教育基本法有關人民學習權及受教權規定之評析

A Critique on the Theory and Practice of People's Right to Learning and Education in the Educational Fundamental Law

教法基本法的通過對於未來的教育發展具有關鏈性的影響，值得深入瞭解，有著重於教育基本法有關人民學習權對受教權的規定之評析。首?說明教育權的兩派典範，家教育權與國民教育權，以及學習權、受教權與教育權之間的關係，指出臺灣的教育基本法傾向民教育權典範並分析其成因；其認從人民為學習及從事教的主體之觀點，檢視教育基本法對於作為教育權利承擔者的人民所賦予的保障，指出教育基本法並未明確賦予作為學習主體的學生、作為教育主體的人民決學習內容與教育方式的自由，而對於父母教育權、教師專業自主權、地方住民參與權及私人興學權各方面的規範有其模糊之處；最後分析教育基本法對於人民學習、受教權利維護者的規範，指出父母與教師在行使教育權的同時也是在維護其子女、學生的學習權與受教權， 但是可能因立場不同而蜜所衝突，父母行使教育權的結果可能與教育基本法所規定的教育機會均等原則有所抵觸，教師的專業自主受限於教育機構(包括學校與教育行政機關)的規定，教育機構(學校)的積極自主受到限制，國家欠缺穩定的經費來源履行其在教育事務上之義務，教育基本法並未對這些問題有所規範。本文的結論是教育基本法的通過對我國的教育發展有重要的象徵意義與宣示作用，但是接下來所需要的是擴杭其實質的意義，在標舉人民為學習的主體之際，國家的角色更是舉足輕重。

The passage of the Educational Fundamental Law will have a crucial influence of the development of education in the future， and thus it needs to be understood thoroughly. This paper focuses， its discussion on the regulations relevant to people’s right to learning and education in the Law. First of all， by elaborating on the two paradigms and related concepts of the right to education， this paper points out the Educational Fundamental Law in Taiwan is inclined to the paradigm of people’s right to education and offers an analysis of the reasons for the inclination. Next， based on the standpoint that people are the subject of learning and educating， this paper examines the extent to which people， as the education， right bearer， are protected by the Law. This paper argues that the Law does not endow specifically students and people with the freedom to determine the learning content and educational mode. The Law also blurs its regulations with respect to parents right to education， teachers right to professional autonomy， residents right to participation， and private persons right to establish schools. Then this paper turns its attention to the contradictions and problems that inhere in the Educational Fundamental Law. For instance， exercising fully the parental right to education may contravene the principle of equal educational opportunity. Teachers professional autonomy is limited by the rules of schools and institutions. The state does not have stable financial resources to fulfill its obligation with respect to educational affairs. This paper concludes that the passage t of the Educational Fundamental Law carries both symbolic meaning and declarative function. However， what needs to be pursued is to expand its substantial implications. While people are recognized as the subject of learning， the state lays a role even more important than ever.