論各級學校教師資格之取得與身分保障

Teachers’ Qualification and Employment Protection at Different Levels of School Education

陳彥亘(Yen-Hsuan Chen)

指導教授 ： 蔡宗珍

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2016年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201600189

摘要

本文從近年來實習教師不受保障、教師檢定與甄選錄取率下降、兼任代課及代理教師浮濫、教師受解聘、停聘、不續聘、資遣或介聘至它校等教師所面臨的侵害為出發，探討我國教師法制對於教師資格與身分之規範及其架構為何，以及解決相關規範之解釋與適用上所產生的爭議。本文研究相關法規範、法院裁判、實際運作與學者文獻後，結論如下：1.當代憲政國家的教育任務植基於文化國原則，其核心從人格自由擴張至教育給付，具體意涵包含既有教育的維護與國家教育的發展，於我國憲法中皆可找到依據。2.教師與學校在憲法上具有基本權主體與公權力主體的雙重角色，各級學校均享有自治權，學校在自治權範圍內限制教師基本權時，除不適用法律保留原則外，應具備憲法第23條合憲性論據。3.法律授權主管機關決定教師任教資格之取得、授權學校決定教師職業身分之取得，主管機關與學校不得互相干預或授權，也不得訂立較嚴格或較寬鬆之規定。4.教師不適用公務員或勞工相關規範。5.學校解聘、停聘、不續聘與資遣教師均屬終止契約之意思表示，主管機關核准為其特別生效要件，但核准也是以學校為相對人的行政處分，教師為利害關係人。6.教師僅得提起撤銷之訴，申訴程序屬於訴願前置程序，除主管機關與申訴機關得為適當性審查外，訴願機關與法院僅得為合法性審查。7.學校自訂限期升等條款不須適用教師法，但新舊教師均應受到規範，其起算時點為新聘約生效時。8.學校得制訂介聘教師之規則，教師得於介聘前提起確認之訴。

關鍵字

文化國 ； 大學自治 ； 實習教師 ； 兼任代課及代理教師 ； 釋字第736號 ； 教師解聘、資遣與介聘 ； 超額教師

並列摘要

The legal institutions for teachers in Taiwan have faced serious problems. For example, intern teachers are not completely incorporated under the protection of related laws; the admission rate of licensing and employment of teachers decline; the rate of part-time, probation, and substitute teachers exceeds. Not to mention that more and more teachers are dismissed, suspended, denied renewed employment, laid off or transferred to another school. To solve the problems, I focused on the legal institutions for teachers relating to the qualification and status of teachers through the interpretation and application of legal texts. Relevant texts include statutes, courts’ decisions, practical operations and the authoritative scholarly opinions. I argued: 1. The education mission in modern constitutionalism is derived from the Principle of Culture State, with core values overlapping from the freedom of personality to the right to receive education. Relevant constitutional text including the maintenance of original education and the development of national education provides the guidance. 2. Both teachers and schools enjoying the fundamental right of the Constituion are on the other hand empowered to restrict others’ rights. To better balance their power and rights, schools in different levels with self-government power while restricting teacher’s fundamental rights, shall enforce their power within their self-government domain restricted under Art. 23 of the Constitution unless the Principle of Statutory Reservation otherwise applies. 3. In the condition when Congress delegates their power to the executive authority for regulations of teacher qualifications and employments, the executive shall neither re-delegate its power to schools nor make stricter or looser regulations under the Congressional delegation.. 4. Teachers are not bound by the civil servants or workers regulations. 5. Teachers shall serve as the affected people and entitled to remedies under the administrative law when schools they work in intend to terminate the working contracts and thus make notice of dismissal, suspension, denying renewed employment, severance. Meanwhile, the approval of the authority is the special requirement of validity and the administrative judgment. 6. Teachers can merely initiate an action to withdraw the administrative judgment. Appeal procedure shall be lodged before complaint procedure. The competent authority and the appeal authority could examine whether schools’ notice is proper or not, but the complaint authority could merely examine whether it is legal or not. 7. Schools enjoy the self-governance power to prescribe the upgrading rules with time limits whenever teachers were employed. Such rules are not bound by the Teachers’ Act, but all of them shall follow the same rules when their employment contracts validate. 8. Schools enjoy the power to make orders for teachers’ transferring. However, the ordered transferring teachers shall retain their right to litigate for confirming the validity of their employment contracts.

並列關鍵字

culture state ； university self-government ； intern teacher ； part-time, probation and substitute teacher ； Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 736 ； teachers’ dismissal, severance and transfer ； excess teacher

參考文獻

許育典（2006）。《文化憲法與文化國》。台北：元照。

文超順（2006）。〈台灣地區縣市國民中小學超額教師介聘之研究〉，《學校行政雙月刊》，45期，頁237-246。

吳庚（1978）。〈行政契約之基本問題〉，《台大法學論叢》，7卷2期，頁107-146。

林佳和（2007）。〈教師與憲法同盟自由之保障──最高行政法院九十六年度判字第二八號判決評釋〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，151期，頁240-254。

林俊傑（2010）。〈超額教師何去何從？〉，《師友月刊》，518期，頁61-64。