教師懲戒權理論與運作之研究－以我國國中小學教師為例

A Study on the Theory and Exercise of the Teacher’s Punishment Power － The Example of the Primary and Junior High School Teachers in Taiwan, Republic of China

林啟霖(Chi-Lin Lin)

指導教授 ： 劉昊洲

國立臺灣師範大學/教育學院/政治學研究所在職進修碩士班/碩士(2009年)

摘要

本研究是以我國現行教育相關法規為規範之基礎，並參酌法理、教育學等觀點，探討我國國民中小學教師懲戒學生權力的法律問題，並期待以正當法律程序之概念，建構校園內教師行使懲戒權的正當程序。經由文獻研究之途徑，本研究歸納出下列幾項研究結果：
一、以教育學的觀點而言，懲戒具有報復性、嚇阻性及感化性的教育意涵；就管理學的觀點，懲戒可作為教師便於維持紀律的一種管理方法；而基於學生的在學關係，懲戒可視為教師被賦予的責任與義務。因此，教師應具有懲戒學生之權。
二、懲戒可分為懲戒行為及懲戒處分兩種，其與管教和體罰的目的均在於削弱學生不當行為的再犯，或是達成教育的目的，但在手段及程度上有所區別。
三、教師懲戒權的行使應以學校教育的範圍為限，並應遵守一般行政程序法上的規則。教師若違法懲戒學生時，可能會面臨法律上的責任。
四、學校訂定輔導與管教學生辦法時，應符合實質的正當性；懲戒處分的行使程序，需符合程序的正當性。學生若對學校所作成之處分不服時，得依法提起申訴以為權利救濟。
為使現行教師能在合理的範圍內行使專業的管教及懲戒，並受到社會的尊重，本文期待政府能夠在法律的位階上，明訂教師管教的目的、內容及範圍；並能參考國外經驗，由教育主管單位會同教師專業團體代表、家長代表及相關學者專家，共同研擬並建立管教分級制度，以作為教師管教或懲戒學生之依循；在家長方面，應配合學校的管教措施，以善盡教化子女之責；至於在學校方面，學校校長或行政人員，應以協助教師教學之態度從事行政支援之工作，積極維護教師權益；而教師除應熟悉管教的教育專業素養外，更應多加充實法律素養，以免因不當管教而遭受法律的懲罰。

關鍵字

懲戒 ； 懲戒權 ； 管教 ； 正當程序

並列摘要

On the basis of current laws regarding education and referring to legal theory and educational viewpoints, the present study aims to discuss legal issues of the primary and junior high school teacher’s punishment power in Taiwan. Conforming the concept of due process of law, we expect to construct the due process of teachers exercising their punishment power on campus. With the approach of literature review, the study draws some conclusions as follows:
1. From the perspective of education, punishment is provided with retributive, deterrent and reformative meanings in education. And in terms of management, punishment can be regarded as an efficient way to maintain discipline for teachers. On the basis of students’ relationship in school, punishment can be regarded as the responsibility and duty granted to teachers. Therefore, teachers should be given the authority to have power to punish students.
2. Punishment can be divided into punitive behaviors and disciplinary punishment. The purpose of punishment, discipline and corporal punishment is mainly to reduce students’ misbehavior, in attempt to reaching educational goals. But they are different in terms of method and degree.
3. The punishment inflicted by teachers should be conducted within the scope of school education, and in accordance with the general regulations of Administrative Procedure Act. If a teacher punishes his (or her) student illegally, he (or she) will be subject to legal liability.
4. Schools should conform to the procedural due process in the formulation of teachers’ guidance and discipline rules for students. And the infliction of disciplinary punishment to students must conform to the substantive due process. If a student is unwilling to obey the disciplinary punishment made by school, he can appeal against his sanction in accordance with the law.
In order to make teachers exercise their power of discipline and punishment properly without going against the expectations of the society, we expect our government to formulate the aim, content and scope of teacher’s discipline definitely. With the experiences overseas, the organization in charge of educational affairs should develop and establish the system of discipline classification in company with delegates from professional groups of teachers, parents and related experts and scholars. Parents should cooperate with the school to educate students responsibly. In the school aspect, principals and administrators should devote themselves to administrative affairs to help teachers and protect their right. Besides being equipped with professional discipline, teachers should broaden their legal knowledge to avoid the legal sanction resulting from improper discipline.

並列關鍵字

punishment ； punishment power ； discipline ； due process

參考文獻

林威志（1999），〈國民中小學學生申訴制度之探討－兼評析台北市國民中小學學生申訴處理要點〉，《教育研究集刊》，43輯，頁185-211。

謝瑞智（1996），《教育法學》，台北：文笙。

高光義（2004），〈校規與人權〉，《國教新知》，50卷2期，頁26-33。

徐澄清（2001），〈正面懲罰〉，《健康世界》，189期，頁97-103。

夏紹彰（2003），〈認識「體罰」－及學校「人權教育」應有的作法〉，《學校行政》，92年11月，頁140-153。