高等教育出版
熱門: 吳清山  吳勁甫  丘愛鈴  九年一貫課程  文化領導  三角關係  
高等教育出版
首頁 臺灣期刊   學校系所   學協會   民間出版   大陸/海外期刊   政府機關   學校系所   學協會   民間出版   DOI註冊服務
閱讀全文  購買本期
篇名
公立中小學教師資遣案例暨法律問題探討   免費試閱
並列篇名
Teacher Severance in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools and Related Legal Issues
作者 黃源銘
中文摘要
資遣是政府機關或民間企業組織變革中所採取的手段,透過金錢給予而終止原來的法律關係,現行公立學校教師之資遣,主要依據《教師法》第14條及第15條,以及即將於2018年7月1日實施的《公立教職員退休資遣撫卹條例》第24條,本文從訴願案例發想出問題意識,即公立中小學教師因教學行為失當,親職溝通及班級經營不良經輔導後仍無法改善,究應採取《教師法》第14條第1項第14款之「解聘、停聘、不續聘」或同法第15條之「資遣」在立法論與法律解釋與適用論上均有探討之價值。基此,本文透過文獻分析法,從公立中小學教師資遣的法規範體系解釋適用出發,並就教師資遣立法脈絡加以評釋,同時透過裁判分析法,考察現行教育行政實務在處理上述情事有無漏洞,以及是否會造成不公平現象。經研究發現,由於現行《教師法》第14條第1項第14款「教學不力或不能勝任工作有具體事實」與同法第15條後段「現職工作不適任」可能產生競合,實務操作上可能產生教評會在教育主管機關的指導下濫用專業判斷,於事實認定時「避重就輕」。同時,也可能基於同事情誼或過於鄉愿或而錯誤適用法律效果。本文認為要避免此一情況,權宜之計應考量《教師法》第14條及第15條重新設計,個別明定「解聘」、「不續聘」及「資遣」的法定事由,否則任由教評會選擇法條適用,將造成法安定性的衝擊。
英文摘要
Severance is a method adopted by government agencies or private enterprises for organizational reform, in which an employment relationship is terminated through a payment scheme. Teacher severance in public schools is based on Articles 14 and 15 of the Teachers’ Act, and Article 24 of Act Governing Retirement and Bereavement Compensation for the Teaching and Other Staff members of Public Schools (to take effect on July 1, 2018). In this study, we have identified problems based on some appeal cases. For teachers in public elementary and secondary schools who do not perform adequately, do not have proper communication with students’ parents, or do not manage their classes properly, and furthermore, do not show improvement after counseling and guidance, it is worth exploring from the perspectives of de lege ferenda, de lege lata, and law application whether Teachers’ Act Article 14, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 14 about “dismissal, suspension, or non-renewal employment,” or Article 15 about severance should be adopted. This study adopted document analysis to explain the applicable scope of the regulations about teacher severance in public elementary and secondary schools as well as the related legal context. In addition, using the referee method of analysis, we examined whether a loophole exists in current educational administrative practice that may cause injustice. One of our research findings is Teachers’ Act Article 14, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 14 “Specific instances of their not fulfilling a teacher’s duties, or being unfit to teach” overlaps Article 15 “those who are unfit for their current positions.” In practice, the education council may abuse their professional judgment under the guidance of competent educational authorities and fail to make proper judgments according to the facts. In addition, the education council may improperly explain regulations out of hypocrisy or because of rapport between colleagues. This study proposes that to avoid this situation, Teachers’ Act Articles 14 and 15 should be redesigned to stipulate legal reasons separately for dismissal, non-renewal employment, and severance; otherwise, letting the education council choose the applicable act articles may affect legal certainty.
起訖頁 093-116
關鍵詞 不適任教師教育行政教師資遣teacher severanceeducational administrationunfit teacher
刊名 教育政策論壇  
期數 201802 (21:1期)
出版單位 國立暨南國際大學教育政策與行政研究所
DOI 10.3966/156082982018022101004  複製DOI
QR Code
該期刊
上一篇
國小校長營造社區關係之研究:情緒距離觀點
該期刊
下一篇
論教育部「國民中小學2,000常用英文字詞表」:問題與改進的建議

高等教育知識庫  閱讀計畫  教育研究月刊  新書優惠  

教師服務
合作出版
期刊徵稿
聯絡高教
高教FB
讀者服務
圖書目錄
教育期刊
訂購服務
活動訊息
數位服務
高等教育知識庫
國際資料庫收錄
投審稿系統
DOI註冊
線上購買
高點網路書店 
元照網路書店
博客來網路書店
教育資源
教育網站
國際教育網站
關於高教
高教簡介
出版授權
合作單位
知識達 知識達 知識達 知識達 知識達 知識達
版權所有‧轉載必究 Copyright2011 高等教育文化事業有限公司  All Rights Reserved
服務信箱:edubook@edubook.com.tw 台北市館前路 26 號 6 樓 Tel:+886-2-23885899 Fax:+886-2-23892500