為回應社會各界對於積極處理不適任教師之強烈期待，立法院於民國108年大幅修正教師法，並由教育部訂定「高級中等以下學校解聘不續聘停聘或資遣辦法」（下稱中小學解聘辦法），建構以校事會議為核心之不適任教師處理機制。該辦法自2020年訂立後，歷經2024年、2026年數次修正，惟其於組織面與程序面所存之缺失，迄今未獲根本解決。本文以經校事會議分流處理之教師解聘、不續聘、停聘事件之組織及程序為研究對象，著重檢討程序進行中當事人校內與校外救濟權利是否充分，並提出制度修正建議。 本文之問題意識計分三端。其一為組織體之間功能重疊與不足的問題，負責處理案件受理的受理會議，其審查效能不足且人員重複率過高；校事會議在功能上與受理會議產生部分重疊的同時，條文規範上亦存有規範未清楚之處，從而導致校事會議審議功能可能受侷限的疑慮。 其二為當事人救濟權利不充分問題，於校內，因中小學解聘辦法第22條第3項使校事會議調查小組之事實認定拘束及於教師評審委員會，致教評會無從變動其認定，復因欠缺申復機制，當事人於校內無從主動發動救濟；於校外，主管機關之退回重查僅屬被動式職權發動，當事人並無申請管道，加以行政法院援引司法院大法官解釋第553號、第736號解釋意旨，以案件具高度屬人性及專業性為由賦予判斷餘地、採取低密度審查，致事實認定此一關鍵環節於校內無退回之通道、於校外復未受實質檢驗。 其三為程序瑕疵問題，中小學解聘辦法於排除當事人對質詰問權之同時，未設置任何替代程序以彌補其防禦機能之喪失；陳述意見權方面，調查小組「視需要」訪談當事人之規定亦留有得不予詢問之疏漏。 研究方法上，本文以文獻分析法及法學方法論為主，運用文義、體系、法意及合憲等法律解釋方法，並輔以價值補充與漏洞補充，分析中小學解聘辦法之規範意旨與缺漏；於程序面之檢討，則以性別平等教育法及校園性別事件防治準則所建構之組織構成及當事人主動救濟制度為對照參考。 基於上述分析，本文提出之修正建議如下：於實體面，主張將「教學不力」之認定基準提升至法律位階，於教師法第16條明定授權依據以符合法律保留原則，並透過分級化設計使受理會議之篩選有清楚之判斷依據，兼收降低濫訴之效；於程序面，主張為當事人設置對質詰問權之替代程序，並將陳述意見權之保障予以強制化；於救濟面，主張借鑑性別平等教育法之申復機制，賦予當事人主動發動事實認定再審查之管道，並認行政法院對於此類影響教師工作權甚鉅之案件，不應一律以判斷餘地為由略過事實認定之實質審查，而應提高審查密度，俾當事人受憲法第16條保障之訴訟權得以落實。;In response to strong societal expectations for the active handling of unfit teachers， the Legislative Yuan substantially amended the Teachers′ Act in 2019 (108th year of the Republic)， and the Ministry of Education promulgated the Regulations Governing the Dismissal， Non-Renewal of Appointment， Suspension， or Discharge of Teachers at Senior High Schools and Below (hereinafter "the Dismissal Regulations")， thereby establishing a mechanism for handling unfit teachers centered on the School Affairs Meeting. Since their enactment in 2020， these Regulations have undergone several amendments in 2024 and 2026; nonetheless， the deficiencies inherent in their organizational and procedural dimensions remain fundamentally unresolved to this day. Taking as its object of study the organization and procedure governing teacher dismissal， non-renewal， and suspension cases that have been triaged through the School Affairs Meeting， this thesis focuses on examining whether the parties′ rights to intra-school and extra-school remedies are adequately safeguarded during the course of the proceedings， and puts forward proposals for institutional reform. The problem consciousness of this thesis comprises three aspects. The first concerns the overlap and inadequacy of functions among the organizational bodies: the Reception Review Meeting responsible for accepting cases suffers from insufficient screening efficacy and an excessively high rate of personnel overlap; while the School Affairs Meeting functionally overlaps in part with the Reception Review Meeting， the provisions also leave certain norms insufficiently defined， giving rise to concerns that the deliberative function of the School Affairs Meeting may be constrained. The second concerns the inadequacy of the parties′ rights to remedy. Internally， because Article 22， Paragraph 3 of the Dismissal Regulations renders the factual findings of the School Affairs Meeting′s investigation panel binding upon the Teacher Evaluation and Review Committee， the Committee is unable to alter those findings; coupled with the absence of any objection (shenfu) mechanism， the parties have no means of proactively initiating a remedy within the school. Externally， the competent authority′s remand for re-investigation constitutes merely a passive exercise of ex officio power， affording the parties no avenue to apply for it; moreover， administrative courts—invoking the purport of Judicial Yuan Interpretations No. 553 and No. 736—grant a margin of appreciation and adopt low-density review on the ground that such cases are highly personal and professional in nature. As a result， the crucial stage of factual determination is subject neither to any channel of remand within the school nor to substantive scrutiny outside it. The third concerns procedural defects. While the Dismissal Regulations exclude the parties′ right to confrontation and cross-examination， they establish no alternative procedure to compensate for the resulting loss of defensive function; as regards the right to state opinions， the provision permitting the investigation panel to interview the parties "as needed" likewise leaves open the possibility that no inquiry will be conducted at all. In terms of methodology， this thesis relies principally on the documentary analysis method and legal methodology， employing literal， systematic， historical， and constitutional methods of legal interpretation， supplemented by value-supplementation and gap-filling， to analyze the normative purport and lacunae of the Dismissal Regulations. In its examination of the procedural dimension， it draws by way of comparison on the organizational composition and the mechanisms for parties′ proactive remedy established under the Gender Equity Education Act and the Regulations on the Prevention and Handling of Campus Sexual Incidents. On the basis of the foregoing analysis， this thesis advances the following reform proposals. At the substantive level， it argues that the criteria for determining "teaching incompetence" should be elevated to the statutory level by expressly stipulating the authorizing basis in Article 16 of the Teachers′ Act， so as to conform to the principle of statutory reservation， and that a tiered design should furnish the Reception Review Meeting with clear criteria for judgment， thereby also serving to reduce frivolous complaints. At the procedural level， it advocates establishing an alternative procedure to substitute for the right of confrontation and cross-examination， and rendering the protection of the right to state opinions mandatory. At the level of remedy， it advocates drawing on the objection mechanism of the Gender Equity Education Act to grant the parties an avenue for proactively initiating a re-examination of the factual findings， and maintains that， in cases such as these which profoundly affect teachers′ right to work， administrative courts should not invariably bypass substantive review of the factual determination on the ground of the margin of appreciation， but should rather heighten the intensity of their review， so that the parties′ right to institute legal proceedings guaranteed by Article 16 of the Constitution may be given practical effect.
