教育長期以來被視為培養人力資本的重要投資。近年來，根據國內壽險業的長期調查顯示，家庭教育準備金逐年增加，顯示教育支出已成為台灣家庭普遍關注的核心議題。本文結合「家庭動態調查」（Panel Study of Family Dynamics, PSFD）與「台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫」（Taiwan Education Panel Survey, TEPS），前者可觀察各年齡層子女的教育支出與家庭背景的關係，後者雖僅涵蓋國中教育階段，卻能同時分析教育支出與家庭背景對學習成果的影響。本文採用普通最小平方法（Ordinary Least Squares, OLS）進行實證分析，將教育支出區分為金錢教育支出（如補習與才藝費用等）與非金錢教育支出（如父母陪讀與陪伴子女的時間），探討家庭背景因素如何影響家庭在金錢與非金錢教育支出上的投入，並進一步分析兩者之間的關係，最後利用TEPS資料觀察對子女學業表現與能力發展的影響。
在家庭動態調查中，不同年齡層子女的家庭背景因素對金錢與非金錢教育支出的投入有所差異。整體而言，父親年齡較高、家庭收入較高、子女人數較多及居住在都會地區，有助於提升0-18歲首位子女的金錢教育支出。將首位子女年齡區分發現，父親年齡較高有助於0-5歲及6-18歲子女的金錢教育支出；父親教育程度較高有助於6-18歲及13-18歲子女的金錢教育支出；母親教育程度較高有助於6-12歲子女的金錢教育支出；家庭收入較高有助於6-12歲及6-18歲子女的金錢教育支出；父母婚姻狀態為已婚有助於6-12歲子女的金錢教育支出；子女人數較多有助於0-5歲、6-12歲、6-18歲、13-18歲子女的金錢教育支出；居住在都會地區有助於0-5歲、6-12歲、6-18歲子女的金錢教育支出。
在非金錢教育支出方面，子女人數較多有助於提升18歲以下首位子女的非金錢教育支出的投入。將首位子女年齡區分發現，父親年齡較高有助於0-5歲子女的非金錢教育支出，卻會減少6-18歲子女的非金錢教育支出；父親教育程度較高有助於6-12歲與6-18歲子女的非金錢教育支出；家庭收入較高則會減少6-18歲子女的非金錢教育支出；父母婚姻狀態為已婚有助於6-18歲及13-18歲子女的非金錢教育支出；子女人數較多有助於13-18歲子女的非金錢教育支出；首胎為男性也有助於6-12歲子女的非金錢教育支出。
在TEPS資料中，父母教育程度較高、家庭收入較高與居住在都會地區有助於金錢教育支出投入，相對地父母離婚及子女人數較多則會減少金錢教育支出的投入。非金錢教育支出方面，母親教育程度較高、家庭收入較高、父母離婚及居住在都會區與非金錢教育支出的投入減少有關。
「家庭動態調查」（PSFD）13-18歲首位子女資料與「台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫」(TEPS)相比，研究結果顯示部分一致與差異。兩份資料均發現父親教育程度較高有助於金錢教育支出，父母婚姻穩定則有助於非金錢教育支出的投入，但子女人數對金錢教育支出的影響方向不同，PSFD資料呈正向顯著，TEPS資料則為負向顯著。在PSFD資料中13-18歲首位子女的母親教育程度、家庭收入、父母離婚狀態及居住地區，對金錢與非金錢教育支出均沒有顯著影響。探討金錢與非金錢教育支出的關係中，在PSFD資料中13-18歲首位子女中，金錢與非金錢教育支出之間呈負向關係，但未達統計顯著水準。在TEPS資料中，針對國中階段子女的分析則發現，金錢與非金錢教育支出之間呈現負向關係，顯示兩者之間可能存在替代關係。
本研究接續使用TEPS資料，探討子女的學習成果，發現金錢與非金錢教育支出皆對子女學業成績具正向關係，但在學習能力方面，僅金錢教育支出有顯著關係，非金錢支出則無顯著關係。這些研究結果隱含，不同形式的教育支出對子女教育成果表現具有不同的影響，可能是反映家庭在教育投資策略上可能存在不同資源配置的選擇。

Education has long been regarded as an important investment in human capital. In recent years, according to longitudinal surveys conducted by the domestic life insurance industry, household education savings have steadily increased, indicating that education expenditure has become a core concern for Taiwanese families. This study integrates data from the Panel Study of Family Dynamics (PSFD) and the Taiwan Education Panel Survey (TEPS). The PSFD allows observation of the relationship between educational expenditures and family background across different age groups, while the TEPS, though limited to the junior high school stage, enables analysis of how educational expenditures and family background affect learning outcomes. This study employs Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) for empirical analysis, categorizing educational expenditures into monetary (e.g., expenses for tutoring and extracurricular activities) and non-monetary (e.g., parental accompaniment and time spent with children) components. It examines how family background influences parental investment in both types of educational expenditures, further analyzes the relationship between them, and utilizes TEPS data to explore their impact on children's academic performance and skill development.
In the PSFD data, the effects of family background factors on monetary and non-monetary educational expenditures vary across different age groups. Overall, higher paternal age, higher household income, a greater number of children, and residence in metropolitan areas contribute to increased monetary educational expenditures for the first child aged 0–18. Further dividing by age group: higher paternal age is associated with increased monetary expenditures for children aged 0–5 and 6–18; higher paternal education level is associated with increased expenditures for children aged 6–18 and 13–18; higher maternal education level is associated with expenditures for children aged 6–12; higher household income is associated with expenditures for children aged 6–12 and 6–18; parents being married is associated with expenditures for children aged 6–12; a greater number of children is positively associated with expenditures across all age groups (0–5, 6–12, 6–18, and 13–18); and living in metropolitan areas is associated with expenditures for children aged 0–5, 6–12, and 6–18.
Regarding non-monetary educational expenditures, a greater number of children contributes to higher investment for the first child aged below 18. Breaking this down by age group: higher paternal age increases non-monetary expenditures for children aged 0–5 but decreases them for children aged 6–18; higher paternal education is positively associated with expenditures for children aged 6–12 and 6–18; higher household income is associated with decreased non-monetary expenditures for children aged 6–18; parents being married contributes to higher expenditures for children aged 6–18 and 13–18; a greater number of children increases expenditures for children aged 13–18; and firstborns being male is positively associated with expenditures for children aged 6–12.
In the TEPS data, higher parental education, higher household income, and residence in metropolitan areas are associated with increased monetary educational expenditures. Conversely, parental divorce and a greater number of children are associated with reduced monetary educational expenditures. For non-monetary expenditures, higher maternal education, higher household income, parental divorce, and living in metropolitan areas are associated with decreased investments.
A comparison of the PSFD data (for first children aged 13–18) and the TEPS data reveals both consistencies and differences. Both datasets indicate that higher paternal education promotes monetary educational expenditures, and parental marital stability supports non-monetary educational investments. However, the number of children has opposite effects: a significant positive association in the PSFD data, but a significant negative association in the TEPS data. In the PSFD data for first children aged 13–18, maternal education, household income, parental divorce, and residential location show no significant effects on either type of educational expenditure. Regarding the relationship between monetary and non-monetary expenditures, the PSFD data show a negative but statistically insignificant correlation for children aged 13–18, while the TEPS data reveal a significant negative relationship at the junior high school stage, suggesting a substitutive relationship between the two forms of educational investment.
Further utilizing the TEPS data to explore children's learning outcomes, the study finds that both monetary and non-monetary educational expenditures are positively associated with academic performance. However, for learning ability, only monetary expenditures exhibit a significant effect, while non-monetary expenditures do not. These findings suggest that different forms of educational investment have varying impacts on children's educational outcomes, possibly reflecting families' differing resource allocation strategies in educational investment.

參考文獻:
工商時報（2024），「子女教育金平均攀升至481萬」。檢索日期：2025.5.20，取自：https://www.ctee.com.tw/news/20240823700319-439901[Commercial Times (2024), “Average Education Fund for Children Rises to 4.81 Million.” Retrieved May 20, 2025, from https://www.ctee.com.tw/news/20240823700319-439901]
巫有鎰（2007），「學校與非學校因素對臺東縣原、漢國小學生學業成就的影響」，《臺灣教育社會學研究》，7(1)，29–67。[Wu, Y.-I. (2007), “Effects of School and Non-School Factors on Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Elementary Students’ Academic Achievement in Taitung, Taiwan,” Taiwan Journal of Sociology of Education, 7(1), 29–67.]
李敦仁、余民寧（2005），「家庭結構、父母參與與家庭社經地位對國中生學業成就之影響」，《教育研究與發展期刊》，1(1)，1–26，台北：國立台北教育大學教育經營與管理學系。[Lee, T.-J., and Yu, M.-N. (2005), “The Effects of Family Structure, Parental Involvement, and Family Socioeconomic Status on Junior High School Students’ Academic Achievement,” Journal of Educational Research and Development, 1(1), 1–26, Taipei: Department of Educational Management, National Taipei University of Education.]
兒福聯盟（2023），《臺灣兒少學習狀況調查報告》。檢索日期：2025.5.20，取自：https://www.children.org.tw/publication_research/research_report/2655
[Child Welfare League Foundation (2023), Survey Report on Learning Conditions of Children and Adolescents in Taiwan. Retrieved May 20, 2025, from https://www.children.org.tw/publication_research/research_report/2655]
林俊瑩、黃毅志（2008），「影響臺灣地區學生學業成就的可能機制：結構方程模式的探究」，《臺灣教育社會學研究》，8(1)，45–88。[Lin, C.-Y.,and Hwang, Y.-J. (2008), “The Possible Mechanism Influencing Junior High School Students’ Achievement in Taiwan: The Exploration of Structural Equation Modeling,” Taiwan Journal of Sociology of Education, 8(1), 45–88.]
沈智暉、林明仁（2019），「論家戶所得與資產對子女教育之影響──以1993–1995出生世代及其父母稅務資料為例」，《經濟論文叢刊》，47(3)，393–453。[Shen, H.-C., and Lin, M.-J. (2019), “The Effects of Household Income and Assets on Children’s Educational Attainment: Evidence from Tax Records of the 1993–1995 Birth Cohort and Their Parents in Taiwan,” Taiwan Economic Review, 47(3), 393–453.]
孫清山、黃毅志（1996），「補習教育、文化資本與教育取得」，《臺灣社會學刊》，19，95–139。[Sun, C.-S., and Huang, Y.-C. (1996), “Cram Schooling, Cultural Capital, and Educational Attainment,” Taiwanese Journal of Sociology, 19, 95–139.]
高雄市政府教育局（2019），「直轄市及各縣市短期補習班資訊管理系統」。取自：https://bsb.kh.edu.tw/[Education Bureau, Kaohsiung City Government (2019), Information and Management System for All Cities and Counties Short-Term Tutorial Center. Retrieved from https://bsb.kh.edu.tw/]
章勝傑、林烘煜（2003），「父母婚姻變遷對子女教育成就影響之研究：父母離婚與再婚之差異分析」，《教育與心理研究》，26(3)，1–28，台北：國立政治大學教育系。[Chang, S.-C., and Lin, H.-Y. (2003), “The Effects of Parental Marital Transitions on Children's Educational Attainment: An Analysis of Divorce and Remarriage Differences,” Educational and Psychological Research, 26(3), 1–28, Taipei: Department of Education, National Chengchi University.]
曾天韻（2004），「臺灣地區出身背景對大學及研究所入學機會之影響」，《政大教育與心理研究》，27(2)，255–281。[Tseng, T.-Y. (2004), “The Impact of Family Background on Opportunities for University and Graduate School Admission in Taiwan,” Bulletin of Educational Psychology, 27(2), 255–281.]
曾明基（2016），「家庭與學校差異對國中生數學成就影響之研究」，《臺北市立大學學報：教育類》，47(1)，23–40。[Tseng, M.-C. (2016), “Consider the Difference from Family and School Which Effect Student Mathematics Achievement,” Journal of University of Taipei: Education, 47(1), 23–40.]
蔡彣涓（2012），「高中教育生產函數的估計──學校品質與家庭資源的投入產出分析」，《經濟論文叢刊》，40(4)，481–513。[Tsai, W.-J. (2012), “Estimates of Education Production Functions: The Effectiveness of School Inputs and Parental Financial Resources,” Taiwan Economic Review, 40(4), 481–513.]
蔡孟錦（2016），「家庭所得與家庭結構對教育支出之影響──臺灣實證分析」，《人 文及社會科學集刊》，21(1)，1–36，台北：中央研究院。[Tsai, M.-C. (2016), “The Influence of Family Income and Family Structure on Education Expenditure: Evidence from Taiwan,” Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 21(1), 1–36, Taipei: Academia Sinica.]
陳建州、劉正（2004），「論多元入學方案之教育機會均等性」，《教育研究集刊》，50(4)，115–146。[Chen, J.-J., and Liu, J. (2004), “The Multi-Phase High School Entrance Program and the Equity of Educational Opportunity,” Bulletin of Educational Research, 50(4), 115–146.]
韓文端、黃建忠（2001），「台灣大專就讀率與教育支出：家庭結構或所得重要？」，《社會政策與社會工作學刊》，5(1)，55–98，台北：空中大學社會政策與社會工作學刊編輯委員會。[Han, W.-J., and Huang, C.-C. (2001), “College Attendance and Education Expenditure in Taiwan: Does Family Structure or Income Matter?” Social Policy and Social Work, 5(1), 55–98, Taipei: Editorial Committee of Social Policy and Social Work, National Open University.]
駱明慶（2001），「教育成就的省籍與性別差異」，《經濟論文叢刊》，29(2)，117–152。[Luoh, M.-C. (2001), “Differences in Educational Attainment across Ethnic and Gender Groups in Taiwan,” Taiwan Economic Review, 29(2), 117–152.]
駱明慶（2002），「誰是台大學生—性別、省籍與城鄉差異」，《經濟論文叢刊》，30(1)，113–147。[Luoh, M.-C. (2002), “Who Are NTU Students?—Differences across Ethnic and Gender Groups and Urban/Rural Discrepancy,” Taiwan Economic Review, 30(1), 113–147.]
駱明慶（2004），「升學機會與家庭背景」，《經濟論文叢刊》，32(4)，417–455。[Luoh, M.-C. (2004), “Educational Opportunities and Family Background in Taiwan,” Taiwan Economic Review, 32(4), 417–455.]
黃芳玫、吳齊殷（2010），「台灣國中學生個人特質、家庭背景與學業成績──追蹤調查資料之研究」，《經濟論文叢刊》，38(1)，65–97。[Huang, F.-M., and Wu, C.-I. (2010), “Individual Characteristics, Family Backgrounds, and Educational Outcomes of Taiwanese Junior High School Students: Panel Data Analysis,” Taiwan Economic Review, 38(1), 65–97.]
黃芳玫、林軒竹（2021），「父母離婚、死亡、再婚對子女教育成就之影響：兄弟姐妹長期追蹤資料」，《人口學刊》，62，91–137。[Huang, F.-M., and Lin, H.-C. (2021), “The Impact of Parental Divorce, Death, and Remarriage on Children’s Educational Achievements,” Journal of Population Studies, 62, 91–137.]
衛生福利部（2023），《中華民國111年兒童及少年生活狀況調查報告－兒童篇》。台北：衛生福利部。[Ministry of Health and Welfare (2023), Survey Report for the 2022 Wave of Children and Adolescents' Living Conditions: Children's Part, Taipei: Ministry of Health and Welfare.]
Alomar, B. O. (2006), “Personal and Family Paths to Pupil Achievement,” Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 34(8), 907–922.
Bassani, C. (2006), “A Test of Social Capital Theory Outside of the American Context: Family and School Social Capital and Youths’ Math Scores in Canada, Japan, and the United States,” International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 380–403.
Becker, G. S. and N. Tomes (1979), “An Equilibrium Theory of the Distribution of Income and Intergenerational Mobility,” Journal of Political Economy, 87(6), 1153–1189.
Becker, G. S. and N. Tomes (1986), “Human Capital and the Rise and Fall of Families,” Journal of Labor Economics, 4(3, Part 2), S1–S39.
Behrman, J. R. (1999), “The Impact of Economic Resources, Family Background, and Parental Education on Child Schooling Outcomes in Latin America,” Economics of Education Review, 18(3), 259–270.
Betts, J. R. and D. Morell (1999), “The Determinants of Undergraduate Grade Point Average: The Relative Importance of Family Background, High School Resources, and Peer Group Effects,” Journal of Human Resources, 34(2), 268–293.
Black, S. E., P. J. Devereux, and K. G. Salvanes (2005), “The More the Merrier? The Effect of Family Size and Birth Order on Children’s Education,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(2), 669–700.
Blake, J. (1981), “Family Size and the Quality of Children,” Demography, 18(4), 421–442.
Bond, R. and P. Saunders (1999), “Routes of Success: Influences on the Occupational Attainment of Young British Males,” British Journal of Sociology, 50(2), 217–249.
Borghans, L., H. Meijers, and B. Ter Weel (2008), “The Role of Noncognitive Skills in Explaining Cognitive Test Scores,” Economic Inquiry, 46(1), 2–12.
Brand, J. E., R. Moore, X. Song, and Y. Xie (2019), “Why Does Parental Divorce Lower Children’s Educational Attainment? A Causal Mediation Analysis,” Sociological Science, 6, 264–292.
Cadena, B. C. and B. J. Keys (2015), “Human Capital and the Lifetime Costs of Impatience,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 7(3), 126–153.
Carneiro, P. and J. J. Heckman (2002), “The Evidence on Credit Constraints in Post-Secondary Schooling,” The Economic Journal, 112(482), 989–1018.
Chen, S. H., Y.-C. Chen, and J.-T. Liu (2009), “The Impact of Unexpected Maternal Death on Education: First Evidence from Three National Administrative Data Links,” American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 99(2), 149–153.
Chen, Y.-C., J.-T. Liu, and L.-M. Wang (2020), “Divorce Effects on Teenagers,” Demography, 57(4), 1251–1273.
Cobb-Clark, D. A., N. Salamanca, and A. Zhu (2019), “Parenting Style as an Investment in Human Development,” Journal of Population Economics, 32(4), 1315–1352.
Cunha, F., J. J. Heckman, L. Lochner, and D. V. Masterov (2006), “Interpreting the Evidence on Life Cycle Skill Formation,” in E. A. Hanushek and F. Welch (eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Education, Volume I, 697–812, Amsterdam: North Holland.
Cunha, F., J. J. Heckman, and S. M. Schennach (2010), “Estimating the Technology of Cognitive and Noncognitive Skill Formation,” Econometrica, 78(3), 883–931.
Ginther, D. K. and R. A. Pollak (2004), “Family Structure and Children’s Educational Outcomes: Blended Families, Stylized Facts, and Descriptive Regressions,” Demography, 41(4), 671–696.
Haile, G. A. and A. N. Nguyen (2008), “Determinants of Academic Attainment in the United States: A Quantile Regression Analysis of Test Scores,” Education Economics, 16(1), 29–57.
Hauser, R. M. and W. H. Sewell (1986), “Family Effects in Simple Models of Education, Occupational Status, and Earnings: Findings from the Wisconsin and Kalamazoo Studies,” Journal of Labor Economics, 4(3, Part 2), S83–S115
.Heckman, J. J. (2006), “Skill Formation and the Economics of Investing in Disadvantaged Children,” Science, 312(5782), 1900–1902.
Heckman, J. J. and T. D. Kautz (2012), “Hard Evidence on Soft Skills,” Labour Economics, 19(4), 451–464.
Heckman, J. J. and T. D. Kautz (2014), “Fostering and Measuring Skills: Interventions That Improve Character and Cognition,” NBER Working Paper Series, No. 20749.
Heckman, J. J., J. Stixrud, and S. Urzua (2006), “The Effects of Cognitive and Noncognitive Abilities on Labor Market Outcomes and Social Behavior,” Journal of Labor Economics, 24(3), 411–482.
Hofferth, S. L., J. Boisjoly, and G. J. Duncan (1998), “Parents’ Extrafamilial Resources and Children’s School Attainment,” Sociology of Education, 71, 246–268.
Houtenville, A. J. and K. S. Conway (2008), “Parental Effort, School Resources, and Student Achievement,” Journal of Human Resources, 43(2), 437–453.
Kalil, A., R. Ryan, and M. Corey (2012), “Diverging Destinies: Maternal Education and the Developmental Gradient in Time with Children,” Demography, 49(4), 1361–1383.
Kearl, J. R. and C. L. Pope (1986), “Unobservable Family and Individual Contributions to the Distributions of Income and Wealth,” Journal of Labor Economics, 4(3, Part 2), S48–S79.
Lareau, A. (2002), “Invisible Inequality: Social Class and Child Rearing in Black Families and White Families,” American Sociological Review, 67, 747–776.
Lundberg, S. and R. A. Pollak (2014), “Cohabitation and the Uneven Retreat from Marriage in the United States, 1950–2010,” in L. P. Boustan, C. Frydman, and R. A. Margo (eds.), Human Capital in History: The American Record, 241–272, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stevenson, D. F. and D. P. Baker (1992), “Shadow Education and Allocation in Formal Schooling: Transition to University in Japan,” American Journal of Sociology, 97(6), 1639–1657.
Sun, Y. and Y. Li (2011), “Effects of Family Structure Type and Stability on Children’s Academic Performance Trajectories,” Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(3), 541–556.
Todd, P. E. and K. I. Wolpin (2003), “On the Specification and Estimation of the Production Function for Cognitive Achievement,” Economic Journal, 113(485), F3–F33.
Tsai, W.-J. (2012), “Estimates of Education Production Functions: The Effectiveness of School Inputs and Parental Financial Resources,” Taiwan Economic Review, 40(4), 481–513.