本研究從一所位於苗栗縣境內泰雅族部落的「原住民重點學校」，透過半結構式訪談、內容分析及參與觀察，探究在面對永續經營的困境下，學校端如何與教師、家長和周圍部落族人在國家體制及教育政策之中互動、共生、消長、協調、平衡、調適，以及教師、部落族人和耆老們如何由土地、語言和身體的行動來發想、設計學校課程與活動，引出族群意識、認同和學校的面貌。
「原住民重點學校」是依據1999年通過的《原住民族教育法施行細則》規定，「在原住民族地區，該校原住民學生人數達學生總數三分之一以上者。」在1998年通過的《原住民族教育法》中也提及，「原住民族教育，以採多樣化方式，以正式授課為原則，並輔以相關課程及其他與原住民族文化有關之教育活動」及「…視需要結合部落耆老共同教學，鼓勵家庭與部落全面參與。」從以上陳述可知，「原住民重點學校」有其法律基礎，能讓學校端在思考學校定位和課程設計時有依歸和保障。然而，也是因為這些國家賦予的法條，還有所挹注的大量經費資源，讓國家到整個大社會都期待此類學校會產出原住民族文化相關之教育活動，並且也只能或只會做這類事情，彷彿僅剩這些功能。這反而使得學校的運作相當掙扎，也沒真正解決學生人數減少的問題。
本研究從教師作為教學空間中的行動者，看到不同的可能性。教師在學校主要負責課程的設計與教授，其內容除了教育部部定課程外，校訂課程更是各校之獨特性的基礎。每位教師都有其專業性及主體性，透過同事間的討論激盪出不同課程，並有系統性、有意識地彙整及歸納，將學校所處部落之人、事、時、地、物，皆列入考量範疇內，依照校內學生的特質及學習方式設計出適切的課程內容。在課程準備的過程中，教師也能將家長、部落耆老、文化工作者或甚至是非原住民族社區人士邀請入校，一起針對族群文化、部落傳統進行討論，取得共識後經由教師們的專業設計成適合且可實踐的文本教材。在彼此辯詰又相互Sbalay（和解）的過程中，對於當代泰雅族的動態想像及認同開始成形，建立了原住民重點學校的價值。

This study explores how an “Indigenous Key School” located in an Atayal community in Miaoli County interacts with teachers, parents, and local community members within the framework of state and educational policies. Using semi-structured interviews, content analysis, and participant observation, it examines how while facing sustainability dilemmas, teachers, community members, and elders draw on land, language, and embodied practices to design school curricula and activities, fostering ethnic consciousness, identity, and shaping the school’s character.
An “Indigenous Key School,” as stipulated by The Enforcement Rules of the Education Act for Indigenous Peoples, refers to schools in Indigenous areas where Indigenous students comprise at least one-third of the total student population. Education Act for Indigenous Peoples states that Indigenous education should adopt diverse methods, with formal instruction as the core, supplemented by related courses and activities connected to Indigenous culture. Furthermore, the Act highlights the involvement of community elders in teaching and encourages comprehensive participation from families and communities. These legal provisions provide a foundation and protection for Indigenous Key Schools when defining their position and designing curricula. However, due to the laws and substantial funding invested by the state, there is societal and governmental expectation that these schools will primarily, if not exclusively, produce educational activities related to Indigenous culture, seemingly reducing their functions to this singular focus. This, instead, makes the operation of these schools rather challenging. The issue of declining student enrollment was also not properly addressed.
This study reveals alternative possibilities through the role of teachers as actors in educational spaces. Teachers are primarily responsible for curriculum design and delivery, encompassing both the Ministry of Education’s standardized curriculum and school-specific courses, which form the unique foundation of each school. Each teacher brings their expertise and agency, collaboratively brainstorming with colleagues to systematically integrate the people, events, times, places, and resources of the surrounding community into their planning. These considerations are aligned with students’ characteristics and learning needs to create appropriate curriculum content. During curriculum preparation, teachers engage parents, community elders, cultural workers, and even non-Indigenous community members to discuss and reach consensus on issues related to ethnic culture and traditions. The resulting discussions are professionally transformed into suitable and actionable teaching materials. Through this process of debate and Sbalay (mutual reconciliation), a contemporary imagination and identification of Atayal culture begins to take shape, establishing the value of the Indigenous Key School.