臺灣在少子化與人口結構變遷下，鄉村地區面臨公共資源配置與小型學校存續的壓力。現行裁併政策多以學生數與經濟效益為主，忽略學校在地方社會中的結構性功能。然而，鄉村小校深刻嵌入社區生活，承擔文化傳承、地方認同建構與集體意義維繫等多重角色，已超越單純教育機構的定位。
本研究採單一個案研究法，以高雄市內門區木柵國小為個案研究對象，運用Ruth Liepins（2000）所提出的解讀社區框架，從人（People）、意義（Meanings）、實踐（Practices）、空間與結構（Spaces and Structures）四個維度，探討學校與社區之間的雙向互動與關係。研究核心問題包括（一）鄉村學校如何在地方空間網絡中被形塑、使用，並參與社區運作；（二）社區行動如何影響學校的日常運作；（三）學校與社區的雙向互動在地方生活中產生何種核心價值。資料蒐集採三角檢證方式，整合文件分析、參與觀察與深度訪談三種方法。
研究結果顯示，木柵國小在社區空間網絡中的位置，並非由地理中心性所決定，而是由其制度開放程度與空間可嵌入性共同形塑。學校透過全日課、夜光天使與1919陪讀班等照護實踐，填補學區家庭在勞動與照護之間的結構性缺口，成為支撐家庭日常運作的隱性基礎設施；透過西拉雅族語課程、合唱團展演與食農體驗，學校成為文化傳承的制度性場域；透過校慶、音樂會等週期性活動，學校空間轉化為具有公共性質的社區聚集場域。上述功能的形成，並非來自學校主動擴張制度邊界，而是在少數具多重組織身分之在地行動者的長期橋接下，逐步嵌入社區日常生活的運作之中。
本研究進一步發現，學校與社區雙向互動所產生的核心價值上，木柵國小個案揭示即使政策資源不足、廢校威脅持續存在，學校與社區仍能透過人際信任、空間共享與文化意義認同，維繫社區基本生命力的集體能力。此外，本研究發現Liepins（2000）框架難以解釋危機時刻的集體動員機制，故援引社會資本理論加以補充，說明橋接型與結合型社會資本如何在危機中被轉化為有方向的集體行動，為框架的動態分析補上關鍵的理論缺口。
本研究提出三項政策建議：其一，裁併校評估應超越學生人數的單一指標，將學校所承擔的照護功能、文化傳承節點的不可替代性及社區社會資本的潛在損失納入評估向度；其二，應重新檢視「特色學校」競爭邏輯，避免在資源稀缺的鄉村教育製造進一步的耗損，並研擬更具包容性的制度性支持方案；其三，鄉村地區整體規劃應與廢併校評估程序建立制度性銜接，透過質性調查形式系統性理解學校作為社會性基礎設施的在地意義，彌補現行政策框架的資訊落差。

As Taiwan faces a declining birth rate and demographic changes, rural school consolidation policies focus mainly on student enrollment and economic efficiency, overlooking the social functions that schools perform in local communities. This study uses Muzha Elementary School in Neimen District, Kaohsiung City as a case research, applying Ruth Liepins' (2000) community framework across four dimensions: People, Meanings, Practices, and Spaces and Structures, to examine the interaction and symbiotic relationship between the school and the community. Data were collected for triangulation, combining document analysis, participant observation, and in-depth interviews with 15 participants.
The findings show that the school's position in the community is shaped by its institutional openness rather than geographic centrality. The school simultaneously functions as a care infrastructure supporting household functioning, an institutional site for Siraya cultural transmission, and a public gathering space activated through periodic community events. These functions developed through the long-term bridging efforts of a small number of local actors holding multiple organizational roles, rather than through the school actively expanding its institutional boundaries.
The core value produced through school-community interaction is a form of collective capacity: the ability to sustain community vitality through interpersonal trust, shared space, and cultural meaning even under limited policy resources and ongoing closure threats. Based on these findings, this study proposes several key policy recommendations. First, school closure assessments must incorporate the loss of social infrastructure. Second, the competitive logic of featured school policies should be reconsidered. Finally, rural spatial planning must be institutionally linked to school consolidation procedures to better reflect community needs.

一、 英文文獻
Bagley, C., & Hillyard, S. (2011). Village schools in England: At the heart of their community? Australian Journal of Education, 55(1), 37–49.
Banwell, K., & Kingham, S. (2022). Living well in your local neighbourhood: The value of bumping and gathering places. Wellbeing, Space and Society, 4, Article 100124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wss.2022.100124
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1573
Beach, D., Johansson, M., Öhrn, E., Rönnlund, M., & Rosvall, P.-Å. (2019). Rurality and education relations: Metro-centricity and local values in rural communities and rural schools. European Educational Research Journal, 18(1), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904118780420
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Boys, J., & Jeffery, A. (2021). Educating the city: Urban schools as social infrastructure (Discussion Paper). Bartlett Real Estate Institute, UCL; Architecture Initiative.
Casey, S. (2005). Establishing standards for social infrastructure. UQ Boilerhouse Community Engagement Centre, The University of Queensland.
Corbett, M. (2015). Towards a rural sociological imagination: Ethnography and schooling in mobile modernity. Ethnography and Education, 10(3), 263–277.
Crawshaw, J., & Gkartzios, M. (2016). Getting to know the island: Artistic experiments in rural community development. Journal of Rural Studies, 43, 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.12.007
Cutter, S. L., Ash, K. D., & Emrich, C. T. (2016). Urban–rural differences in disaster resilience. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 106(6）, 1236–1252. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2016.1194740
Davis, J.-M., Reyes, M., Abrogar, J., Bourgoin, J., Brown, M., Kellum, E., Polito, F., & Jiusto, S. (2023). Puerto Rico's rescued schools: A grassroots adaptive reuse movement for abandoned school buildings. Social Sciences, 12(12), Article 662. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12120662
DeYoung, A. J., & Howley, C. B. (1990). The political economy of rural school consolidation. Peabody Journal of Education, 67(4), 63–89.
Dority, B. L., & Thompson, E. C. (2013). Economic issues in school district consolidation in Nebraska. Great Plains Research, 23(2), 145–157.
Dowdall, E. (2011). Closing public schools in Philadelphia: Lessons from six urban districts. The Pew Charitable Trusts.
Eacott, S., & Freeborn, A. (2020). Regional and rural school consolidation: A scoping study of research literature. International Journal of Educational Management, 34(3), 477–491. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-08-2019-0318
Enneking, G., Custers, G., & Engbersen, G. (2025). The rapid rise of social infrastructure: Mapping the concept through a systematic scoping review. Cities, 158, 105608.
Fargas-Malet, M., & Bagley, C. (2022). Is small beautiful? A scoping review of 21st-century research on small rural schools in Europe. European Educational Research Journal, 21(5), 822–844. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041211022202
Fargas-Malet, M., & Bagley, C. (2024). Conceptualising small rural school-community relationships within a divided society: People, meanings, practices and spaces. Oxford Review of Education, 50(4), 570–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2023.2262383
Finnigan, K. S., & Lavner, M. (2012). A political analysis of community influence over school closure. The Urban Review, 44(1), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-011-0179-9
Fraser, T., Cherdchaiyapong, N., Tekle, W., Thomas, E., Zayas, J., Page-Tan, C., & Aldrich, D. P. (2022). Trust but verify: Validating new measures for mapping social infrastructure in cities. Urban Climate, 46, 101287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101287
Gabdrakhmanov, N. K., & Rubtsov, V. A. (2014). The objects of social infrastructure in the social image of the region shaping. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 140, 419–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.446
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469
Haas, T. (1990). Leaving home: Circumstances afflicting rural America during the last decade and their impact on public education. Peabody Journal of Education, 67, 7–28.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Beacon Press.
Karlberg-Granlund, G. (2019). Exploring the challenge of working in a small school and community: Uncovering hidden tensions. Journal of Rural Studies, 72, 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.10.017
Klinenberg, E. (2018). Palaces for the people: How social infrastructure can help fight inequality, polarization, and the decline of civic life. Crown.
Kvalsund, R. (2009) ‘Centralized decentralization or decentralized centralization?A review of newer Norwegian research on schools and their communities’International Journal of Educational Research 48(2): 89–99.
Kvalsund, R. (2019). Bigger or better? Research-based reflections on the cultural deconstruction of rural schools in Norway: Metaperspectives. In H. Jahnke, V. Caroline, & P. Meusburger (Eds.), Geographies of schooling, knowledge and space (Vol. 14, pp. 179–217). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18799-6_10
Kvalsund, R., & Hargreaves, L. (2009). Reviews of research in rural schools and their communities: Analytical perspectives and a new agenda. International Journal of Educational Research, 48(3), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2009.02.002
Latham, A., & Layton, J. (2019). Social infrastructure and the public life of cities: Studying urban sociality and public spaces. Geography Compass, 13(7), e12444. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12444
Latham, A., & Layton, J. (2022). Social infrastructure: Why it matters and how urban geographers might study it. Urban Geography, 43(5), 659–668. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2021.2003609
Lehtonen, O. (2021). Primary school closures and population development – Is school vitality an investment in the attractiveness of the (rural) communities or not? Journal of Rural Studies, 82, 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.011
Liepins, R. (2000). Exploring rurality through 'community': Discourses, practices and spaces shaping Australian and New Zealand rural 'communities'. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(3), 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00067-4
Lowe, K., Harrison, N., Tennent, C., Guenther, J., Vass, G., & Moodie, N. (2019). Factors affecting the development of school and Indigenous community engagement: A systematic review. The Australian Educational Researcher, 46(2), 253–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00314-6
Lyson, T. A. (1995). The role of rural schools in community development: Policy issues and implications. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 11(3), 129–137.
Lyson, T. A. (2002). What does a school mean to a community? Assessing the social and economic benefits of schools to rural villages in New York. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 17(3), 131–137.
Schafft, K. A., & Harmon, H. (2011). The role of education in community development. In J. W. Robinson, Jr. & G. P. Green (Eds.), Introduction to community development: Theory, practice, and service-learning (pp. 245–260). Sage Publications.
Seim, J. (2024). Participant observation, observant participation, and hybrid ethnography. Sociological Methods & Research, 53(1), 121–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124120986209
Star, S. L. (1999). The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027649921955326
Supule, I. (2019). Community school model: Is it an alternative for school closures in rural territories? Eastern European Countryside, 25(1), 171–194. https://doi.org/10.12775/EEC.2019.007
Tieken, M. C., & Auldridge-Reveles, T. R. (2019). Rethinking the school closure research: School closure as spatial injustice. Review of Educational Research, 89(6), 917–953. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319877151
Tomaney, J., Blackman, M., Natarajan, L., Panayotopoulos-Tsiros, D., Sutcliffe-Braithwaite, F., & Taylor, M. (2024). Social infrastructure and ‘left-behind places’. Regional Studies, 58(6), 1237–1250. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2023.2224828
Tonkiss, F. (2015). Afterword: Economies of infrastructure. City, 19(2–3）, 384–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2015.1019232
Welsh, R. O. (2025）. Does rural mean not urban? Reconsidering the conceptualization and operationalization of rural school districts. Urban Education, 60(6）, 1530–1565. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420859241227929
Witten, K., McCreanor, T., Kearns, R., & Ramasubramanian, L. (2001). The impacts of a school closure on neighbourhood social cohesion: Narratives from Invercargill, New Zealand. Health & Place, 7(4), 307–317. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353829201000235
Young, I. M. (1990). The ideal of 'community' and the politics of difference. In L. Nicholson (Ed.), Feminism/Postmodernism (pp. 300–323). Routledge.
Zuckerman, S. J. (2020). The role of rural school leaders in a school-community partnership. Theory & Practice in Rural Education, 10(1), 73–91. https://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2020.v10n1p73-91
二、 中文文獻
內門鄉誌。國家圖書館臺灣記憶系統。取自https://tm.ncl.edu.tw/article?u=006_001_0000304579
王駿（2015）。小規模國小廢（併）校措施之探討－以臺中市為例。東海大學公共事務碩士在職專班。
王薇婷、賴欣男、葉承叡、曾思茜、陳柔謙（2024）。走一條回家的路-西拉雅文化路徑_臺灣多元族群文化路徑內門段觀光整體發展計畫（版本 2024-07-13T19:15:57.057750）〔資料集〕。https://data.depositar.io/dataset/_11002
何俊毅（2010）。政策論證模式分析小型學校整併政策之研究：以南投縣為例。國立暨南國際大學教育政策與行政學系。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/4vth4e
吳清山（2018）。近50年來國民教育發展之探究：九年國民教育與十二年國民基本教育政策之分析。教育研究集刊，64（4），1–36。https://doi.org/10.3966/102848502018126404001
李政賢（譯）（2021）。質性研究：從開始到完成（二版）〔原著：R. K. Yin〕。五南。
徐藝華（2006）。與時間賽跑的學校。師友月刊，（466），0–6。https://doi.org/10.6437/EM.200604.0000
高雄市內門區木柵國民小學（2023）。高雄市內門區木柵國民小學學校轉型優質3年永續發展計畫。
高雄市政府農業局（2012）。內門區木柵社區：寧靜豐饒的山居歲月。高雄市政府農業局。
高雄市政府教育局（2023）。《有關欲申請112年公立國民中小學暨幼兒園教師介聘他縣市服務至本市公立國小之教師相關應知悉事項》（高市教小字第11232755300號函）
郭佳妮（2020）。臺灣非都市計畫地區校園閒置空間再利用之地權地用類型研究—以國小廢校為例。國立成功大學都市計劃學系。https://doi.org/10.6844/NCKU202002908
國家發展委員會(2024)。中華民國人口推估(2024年至2070年)。https://pop-proj.ndc.gov.tw/
陳憶芬（1994）。山地小型國民小學合併之評估研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/34b329
陳韻如、江懿瑄、李沛蓁、王楚中、林宏俊、張伯璜（2024）。文化加值與永續農業發展_內門區鄉村地區整體規劃（版本 2024-07-30T16:50:27.639062）〔資料集〕。https://data.depositar.io/dataset/_11203
陳韻如、葛函昕、陳謙睿、郭柏漢（2024）。內門演義_臺灣多元族群文化路徑羅漢門文化觀光整體發展計畫（版本 2024-07-13T19:09:36.760594）〔資料集〕。https://data.depositar.io/dataset/_1103
黃雅玲（2008）。小型學校面臨裁併危機之個案研究。國立中正大學教育研究所。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/54gtf3
黃源協（2009）。邁向永續社區：社會資本、社區營造與社區發展之研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。政治大學公共行政學系，146-169。
黃源協、劉素珍（2009）。社會資本對臺灣社區發展之政策意涵。行政暨政策學報，（48），155–192。
鈕文英（2015）。研究方法與論文寫作（二版修訂版）。雙葉書廊。
楊清豐、黃文賢、趙光華、范熾強、陳彥光、陳明達、吳夢竹、李秀櫻（2015）。小校整併之歷程—以一所學校為例。載於104校務經營個案研究實務研討會成果集（頁235–264）。國立臺中教育大學。
葉子超（1996）。澎湖縣國民小學小型學校合併之研究。國立嘉義師範學院國民教育研究所。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/p44exv
監察院（2004）。教育部所屬預算分配結構檢討。監察院教育及文化委員會。
監察院（2012）。國中小學廢併校後之閒置校舍活化成效與檢討專案調查研究報告（調查報告編號：101教調0055）。
監察院（2024）。彰化縣政府辦理大城鄉潭墘國小停辦案（調查報告編號：113教調0020）。
蔡志榮（2002）。從經濟觀點探討國民小學最適經營規模之研究－以嘉義縣為例。國立臺南大學社會科教育學系教學碩士班。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/vx2j4b
鄧明星（2005）。花蓮縣國民小學規模過小學校合班併校研究。國立東華大學公共行政研究所。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/62dyzg
鍾雯琦（2011）。屏東縣國民小學小校裁併校危機及其因應策略之研究。國立屏東教育大學教育學系。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/p685g8
饗庭伸（2020）。折疊都市：從日本的都市規劃實踐經驗，探尋人口減少時代的城市設計和人本生活（林書嫻譯）。台北市：臉譜出版。