu, C.-S. (2009). The challenges of practicing deliberative democracy in Taiwan and a possible solution. The Chinese Public Administration Review, 17(2), 109-132.]

劉靜怡(2014)。由實務參與9599課綱經驗看此次社會科課綱微調爭議。司法改革雜誌,10065-66

[Chou, C.-H. (2014). Controversy on curriculum guideline adjustment in social studies:Experience from participating in 95 and 99 curriculum guideline. Journal of Judicial Reform, 100, 65-66.]

劉靜怡(2015710日)。課綱爭議下集體失能的台灣。蘋論陣線。取自http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/new/20150710/644727

[Chou, C.-H. (2015, July 10). Curriculum guideline adjustment controversy and the collective disability of Taiwan. Apple Daily. Retrieved from http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/new/20150710/644727] 

薛化元(2015)。高中課綱爭議的歷程及教科書問題以高中歷史為中心。新世紀智庫論壇,6972-75

[Hsueh, H.-Y. (2015). The process of high school curriculum guideline controversies and the Problem of textbooks issues: Focusing on high school history. New Century Forum, 69, 72-25.]

Apple, M. W. (2002). 意識型態與課程(王麗雲,譯)。臺北市:桂冠。(原著出版於1990)

[Apple, M. W. (2002). Ideology and curriculum (L.-Y. Wang, Trans.). Taipei, Taiwan: Laurel Books. (Original work published 1990)]

Abelson, J. Forest, P. Eyles, J. Smith, P. Martin, E., & Gaubin, F. (2003). Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the sesign and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science & Medicine, 57, 239-251.

Anyon, J. (1979). Ideology and United States history textbooks. Harvard Educational Review, 49(3), 361-386.

Apple, M. W. (1979). Ideology and curriculum. New York, NY: RKP.

Apple, M. W., & Aasen, P. (2003). The state and the politics of knowledge. London, UK:RoutledgeFamler.

Carpini, M. D., Cook, F. L., & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation,and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315-344.

Charney, E. (2005). Why deliberative democracy? Political Science Quarterly, 120(2), 310-311. Corngold, J. (2011). Misplaced priorities: Gutmann’s democratic theory, children’s Autonomy, and sex education policy. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 30, 67-84.

Elster, J. (Ed.). (1998). Deliberative democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Fearson, J. (1998). Deliberation as discussion. In J. Elster (Ed.), Deliberative democracy (pp. 44-69). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Feynman, R. P. (2001). 費曼的主張(吳程遠、師明睿、尹萍、王碧,譯)。臺北市:天下文化。(原著出版於1999)

[Feynman, R. P. (2001). The pleasure of nding things out. Taipei, Taiwan: Common Wealth.(Original work published 1999)]

Finish National Agency of Education. (n.d.). Current reforms. Retrieved from https://www.oph.fi/english/education_development/current_reforms

Floden, R. E. (1988). Democratic education by Amy Gutmann: The democratic imagination in America: Conversations with our past by Russell L. Hanson: Education and the US Government by Donald K. Sharpes. Oxford Review of Education, 14(3), 381-386. 

Gutmann, A. (1987). Democratic education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gutmann, A. (1998). Undemocratic Education. In P. H. Hirst & P. White (Eds.), Ph

國立臺灣師範大學教育學系教育研究集刊 Department of Education, National Taiwan Normal University

10610 臺北市大安區和平東路一段162號 / No.162, Sec. 1, Heping E. Rd., Da'an Dist., Taipei City 106, Taiwan (R.O.C.)

+886-2-77343892 +886-2-77343878