1995年《教師法》制定公布後，雖有助於促進教師專業屬性之確認，然有關我國教師在法律上究應歸屬公務員或勞工，實無法僅就其規範內涵據以論斷；若同時參照法律中「公務員」之最廣義概念及《勞動基準法》對於「勞工」之定義，則無論公、私立學校教師，或均同時具備勞工與公務員之法定地位。2011年勞動三法修正實施後，教師乃被正式認定為勞工並原則上適用其相關規範；相對於體系已相當完備的勞動法，原以「保障教師工作與生活」為立法目的之一的《教師法》專法，則因規範內涵顯屬簡略，而難能針對教師勞動關係事項，發揮應有之特別法補充效果。本文認為，教師專業與公務員或勞工身分並非互斥概念，且在現行法制架構下，公、私立學校教師與國家間之法律關係亦具有二元化本質；故基於教師既有之法律地位，現行公務員與勞工相關規範雖均對教師存在一定的作用效果，然相對於前者大致僅就公立學校教師有其適用，後者則以全體教師為範圍。至於以《教師法》為首的教師專屬法令，則應大幅充實其內涵，並以之為教師專業權利義務的基本法律依據及其勞動關係之特別法。

Teachers’ Act passed in 1995 helps recognize teachers’ professionalism; yet, its content does not clarify whether teachers are regarded in law as government employees or labor. In fact, considering the definition of government employees in law and the of labor in the Labor Standards Act, teachers from either public or private schools have the legal status as both labor and government employee. The Labor Union Act, the Collective Agreement Act, and the Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes passed in 2011 perceive teachers as labor; thus, their regulations apply to teachers. In contrast to the fully developed labor law, the content of the Teachers’ Act, aiming at safeguarding the career and livelihood of teachers, is relatively simple. It is not able to specify the labor relations for teachers. This paper suggests that it is not mutually exclusive for teachers to be teacher professionals and government employees or labor. Under current legal systems, it is appropriate to dichotomize the legal status of public and private school teachers. As a result, current regulations for government employees and for labor play a certain role for teachers. While the former may only apply to public school teachers, the latter includes all the teachers. Therefore, it is necessary for Teachers’ Act to enrich its content so that it may serve as the special law for teachers’ professional rights and obligations, as well as their labor relations.