兩岸教育基本法之比較研究

陳金隆

指導教授 ： 王如哲

國立臺灣師範大學/教育學院/教育學系在職進修碩士班/碩士(2006年)

摘要

關於本論文之研究動機；首先，基於海峽兩岸交流應以學術文化為優先考量，促使研究者對大陸地區教育基本法研究之興趣。其次，制定教育基本法或類似具有教育基本法性質的學校總法，已成為國際教育潮流，由此引發研究者對兩岸教育改革與發展，具有重要指標意義的教育基本法作一比較研究。最後，大陸地區之教育基本法，公布施行至今已超過十年，而台灣地區之教育基本法，公布實施至今也已超過六年；此期間兩岸雙方教育基本法各自所建構之法規體系，研究者亦想一併加以比較分析研究，以增進對此之瞭解。
本研究在研究目的之設定上，共有五個，茲敘述如下：
研究目的一：比較兩岸教育基本法法制基礎之異同？
研究目的二：比較兩岸教育基本法立法背景之異同？
研究目的三：比較兩岸教育基本法立法過程之異同？
研究目的四：比較分析兩岸教育基本法條文內涵之異同？
研究目的五：比較分析兩岸教育基本法法規體系之異同？
為達成上述研究目的，本研究採取「比較研究法」。而在研究範圍方面，本研究之內容範圍主要是以兩岸教育基本法之法制基礎、立法背景、立法過程、條文內涵和法規體系此五個比較參考點之異同，而避免對兩岸教育基本法優劣利弊得失之比較；因為此部分涉及個人之主觀價值判斷，並不在本研究範圍。另在研究限制方面，由於兩岸之間隔閡太久，文化內涵必然產生許多差異性；對其背後之深層意涵，因研究者所處政治和文化等不同背景之關係，可能無法完全體會理解而做最適當之詮釋。
最後，研究者將所獲得之研究發現與啟示，歸納整理做為本研究之結論。
一、研究發現：
（一）台灣地區推動《教育基本法》立法時，法制基礎大致已屬完備；而《教育法》立法時，大陸地區屬於「教育法律」位階的只有四部，其法制基礎則處於萌芽階段。
（二）兩岸教育基本法之制定，同樣皆受到整個國際面向二十一世紀教育，更開放潮流之大環境的影響。
（三）《教育基本法》是源自於台灣地區政治層面之改革所啟動，而《教育法》則是由於大陸地區經濟層面之改革背景所促動。
（四）《教育基本法》立法過程，屬於一種由下而上去集權化的「社會力」群眾運作方式；而大陸地區《教育法》之立法，則呈現由上至下集權化的「政治力」官方動員方式。
（五）中央教育行政部門或黨政力量，對促成兩岸教育基本法之立法皆居於重要之關鍵地位；因此，兩岸教育基本法之立法皆離不開政治層面因素的考量。
（六）台灣地區《教育基本法》內涵較傾向「國民教育權」典範；而大陸地區《教育法》內涵則偏向「國家教育權」典範。
（七）台灣地區《教育基本法》內涵較偏重國民教育階段，少觸及技職和高等教育相關規範；而大陸地區《教育法》則對教育制度有較完整全面性之規範，巨細靡遺。
（八）台灣地區《教育基本法》與「憲法」之法規體系結構處於較鬆散的關係；而大陸地區《教育法》與「八二憲法」之法規體系結構則處於緊密相關連。
（九）就法律位階及效力而言，兩岸教育基本法所建構之法規體系在形式上皆屬西方法制之類型；此顯示兩岸法制最終皆難擺脫西方國家之主流法制體系。
（十）《教育基本法》著重後續制（修）定其他教育法規，以解構並重新建構台灣地區之教育法規體系；而《教育法》則賦予學校立法權限以制訂學校章程，其本身條文已在建構大陸地區教育法規體系。
二、啟示：
（一）兩岸教育改革或教育法規體系之發展，實際上皆不能完全照搬照抄國外之經驗，亦需融入本身之文化和環境等因素。
（二）大陸地區為達成其所謂「依法治教」之目標，動員黨政力量廣泛吸收西方國家教育基本法或相關立法例，可見其對教育法制之實是求是及立法之趨向嚴謹條理分明。
（三）台灣地區由於政治轉型帶動社會多元，民間動能活躍充沛，代表官方之教育行政部門應善用此優勢，隨時體察時代脈動，積極引導制（修）定一套有體系之教育法規。
（四）大陸地區《教育法》以建設「有中國特色之社會主義」為教育性質，一反過去文革時期之破壞傳統文化；由此可見傳統文化之不易動搖，文化實超越任何政黨政治意識形態之上。
（五）兩岸教育基本法之通過，對兩岸教育發展雖有重要象徵意義與宣示作用，但若要能擴充實質意義與落實發展，政府政策大力推行和經費有效之投入以及相關人員法制觀念之建立，是一大關鍵因素。
（六）多增進兩岸教育學術方面之研究應有助於彼此間之瞭解與互動；因此，兩岸實需更多研究者投入兩岸教育學術領域之研究。

關鍵字

兩岸教育基本法 ； 台灣地區教育基本法 ； 大陸地區教育基本法

並列摘要

Abstract
A Comparative Study of Basic Educational Law between Taiwan and Mainland China
With regards to the motive behind this study, firstly, academic culture should be the principle deciding factor on the exchanges between the cross-strait, and from such, stimulating the curiosity of researchers towards the Basic Educational Law of Mainland China. Secondly, to institute the Basic Educational Law or similar general regulations of educational institutions that incorporates characteristics of Basic Educational Law, which has already been an international tendency, and at present, a developing trend in the reforming of education and educational law for many countries. The educational system between the cross-strait diverge and estrange greatly, and developing indicators of significance on the basic educational law, and analyze it. Finally, the researcher holds the opinion that the enforcing of the Basic Educational Law of Mainland China since its promulgation till date which has already been more than a decade, while the promulgation and enforcing of the Basic Educational Law of Taiwan has already exceeded six years, and during that period, the respective Basic Educational Law of the cross-strait has separately established their own regulating system. The researcher also wishes to integrate the data and further put it through comparison analysis, to enhance the understanding and get a better explanation towards it.
With regards to the purpose of study, the compilations are as follows:
Purpose of Study 1: Compare the similarities and dissimilarities of the legal foundation of the Basic Educational Law between the cross-strait?
Purpose of Study 2: Compare the similarities and dissimilarities of the legislation background of the Basic Educational Law between the cross-strait?
Purpose of Study 3: Compare the similarities and dissimilarities of the legislation process of the Basic Educational Law between the cross-strait?
Purpose of Study 4: Comparison analysis on the connotations of stipulations in the Basic Educational Law between the cross-strait?
Purpose of Study 5: Comparison analysis on the legislation system of the Basic Educational Law between the cross-strait?
In order to achieve the abovementioned study purposes, the present study adopted the “Comparative Analysis Methodology”. The study scope is focused mainly on the similarities and dissimilarities of the 5 comparison reference points on the legal foundation, legislation background, legislation process, connotations of the stipulations and legislation system of cross-strait Basic Educational Law, and to analyze the possible factors behind the divergence, thus preventing discrimination in the comparing of the merits of the cross-strait Basic Educational Law, because the implication of subjective determining values for this section does not prevail within the study scope. While on the aspect of limitations on the present study, the cross-strait has an almost inseparable cultural linking element to their history and culture, however as the separation has been far too long, as a result, there would be divergence in their cultural connotations. Thus, for all the records or documentary data gathered from Mainland China, and may be unable to fully comprehend and adopt the most appropriate handling on the deeper underlying meaning behind, due to the difference in political and cultural backdrop where the researcher is situated. 　
Consequently, the researcher compiles the study discoveries and edifications acquired as the conclusion of the present study.
1、Findings:
(1)The legal foundation of the “Basic Educational Law” in most instances is complete, while the legal foundation of the “Educational Law” is in its sprouting stage.
(2)The legislation of the cross-strait Basic Educational Law is similarly affected by the arrival of the new century and international education trends.
(3) “Basic Educational Law” originates from political reformation, while the “Educational Law” is advanced by the economic reformation backdrop.
(4)The “Basic Educational Law” associates with the bottom-up functioning of the legislation, while “Educational Law” arises from top-down pressure in mustering.
(5)The power of the central executive administration or government contributes to the enforcement and preservation of the key status of the cross-strait Basic Educational Law.
(6) The connotations of the “Basic Educational Law” are more inclined towards “National Education Rights”, while the “Educational Law” favors the “State Education Rights”.
(7)The “Basic Educational Law” lacks the coverage on skills and higher education, while the “Educational Law” covers the entire education system.
(8) The connotations of the “Basic Educational Law” are loosely related to "The Constitution" while the "Educational Law" is in close correlation with "82 Constitutions".
(9) The establishment of structure for the Basic Educational Law between the cross-strait does not have much divergence in form, with only western legislation type.
(10) The “Basic Educational Law” decides on (revises) other educational regulations to establish new education laws for Taiwan while the "Educational Law" entrusts the school legislation to draw up the school regulations. The article has been constructing Mainland China education laws.
2、Edification:
(1)In actual fact, the reformation of education or development of the educational law system of the cross-strait cannot be fully duplicating the experience from overseas, but needs to incorporate the cultural and environmental elements of oneself.
(2)Mainland China has proceeded to arrive at the so-called “Administer According to Law” objective in order to improve its “No Laws to Depend on” education predicament, mobilizing the force of government to broadly assimilate the Basic Educational Law or related legislation of western countries. This is to show the difference in the requirements of the educational laws and the strict methods of the legislation.
(3) Due to the political transformation in Taiwan driving the diversity and activeness in society, the education administrative departments representing the government should take advantage of such situation and to scrutinize the pulse of present times, and actively guide the establishing (amending) of a system of educational law.
(4) Mainland China “Educational Laws" uses "Chinese-characteristic Socialism" as the educational nature, to relieve the Great Cultural Revolution; this shows that traditional culture is not easily shaken and exceeds any political ideology.
(5) Though the passing through of the Basic Educational Law for the cross-strait has significant symbolic meanings and promulgation purposes for the furtherance of education, however to augment the significance and realize the development, the key establishing factor would be the effective promoting and funding of government policy as well as the notions of related personnel on legal systems.
(6) Promoting the studies on comparison of cross-strait education or educational law will aid the understanding and interaction of cross-strait academic learning; thus, the cross-strait genuinely do need more researchers to be involved in such domain of study.
Key word: The Basic Educational Law of Taiwan, The Basic Educational Law of Mainland China, The Basic Educational Law of Taiwan and Mainland China

參考文獻

吳清山（1999a）。教育基本法的基本精神與重要內涵。學校行政，2，28- 41。

吳清山（2003）。教育法規。台北市：心理。

李柏佳（2000a）。試評「中華人民共和國教育法」。學校行政雙月刊，6，97-106。

李柏佳（2000b）。教育基本法對我國學校行政的影響—以公立國民小學為例。教育資料與研究，32，22- 26。

李柏佳（1998）。我國教育基本法建構初探研究報告提要。公民訓育學報，7，319- 343。