本研究以教育權為基本概念導向，除循此脈絡描述學校與學生間的法律關係外，並針對學生法制的一般法理內涵與校園實踐課題進行探討，除融合學校教育功能與學生學習主體之理念內涵外，並由此導引出適用於中小學教育場域的學生法制運作模式。經由文獻分析與實徵調查過程，乃歸納出下列八項研究結果： 一、教育權即人民之教育權利，其係以受教育權為其核心概念；復因教育權係以學習權為其本質，故若使用學習權取代受教育權或教育權之用語，將更能顯現以人民為教育主體的積極意涵。 二、「人民為教育權主體」所稱之「人民」，乃係專指受教育者而言，除此而外的其他人民，則僅具有教育輔助者之地位；因此，教育基本權的功能開展，理應藉由學生對於組織程序之參與，積極促進教育效果之實現。 三、現代社會中的任何生活領域，均不可能自外於國家法律之拘束，故學生與學校間的在學關係應被視為一般法律關係，而無須另覓他說；此外，學生法制除應具備保障學生學習權的功能外，更須同時兼顧教育目的與效果之實現。 四、在現代民主法治的概念基礎上，法律本具有保障人民權利暨促進社會正義的意涵，故將校規的法律性質視為法規範，不但能嚴格保障學生之基本權利，透過組織程序之參與，亦能同時確保學習者的教育主體地位。 五、學生法制本屬整體社會法制之一環，故自須實踐以民主法治精神為依歸的基本法理原則，然基於教育專業之特質與需求，相關法理原則的規範密度，亦得因事務性質之不同，而容有嚴密或寬鬆之區別。 六、基於現代法制維護人性尊嚴與彰顯自然正義之普遍立場，除須藉由法制設計，強化中小學學生參與學校組織程序之領域空間，在實際運作的校規層面上，亦應於修訂、執行、與救濟等相關程序中，適度賦予學生參與之機會。 七、依據教育措施作成名義之不同，總結性成績評定與學校懲處處分，不但要求較高之法律保留密度，並須依其嚴重程度踐行相對正當程序，而受處分之學生亦得依法提起校內申訴以謀求救濟；至若歸屬教學自主之形成性成績評定與教師管教措施，雖無具備嚴格法律保留與正當程序要求之必要，然基於權利救濟原則與實現教育目的之雙重考量，法制或學校亦應就此主動建構合宜的校內陳情管道。 八、就當前的中小學學校環境而言，與其強調學生參與校務之形式設計，不如切實賦予實質討論之參與機制；此外，現階段雖或無成立「學生獎懲委員會」的迫切需求，但為整合中小學校規運作上之實體效果暨程序正義，校內申訴制度卻有切實運作的必要。 近年來，隨著相關教育法制的愈趨健全，教育目的之實現與學生權益之保障，將愈有相得益彰的平衡發展傾向；為落實現代法治國的學生法制理念，本研究建議單獨制定「學生法」，以同時針對各類級學校學生法制事項，進一步予以原則性暨程序性的規範。但無論法制形式如何，當相關法律不斷與時俱進之際，各級教育行政主管機關亦須配合上位法令之變遷，積極增訂、修正、或廢止相關業管法令，以避免因過分延宕而架空法治國基本原則。 此外，當各縣市對教育事務擁有更多自主權限的同時，各級教育行政主管機關除應以「合法性監督」取代事必躬親之心態外，地方教育行政主管機關亦應將此等法令上的「分配利益」，適切轉化為學校或教師的專業裁量空間，以進一步確保教育多元發展、學校本位經營、與學生學習權的充分保障。 最後，無論是法令已為規範、未予規範、或規範不足之處，學校均應啟動其內部專業組織，以進行專業判斷、採行專業措施，並妥適強化校規制定、獎懲作成、與申訴救濟之程序，除藉此展現校規所具有的學校特色外，更能據此發揮校規因地制宜與適應學生個別差異之教育內在需求。 / This study is based on the basic concept of the rights of education. Apart from the description of the relation of law between students and schools, this study emphasizes on the system of law for students to explore the general connotation of law and the school law implementation on campus. Besides the concept of the function of education and the students, this study intends to develop an operation model of system of law for the primary and secondary education arena. This study derives the conclusion through the analysis of literature and the field study. 1. Rights of education are the rights of the people based on the core concept of being educated, and the nature of education rights is from the rights of learning, so we use the term of rights of learning instead of using rights of being educated or the rights of education to emphasize on the active connotations that people are the main body of education. 2. In the “people are the main body of education”, “people” here refer to those who are being educated and the others only have the assistants status of education, so the development of the function of basic education rights should be participated by students to make school procedures to have better education effect. 3. In modern society, any aspects of live can not avoid the restrictions of law, so the relation between students and school should be regarded as the relation of the general law and there is no need to find any other explanations. Besides, the system of law for students is not only to protect the function of the rights of learning but also to achieve the goal and effect of education. 4. Based on the concept of modern democracy and law, law itself has the connotation of protecting the rights of people and of improving the social justice, so we take school regulations as the norm of law so that it can strictly protect students’ basic rights and through the participation of making school procedures, students can ensure their status of being the main body of education. 5. Students’ system of law is a part of the system of law of the society; it should be implemented based on the spirit of the basic principles of democracy. However, based on the need of the educational expertise, the related principle of law and regulations can be loose or strict according to different situations. 6. The concept of modern regulations and laws is to protect human dignity and natural justice, so when designing the regulations and laws, students’ participation in making school procedures should be strengthened and they should involve in actual operation of school regulations especially to take part in the process of revising regulations, implementing school laws, and remedy. Students should have more opportunities for participation of school affairs. 7. According to the education measures, the summative test and the school measures of punishment are not only required higher law criteria, but used relative procedures of justice to implement school laws, and the students who are punished can pledge based on the school laws to seek remedy. As for the autonomy of school in the measures of teaching and the ways of formative test are not required due process and strict laws, but under the consideration of principle of remedy of rights and the goal of education, school should provide ways for students to pledge to seek remedy. 8. In the present primary and secondary school environment, it is better to let students to have actual discuss and participate the school affairs and not to emphasize on the students’ participation in designing the school affairs. Although there is no urgent need to form a “committee of awards and punishment for students” for the time being, it is necessary to form a mechanism for students to have ways to pledge in order to ensure the effect of school regulations and the justice of procedures. Along with the better development of the related regulations and laws of education, the purpose of education and the protection of students’ rights will be achieved. In order to ensure the concept of school regulations and laws, this study suggests to make a unique “student law” and in the meantime, to develop a norm of school regulations and general procedures for all level of schools. However, no matter what the form of school regulations and laws are, when the related laws change constantly, all levels of administrative organizations should have the regulations and school laws amended, revised, or abolished in order to cope with principle of the law. Besides, as the local government has the autonomy in education affairs, all levels of the administrative organizations should use “lawful supervision” instead of “reasonable supervision” to enforce the law. The “distribution of benefit” should be transferred to schools and teachers properly, so that the law can protect the diversity development of school, the school autonomy, and the students’ rights of learning thoroughly. Finally, no matter the restrictions are regulated, not regulated, or insufficiently regulated by law, schools should make decisions according to expertise and take steps to strengthen the school regulations, to make the mechanism of awards and punishment, and procedures of pledge to reveal the characteristics of the school to cope with the need of education for different kind of students.

大法官在釋字382號解釋打破了學校與學生特別權力關係的存在。抑有進者，大法官更言明人民有「憲法上受教育的權利」存在。雖然本號解釋值得喝采，但似乎僅是曇花一現，諸如一連串的退學案例，實務見解仍普遍認為有關退學處分的規定乃屬大學自治事項，因此便將法治國原則的適用排除在外，大法官釋字563號解釋即認為有關大學生資格考規定，屬大學自治範疇並不需法律保留原則，此等見解似乎又向特別權力關係開了倒車。有別於此，本文認為大法官釋字382號解釋既然承認人民有憲法上受教育的權利存在，佐以國際社會對於「學習社會」及「終生學習」等理念的重視，即應探尋其具體依據 — 以憲法第二十二條 — 作為大學生學習權的憲法基礎。對斯項權利性質，應具有分享給付請求權的社會權性質。 既然肯定憲法第22條為大學生學習權保障的憲法基礎，即應據此勾勒出大學生在校園中學習權保障的具體圖像。 實體面的保障，以二一退學制度為例：當作為一權利主體的大學生受到作為國家公權力一環的大學剝奪其學習權時（如退學），即應有法律保留原則的適用，此係立基於國家（大學）與人民（學生）間的權力關係所導出 ; 另一個觀察角度乃將大學與大學生之關係，視為兩權利主體間基本權利衝突之關係，則此時大學所為之退學處分仍應受利益衡量原則之拘束。無論從「權力面」或「權利面」的角度來觀察，二一退學制度皆無法通過憲法上法律保留原則與比例原則之要求，是為一違憲制度。 程序面的保障，本文以學生懲戒制度、學生申訴之制度及學生自治與學生參與校務等相關命題作為探討對象。總的來講，各項制度之設計仍應以大學生憲法上學習權之誡命為依歸，並輔以落實法治國原則之要求，如此方不致使大學生之「在學關係」成為法治國的化外之地而走回傳統特別權力關係的老路！