公立中小學教師甄選爭議之相關法律問題探討：組織與程序保障觀點

A STUDY ON THE RELATED LEGAL ISSUES OF TEACHERS' RECRUITMENT SELECTION DISPUTES IN THE PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL: ORGANIZATIONAL AND PROCEDURAL PROTECTION PERSPECTIVE

10.6151/CERQ.202309_31(3).0003

王等元(Deng-Yuan Wang)

正當行政程序 ； 行政處分 ； 行政契約 ； 教師甄選 ； due administrative process ； administrative sanction ； administrative contract ； teacher's recruitment selection

當代教育研究季刊

31卷3期（2023 / 09 / 30）

73 - 105

繁體中文;英文

研究目的：本文旨在從當前公立高級中學以下教師甄選爭議個案，探究教師甄選程序中所需具備的正當行政程序要求。研究設計／方法／取徑：本文採用文獻分析與法釋義學方法，以正當行政程序檢視系爭教師甄選爭議個案之作業缺失，並據以提出結論與建議供實務工作者參考。研究發現或結論：本文獲致之研究發現與結論如下：首先，本文確立公立高級中學以下教師甄選作業，基於其公共性有正當行政程序之適用；其次，本文認為系爭個案教師甄選組織運作尚符合正當行政程序所需之組織適法之要求；最後，本文發現系爭教師甄選案例之行政程序，難謂與正當行政程序要求無違，亟待主管機關加強適法性監督，俾能有效杜絕爭議。研究原創性／價值：首先，在學術研究原創性方面，本文除了從正當行政程序的傳統研究觀點出發外，更聚焦於公立中小學教師甄選的公共性問題，以凸顯教師甄選程序中常被忽視的組織與程序保障議題，足見本研究之原創性。其次，在實務應用價值方面，對消弭當前公立中小學教師甄選爭議而言，可發揮防漸杜微作用，堪稱深具實務應用價值。教育政策建議或實務意涵：經本文論證，在未來修法方面，建議公立中小學教師甄選制度宜以地方政府聯合辦理為原則，學校報備同意自行辦理為例外。另外，在消弭弊端方面，地方政府應加強合法性監督。

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine the requirements of Administrative Due Process in the Teachers' Recruitment Selection in the context of current controversial cases of teacher selection in public elementary and secondary school. Design/methodology/approach: Taking law hermeneutics and documents analysis as the research methods, some shortcomings of Teachers' Recruitment of the Public Elementary and Secondary School are examined comprehensively from organizational and procedural protection perspective. Findings/results: Overall, the research findings of this study are as follows: first, this paper establishes that the selection of teachers in public elementary and secondary school is subject to Administrative Due Process based on its public nature; second, this paper concludes that the operation of the teacher selection organization in the case at issue still meets the requirements of the Administrative Due Process for the organization to be lawful; finally, this paper finds that the administrative procedures in the teacher selection case at issue are hardly consistent with the requirements of the Administrative Due Process, and it is urgent for the competent authorities to strengthen the supervision of lawfulness in order to effectively eliminate the controversy. Originality/value: First, in terms of originality, this paper focuses on the public nature of teacher selection in public elementary and secondary schools, in addition to the traditional research viewpoint of proper administrative procedures, in order to highlight the often neglected issues of organization and procedural safeguards in the teacher selection process. Second, in terms of practical application value, it can play a role in eliminating the current controversies over teacher selection in public elementary and secondary schools, which is of great practical application value. Suggestions/implications: This paper argues that, in terms of future legislative amendments, it is recommended that the selection system for public elementary and secondary school teachers should be handled jointly by local governments as a matter of principle, with the exception of schools that have reported and agreed to do so on their own. In addition, the local governments should strengthen the supervision of legality in order to eliminate the shortcomings.

1. 符碧真, B. J.(2018)。素養導向國教新課綱的師資培育：國立臺灣大學「探究式─ 素養導向的師資培育」理想芻議。教育科學研究期刊，63(4)，59-87。
   連結：
2. 黃源銘, Y. M.(2019)。公立國中小教師介聘案例暨相關法律問題探討。教育研究集刊，65(3)，41-65。
   連結：
3. Beauchamp, G.,Clarke, L.,Hulme, M.,Murray, J.(2015).Teacher education in the United Kingdom post devolution: Convergences and divergences.Oxford Review of Education,41(2),154-170.
4. Cane, P.(2004).Administrative law.Oxford University Press.
5. Hudson, P. B.(2012).How can schools support beginning teachers? A call for timely induction and mentoring for effective teaching.Australian Journal of Teacher Education,37(7),70-84.
6. Leyland, P.,Anthony, G.(2008).Textbook on administrative law.Oxford University Press.
7. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(2015).Education policy outlook 2015:Making reforms happen.
8. Parpworth, N.(2008).Constitutional and administrative law.Oxford University Press.
9. Wade, H. W. R.,Forsyth, C. F.(2004).Administrative law.Oxford University Press.
10. 王等元, D. Y.(2015).我國教師工作權組織與程序保障之研究.文化大學華岡出版部=Chinese Culture University.
11. 司法院（1993）。 釋字第 319 號解釋。https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/docdata.aspx? fid=100&id=310500[Judicial Yuan (1993). No. 319 J.Y. interpretation. https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/docdata.aspx? fid=100&id=310500]
12. 司法院（2002）。 釋字第 553 號解釋。https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/docdata.aspx? fid=100&id=310714[Judicial Yuan (2002). No. 553 J.Y. interpretation. https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/docdata.aspx? fid=100&id=310714]
13. 司法院（2000）。 釋字第 510 號解釋。https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/docdata.aspx? fid=100&id=310691[Judicial Yuan (2000). No. 510 J.Y. interpretation. https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/docdata.aspx?fid=100&id=310691]
14. 司法院（1995）。 釋字第 382 號解釋。https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/docdata.aspx? fid=100&id=310563&rn=-2484[Judicial Yuan (1995). No. 382 J.Y. interpretation. https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/ docdata.aspx?fid=100&id=310563&rn=-2484]
15. 司法院（1995）。 釋字第 384 號解釋。https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/docdata.aspx? fid=100&id=310565[Judicial Yuan (1995). No. 384 J.Y. interpretation. https://cons.judicial. gov.tw/docdata.aspx?fid=100&id=310565]
16. 司法院（1994）。 釋字第 368 號解釋。https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/docdata.aspx? fid=100&id=310549[Judicial Yuan (1994). No. 368 J.Y. interpretation. https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/docdata.aspx? fid=100&id=310549]
17. 吳庚, G.(2004).憲法的解釋與適用.三民=San Min.
18. 吳庚, G.,盛子龍, Z. L.(2020).行政法之理論與實用.三民=San Min.
19. 吳庚, G.,陳淳文, C. W.(2017).憲法理論與政府體制.作者=Author.
20. 吳清山, C. S.(2008).教育法規：理論與實務.心理=Psybooks.
21. 李建良, C. L.(2010)。行政法：第十一講─行政裁量與判斷餘地。月旦法學教室，98，34-49。
22. 李建良, C. L.(2018).人權概念與憲法秩序：憲法學思維方法論.學林=Sharing.
23. 周志宏, C. H.(2012).教育法與教育改革.高等教育=Higher Education.
24. 張民杰, M. C.(2015)。運用體口試作為班級經營表現評量之研究。雙溪教育論壇，3，39-56。
25. 許育典, Y. D.(2013).法治國與教育行政：以人的自我實現為核心的教育法.元照=Angel.
26. 陳敏, M.(2016).行政法總論.新學林=NewSharing.
27. 陳慈陽=Chen T. I.(2016).憲法學.元照=Angel.
28. 湯德宗, D, T.(2004)。具體違憲審查與正當程序保障─大法官釋字第 535 號解釋的續構與改造。憲政時代，29(4)，445-479。
29. 馮靖惠（2020/05/14） 分數變變變「行政瑕疵」恐涉偽造文書 https://udn.com/news/story/120986/4564087?from= udn-referralnews_ch2artbottom[Feng,C. H. (2020/05/14). Score changes again—Administrative defects might beforged documents. https://udn.com/news/story/120986/4564087?from= udn-referralnews_ch2artbottom]
30. 黃源銘, Y. M.(2018)。公立中小學教師資遣案例暨法律問題探討。教育政策論壇，21(1)，93-116。
31. 黃默夫, M. F.(2009).基礎行政法 25 講.三民=San min.
32. 董保城, B. C.(2015).考試權之理論與實務.元照=Angel.
33. 趙宥寧（2020/05/14）。教甄日常？名校國文 290 人考錄取從缺北市擬規劃聯甄。https://udn.com/news/story/6885/4563519。[Zhao, Y. N. (2020/05/14). Teachers’ recruitment attendance unqualified disputes always happened? Taipei city government plans to implement united teachers’ recruitment attendance. https://udn.com/news/story/6885/4563519]
34. 潘乃欣（2020/05/15）。教甄惹議教團籲政府查 3 張消失的評分表。https://udn.com/news/story/6898/4567234?from= udn-referralnews_ch2artbottom[Pan, N. X. (2020/05/15). Teachers’ recruitment attendance disputes happened and education reform organizations made an appeal for three lost scoresheets.https://udn.com/news/story/6898/4567234?from= udn-referralnews_ch2artbottom]
35. 蔡亞樺（2020/05/21）。〇〇高中教甄風波認定「口試成績落差很大」 教育局：重辦口試。https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/life/ breakingnews/3173099[Tsai, Y. H. (2020/05/21). Department of Education, Taipei City Government determined some senior high school teachers’ recruitment attendance disputes of oral score having mistakes and ordered to issue a retest. https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/life/ breakingnews/3173099]
36. 蕭文生, W. S.(2000)。自程序與組織觀點論基本權利之保障。憲政時代，25(3)，27-54。
37. 蕭文生, W. S.,謝文明, W. M.(2008)。應考試權之價值與保障。國家菁英季刊，4(2)，43-56。
38. 羅傳賢, C. X.(2012).立法程序與技術.五南=Wunan.