我國政府教育經費保障之研究

Abstract

我國保障教育經費歷史久遠。1930年代至今，先後有《憲法》第一百六十四條和《教育經費編列與管理法》第三條第二項，使教育經費得以於編列預算的競爭中，保有穩定且成長的經費。然而這樣的制度不僅於國際間少見，也是我國唯一明文規定預算編製需達一定額度的經費支出類別。 在政經社環境快速變遷，政府職能與公共支出與日俱增，公共資源更為有限的情形下，為何教育經費得以成為唯一且至今依然明確保障預算編列下限的支出項目？這樣的制度可能帶來什麼樣的影響，值得我們的關心與重視。本研究透過分析文獻資料、官方數據資料，配合書面訪談資料，達到梳理我國教育經費保障的歷史脈絡，深入了解教育經費保障制度的運作與內涵，初探教育經費保障制度所帶來的影響等研究目的。 第二章按時間軸將我國教育保障分為四個時期，分別為行政決定期；解嚴後的憲法保障期；憲法保障凍結後的無保障期；以及《教育經費編列與管理法》訂定後的法令保障期。縱然兩個制度都是為了保障教育經費，但其規範內容不同之處亦不少，包含經費定義、計算基準與分配機制都有所不同，也使其對我國的影響大有不同。 第三章除比較我國與世界主要國家之教育經費編列現況外，著重分析兩制度帶來的影響。《憲法》第一百六十四條以解嚴後為探討主軸，發現該制度對預算有連動性影響，包含財政赤字、追加預算與特別預算的增加。亦改變中央與地方政府的補助關係，使地方政府改變教育經費的配置，甚至間接促成大學校數增加。《教育經費編列與管理法》訂定後，最明顯的改變則在於國民教育與高中教育小班教學更為普遍，促成十二年國教、實驗教育等陸續推動。另有因制度設計而造成各級政府與各級學校財政負擔增加，課責更加困難等影響。 最後綜合上述研究發現，筆者認為目前教育經費保障制度，無論於財政面、預算編製面，或是教育政策執行面，都確有不妥且不合時宜之處。然而考量到教育有準公共財的屬性，以及取消一項保障制度所需社會成本極高。因此筆者認為現階段政府有重新檢討教育經費保障制度之必要，包含未來如何調整保障方式，使制度既能保障教育經費，又能降低其負面影響，讓預算編列額以更有彈性的面對少子化問題。

R.O.C. has a long history of guaranteed provision of government expenditure on education. Since the 1930’s, Article 164 of the Constitution, followed by Item 2 of Article 3 of the Compilation and Administration of Education Expenditures Act, have both ensured that expenditure on education maintain its stability and growth facing competition from other budget categories. The institution is not only rare internationally; it is also the only domestic budget category stipulated explicitly to be prepared. As the macro environment changes rapidly in political, economic and social aspects, government competencies and public expenditures have both been increasing. How could expenditure on education remain the one and only guaranteed budget category as public resources become rather limited? What impacts might this institution bring then? The author considers this topic worthy of concern. The author has conducted literature review, document analysis and email interview to understand the historical context of the institutional guarantee of expenditure on education in R.O.C, to further delve into the operation and insights of such institution, and also to conduct a preliminary study of the impacts of such institution. Lastly, to sum up the results of the study, the author reckons that the current institutional guarantee of expenditure on education in R.O.C. is inappropriate and inopportune whether regarded under the aspects of financial management, budget planning or educational policy implementation. However, considering education as a quasi-public good, the cost of cancelling such institutional guarantee is extremely high. Thus, the author concludes that it is necessary to re-examine the institutional guarantee of expenditure on education, and that it is vital to ensure an appropriate amount of provision of government expenditure on education without excessive negative impacts.