《高級中等以下學校教師解聘不續聘停聘或資遣辦法》規範下，教師懲戒與懲處機制執行困境

Implementation Challenges of the Disciplinary and Administrative Sanction Mechanisms for Teachers Under the Regulations Governing the Dismissal, Non-Renewal, Suspension, or Layoff of Teachers at Senior Secondary and Lower-Level Schools

2020年《教師法》修訂實施後，配套子法《高級中等以下學校教師解聘不續聘停聘或資遣辦法》（簡稱《解聘辦法》）實施已滿五年，該辦法於2024年修訂後，因校事會議調查大幅開案，引發諸多爭議：前置作業包括教師懲戒與懲處機制未能確實分流、各式校園事件調查程序分歧、無回溯期限之教師懲戒與懲處制度、調查人員與校事會議成員專業度爭議、親師生衝突缺乏調和機制；啟動調查後則有匿名檢舉受理造成濫訴、調查小組組成、迴避與篩選機制問題、調查過程曠日廢時、被投訴人防禦權行使及行政調查爭議、調查處理耗損大量經費；懲處救濟階段則有教師工作權缺乏保障、濫訴無法究責且欠缺補償機制等問題。本文由文獻探討輔以實務經驗，針對《解聘辦法》為中心之不適任教師處理困境提出以下建議：前置作業包括明定教師懲戒與懲處分流制度、統一各式校園事件調查程序、明定不適任教師懲戒與懲處追溯期限、精進調查人員與校事會議成員專業、親師生衝突導入前端調和機制；調查階段嚴謹受理謹慎啟動調查、區分懲戒與懲處調查方式並明定迴避機制、統一校園事件調查流程與閱卷規定，制定《教育事件法》、依實證研究成果調整親師生衝突防制資源比重；懲處救濟需回歸《憲法》教育工作權之基本保障、修法遏止濫訴並設立補償機制。

Five years after the implementation of the“Regulations Governing the Dismissal, Non-Renewal, Suspension, or Layoff of Teachers at Senior Secondary and Lower-Level Schools”(hereinafter“the Regulations”)—a key bylaw following the 2020 amendment of the“Teachers’Act”—its 2024 revision has led to a surge of school affairs meeting investigations and triggered widespread controversy. Major issues include: inadequate dis-tinction between disciplinary and administrative sanctions, inconsistent investigation procedures across campus incidents, absence of limitation periods for teacher sanctions, insufficient professionalism of investigators and committee members, and lack of mediation mechanisms for teacher–parent–student conflicts. During investigation, problems such as exces-sive anonymous complaints, unclear recusal and selection rules, lengthy procedures, limited defense rights, and high administrative costs have emerged. In the remedy stage, teachers’employment rights remain weak-ly protected, false accusations go unpunished, and compensation mecha-nisms are lacking. Drawing on literature and field experience, this study proposes: (1) clarifying the division between disciplinary and administra-tive sanctions, standardizing all campus investigation procedures, setting limitation periods for sanctions, enhancing investigator and committee training, and introducing early-stage mediation; (2) adopting stricter case screening, specifying distinct investigation paths with clear recusal rules, unifying investigation and access procedures, legislating an“Education Incident Act”, and reallocating preventive resources based on empirical research; and (3) restoring constitutional protection of teachers’educa-tional work rights, curbing frivolous complaints through legal reform, and establishing a compensation mechanism.