教师教育研究
教師教育研究
교사교육연구
Teacher Education Research
2015年
2期
1~7
,共null页
基础教育 公众满意度 影响因素 HLM模型分析
基礎教育 公衆滿意度 影響因素 HLM模型分析
기출교육 공음만의도 영향인소 HLM모형분석
compulsory education; public satisfaction; influential factors; Hierarchical Linear Model
本文在“2012新加坡连氏中国城市公共服务质量调查”的基础上,对我国城市基础教育公众满意度现状进行了评析,发现34个中心城市的基础教育公众满意度存在较大差异。通过构建HLM(分层线性模型),从城市层面的因素(含人均GDP、常住人口、人均基础教育财政支出、基础教育财政支出水平等)、受访市民的个人因素(含年龄段、性别、职业、学历、收入等)等两个层面解释影响34个城市基础教育公众满意度差异的因素,发现受访市民的性别、户籍、学历、职业、收入等变量显著影响公众对基础教育的满意程度(P〈0.05),能较充分地解释基础教育满意度在城市之间的差异,而城市层面的因素对满意度在城市间差异的解释能力不强。为了促进基础教育均等化、促进教育公平、减轻学生负担,本文还提出了可操作性的政策建议。
本文在“2012新加坡連氏中國城市公共服務質量調查”的基礎上,對我國城市基礎教育公衆滿意度現狀進行瞭評析,髮現34箇中心城市的基礎教育公衆滿意度存在較大差異。通過構建HLM(分層線性模型),從城市層麵的因素(含人均GDP、常住人口、人均基礎教育財政支齣、基礎教育財政支齣水平等)、受訪市民的箇人因素(含年齡段、性彆、職業、學歷、收入等)等兩箇層麵解釋影響34箇城市基礎教育公衆滿意度差異的因素,髮現受訪市民的性彆、戶籍、學歷、職業、收入等變量顯著影響公衆對基礎教育的滿意程度(P〈0.05),能較充分地解釋基礎教育滿意度在城市之間的差異,而城市層麵的因素對滿意度在城市間差異的解釋能力不彊。為瞭促進基礎教育均等化、促進教育公平、減輕學生負擔,本文還提齣瞭可操作性的政策建議。
본문재“2012신가파련씨중국성시공공복무질량조사”적기출상,대아국성시기출교육공음만의도현상진행료평석,발현34개중심성시적기출교육공음만의도존재교대차이。통과구건HLM(분층선성모형),종성시층면적인소(함인균GDP、상주인구、인균기출교육재정지출、기출교육재정지출수평등)、수방시민적개인인소(함년령단、성별、직업、학력、수입등)등량개층면해석영향34개성시기출교육공음만의도차이적인소,발현수방시민적성별、호적、학력、직업、수입등변량현저영향공음대기출교육적만의정도(P〈0.05),능교충분지해석기출교육만의도재성시지간적차이,이성시층면적인소대만의도재성시간차이적해석능력불강。위료촉진기출교육균등화、촉진교육공평、감경학생부담,본문환제출료가조작성적정책건의。
This paper analyzed the satisfaction of compulsory education in 34 central cities which based on "2012 lien public service quality survey for Chinese cities". The finding shows that there is a big satisfaction difference among these cities. By setting up a Hierarchical Linear Model, this paper enquires the influence on citizens' satisfaction from both city-level and citizen-level. The city-level variables include GDP per capita, population scale, per capita public expenditure on compulsory education, compulsory education expenditure level etc. , while the citizen-level variables include age group, gender, occupation, education, income etc. The finding also shows that the citizen-level variables, such as gender, household register, occupation, education, income, significantly explain the variance in satisfaction among cities (P〈0. 05), but the city-level variables can't explain it though they have significant impact on citizens' satisfaction. Finally, we put forward relevant policy suggestions to promote equalization of education foundation, education equity, and reduce the burden of students.