- 學位論文
台灣高中法治教育內容的法律程序管制史
The Legal History of Procedural Regulations on Law-related Education in Senior High School in Taiwan
摘要
本文以台灣法律史的研究方法，從「國家透過什麼樣的法定程序來決定法治教育內容」的問題意識出發，爬梳1945年至2018年國家權力針對課程編成相關教育事務的管制模式變化。 在日本政權以及動員戡亂體制終止前國民黨政權的統治下，台灣的教育事務相關法律管制經驗並未因政權更迭而終止。首先，在明治憲法排除立法權就教育事務的干預權能下，課程規則乃由台灣總督府全權辦理。再者，戰後初期國民黨政權接受台灣時，不但台灣調查委員會在接收前設定接收方針下偏重重慶國民黨黨員的意見，台灣省行政長官公署發布過渡辦法時亦不甚參考本省族群的意見。續之，雖然1947年12月25日起即已開始「行憲」，國民黨政權為了將台灣打造為「戡亂復國」的復興基地，仍延續訓政體制經驗中「以黨治國」而「黨國合一」的國政運作模式。在立法權無法反映本省族群意見、以及行政權遵循黨領導人意思的憲政運作下，教育部據「中學法」或「高級中學法」的空白授權，持續透過組織設計權與選任權，控制課程標準內容，實施「中國化」以及「黨化」的教育。 整體而言，在行政權高度管制的程序下，日本政權以及1991年動員戡亂體制終止前國民黨政權下的國家教育，皆在實施方便集權主義國家動員人力的「順民型的法治教育」，以致台灣人的法治觀長久以來被形塑為對權威之「服從」。無論日本政權或國民黨政權，都使用了將「特定的道德價值觀」連結於「我國固有」或「民族傳統」的論述模式，將「服從」的態度描述為國民理所當然應做之事。差別僅在國民服從之對象不同，一為以「神話」為基礎的「天皇制國家」，一則為以「中華民族」此政治概念為基礎的「黨國國家」。 時至1990年代中央性民意代表開始全面辦理改選後，直至第三次政黨輪替後，作為中央性立法機關的立法院仍未置喙過「高級中學法」的空白授權模式。據此，第一次政黨輪替前，國民黨政府仍透過組織設計權及選任權的管制模式，於課程標準中部分保留帶有「順民型的法治教育」性格的道德教育及文化教育；要待第一次政黨輪替後，民進黨政府主持的課程綱要修訂作業才開始建構多元意見得以相互角逐的「框架」，開始實施「反思型的法治教育」。 然而，在法律空白授權、課程綱要的法規範定性不明等問題真正解消前，人民所享有的程序參與權其實仍未受法規範保障，第二次政黨輪替後的課綱微調爭議即可謂為國民黨政府「以黨治國」模式的「復辟」實例。有鑑於以上歷史經驗爬梳，為確保國家教育能包容多元價值觀或意識型態，如何就國家教育事務分配立法權與行政權，以令行政權適當地受立法權抗衡，勢為頗具研究價值的法學問題。現行「高級中等教育法」所設計之「由行政權主導課程發展、由立法權主導課程審議」模式，衡諸歷史經驗所呈現之立法權介入必要性、以及教育事務領域本身所具之專業自主性，除了課程審議會得直接修改草案的決議方式有待商榷外，大致上頗值肯定。
並列摘要
With the awareness of how modern countries decide the content of law-related education through procedural regulations, this thesis aims to analyse the development of the model of how state power controlled course curriculum guidelines from 1945 to 2018, based on the research method of Taiwan legal history. Under Japanese colonial rule of 1895 to 1945, and KMT’s ruling before the lifting of the martial law in 1990s, Taiwan’s experience of being controlled by procedural regulations on education-related issues did not end with the change of governers. Firstly, considering the legislative authority power was not authorized to stand in education-related issues under Meiji Constitution, the course curriculum guidelines were promulgated by Governor-General of Taiwan with full authority. Secondly, when KMT regime came to Taiwan, not only the take-over policy was made in favor of Chungking KMT members’s proposals, but also the transitional measures did not take native Taiwanese’s opinions into consideration. Thirdly, although ROC Constition has been effective since Dec. 25th 1947, KMT regime continued functioning its party-state system, which was established in the period of political tutelage, in order to take Taiwan as the base to retake the Chinese Mainland. Under the constitutional operation that on the one hand, legislative power could not reflect native Taiwanese’s opinions, on the other hand, administrative power operated following the KMT leader’s instructions, the Ministry of Education (MOE) controlled the content of course curriculum guidelines to implement Chinalization education and partified education by means of the rights to design organization and the rights to appointment according to the blank authority of High School Law or Senior High School Law. Generally speaking, education was regarded as instrument to achieve the goal of the rulers under strict administrative control during Japanese colonial rule and KMT’s ruling before the lifting of the martial law in 1990s. More specifically, the educational aim of law-relate education during these eras was to train people to surrend to specific ideology. Both Japanese colonial rule and KMT regime connected the concept of “national tradition” with specific moral codes, then described the attitude of “self-surrender” as correct. The difference between these two governers was the object to be surrended to, while one was “Emperor System” based on myth, the other was “party-state system” based on the political concept of “the Chinese nation.” Though the comprehensive re-election has been held since 1990s, the congress had never made any amendment of the blank authority of Senior High School Law until the third partisan turnover in 2016. According to such law, before the first partisan turnover in 2000, KMT government still continued to utilize the MOE’s rights to design organization and the rights to appointment in order to reserve moral education and cultural education partially, which appllied to the educational aim of teaching “self- surrender.” On the contrary, DPP government began to build a communicative framework for diversity values to make amendments on course curriculum guidelines, thus started to teach “self-reflection” instead of “self-surrender” in law-related education. However, only if the problem of blank authority be solved, and the course curriculum guidelines’ characterization became clear, could people’s rights of participation in procedure be protected by legal institution. Indeed, the controvercy of adjustment of curriculum guidelines in 2014 after the second partisan turnover in 2008 serves as an example of reappear of the KMT’s party-state system to control the content of the law-related education in senior high school. Considering the legal history of procedural regulations on law-related education in senior high school mentioned above, how shall a modern country arrange the separation of powers on education-related issues to ensure the inclusiveness of education has became an improtant legal issue. As for current regulations, the administratice power plays the leading role in the stage of development of courses, while the legislative power leads the stage of deliberation on currirulum guidelines in accordance with Senior High School Education Act. By and large, in light of the necessity of the legislative power’s participation in the context of historical experience, and the professional autonomy regarding to education-related issues, the arrangement on separation of powers can be considered as being worthy of adoption, except for the type of resolution that the Curriculum Deliberation Council (CDC) could adjust the draft directly.