公立高級中等以下學校教師成績考核辦法之法解釋論及法政策論之研究

Abstract

本研究之主要目的為：1、瞭解我國當前公立高級中等以下學校教師成績考核辦法之規定；2、從法解釋論立場，探討在該辦法實施下當前實務案例之裁判及解釋；3、從法政策論方向，（1）探討該辦法在教師人權保障及央地分權上之憲法要求、（2）以美國中小學教師考核制度為借鏡、（3）檢視各界回應當前教師成績考核困境之制度設計、（4）提出我國教師成績考核制度後續應發展及設計之方向。本研究從法學研究途徑來進行，公立高級中等以下學校教師成績考核辦法為本研究之標的，法規及案例之解釋、憲法要求、美國制度比較及制度設計則為本研究標的探究的四大面向；參與觀察、文獻分析、比較法研究及法學評論為本研究方法之選擇。研究結論如下： 一、在程序部分之解釋：意見陳述權需保障；委員性別比例需保障；校長之覆核權有限制要求；縣市政府教育局監督權限有限制；訴願及行政訴訟提起之禁止；國立高級中等以下學校無再申訴之程序利益；法律明確授權之必要；擁有考核權力者應負舉證責任。 二、在實體部分之解釋：刑事處分並非成績考列第四條第一項各款的唯一考量；學校辦理成績考核時應遵照平等原則、及不能有其他違法或顯然不當等情事；校方享有相當之判斷餘地，除非其判斷有恣意濫用及其他違法情事；女性教師工作考核應獲保障；比例原則、利益衡平原則、不利益變更禁止原則、懲處法定原則、法律明確性原則及從輕原則之遵守；違反第四條第一項第一款及第二款中有關事病假之規定，則無法考列該款，即便非屬教學不力之情形；教師成績考核不能訂定比例設限。 三、從憲法之要求檢驗得知：教師成績考核辦法在法律保留原則、將未加區分的刑事處分列為成績考核項目的比例原則檢驗、無區分工作差異性的平等原則檢驗以及中央與地方分權上並無違憲之事實，然而若以不當聯結禁止原則檢驗未加區分的刑事處分規定，則有違憲之虞，此外未將原住民、身心障礙者、性別平等等優惠性待遇列入規定、且在成績考核辦法中對性別比例設限、法規明確性原則及正當法律程序檢驗等也有違憲之虞。 四、美國中小學教師考核制度特別強調中央與地方的分工合作，在評鑑程序上強調受評鑑教師表達意見之權利，此外，評鑑內容所涉及之人權自由限制處理方式，皆可為我國公立高級中等以下學校教師成績考核辦法之借鏡。 五、教育部所提之修正草案仍有諸多問題未回應到，新制度設計應該將辦法提升至法律位階；促成中央與地方政府分權及合作；重視教師專業自主；落實弱勢族群之照顧、性別平等之達成；考核項目要具體化、彈性化、分類化、合目的性；程序要公開透明化；暢通申訴管道；委員會組成要更符程序正義。

The purpose of this study is manifold. It aims to: (1) understand the current “Regulations Governing Teacher Performance Appraisal in Public Schools at Senior High School Level or Below,” (2) explore the judgements, decisions, and constructions of the cases based on the theory of legal construction, and, based on the theory of legal policy, (3) take the American institution governing teacher performance appraisal in the primary and secondary school as the reference, (4) discuss the constitutional demands in teacher human rights and central-local relations, (5) examine the possible institutional designs, and (6) suggest the following development of institutional design governing teacher performance appraisal in public schools at senior high school level or below. The study is conducted in legal path. “Regulations Governing Teacher Performance Appraisal in Public Schools at Senior High School Level or below” is the target of this study. The four aspects of this study are the construction of the regulations and cases, comparison of the American institution, constitutional demand, and the institutional design. The methods of this study are participating observation, literature analysis, contrastive, and legal comments. The conclusions are as follows: 1. In the aspect of procedure: a. the rights of expressing is protected. b. the sexual ratio of the committee is protected. c. the reviewing power of the principal is restrained. d. the supervision power of the local government is restrained. e. the petition and administrative litigation is prohibited. f. the teachers of national schools at senior high school level or below can’t re-appeal. g. the explicit authorization is required. h. the appraiser bears the burden of proof. 2. In the aspect of entity: a. the criminal sanction is not the only condition of Paragraph 1, Article 4. b. the principle of equality and proportionality should be obeyed. c. the margin of appreciation can be used by the school. d. the female teacher should be protected under appraisal. e. those who have called in sick for too long can’t be appraised in the range of Paragraphs 1 or 2, Article 4 even though they perform well in teaching. f. the ratio in appraisal can’t be set. 3. In the aspect of constitutional demand, not taking the rights of the aboriginals, the handicapped, the female into consideration might violate the constitution. 4. The American appraisal institution emphasizes on the cooperation between the central and local governments. 5. the modified bill on “Regulations Governing Teacher Performance Appraisal in Public Schools at Senior High School Level or Below” is not satisfied.