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.

1966年聯合國教科文組織通過《關於教師地位之建議書》，肯定教師為一專門職業，並表示：「在執行其專業任務時，教師應享有學術自由。由於教師特別有資格去評估最適合學生的教學輔助方法，他們應當在如教材的選擇及修正、教科書之評選及教學方式之實際應用等方面，擔負決定性的角色。」然而戰後台灣中小學的教育內容長期由教育部掌控，統編本教科書、禁止使用參考書及測驗卷，都是許多台灣中小學生求學時的共同經驗。在種種政策的限制下，教師長期欠缺教材選擇權。 本論文從教師教材選擇權的理論出發，透過政府公報、報紙等史料的瀏覽以及相關法令的分析，嘗試呈現戰後台灣國民中小學教師教材選擇權的發展脈絡及面貌。國民中小學教師的教材選擇，包括教科書選擇與補助教材選擇。在教科書選擇方面，深受教科書制度影響，而影響戰後台灣教科書政策的主要因素有蔣中正的強人意志、升學主義和解嚴後對教育開放多元的訴求。而在補助教材的選擇上，同樣受到政府的限制。其中參考書和測驗卷的使用，教育部更始終採取禁止的態度。 / In 1966, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) adopted “Recommendation Concerning the Status of Teachers” agreed that teaching should be regarded as a profession and said, “The teaching profession should enjoy academic freedom in the discharge of professional duties. Since teachers are particularly qualified to judge the teaching aids and methods most suitable for their pupils, they should be given the essential role in the choice and the adaptation of teaching material, the selection of textbooks and the application of teaching methods.” This thesis starts from theoretical studies, through analyzes in government published gazette, newspaper, and related law and ordinance, and then attempts to present the development of teacher’s option in teaching materials of Elementary School and Junior High School after the Second World War in Taiwan. The teaching materials include textbooks, reference books, and supplementary materials. The educational policy and school system effect deeply to the selection in textbooks. The Chiang Kai-Shek’s determination, the Obsession, and demands of open and diversification of education after martial law lifted are all the major causes to define the textbook policy in Taiwan after WWII. In the selection of supplementary materials, it is also under government’s restriction. The usage of reference books and test paper are complete prohibited by Ministry of Education in Taiwan.

近年來，台灣的新移民子女人數遽增，其外籍父母又以東南亞籍最多，如何利用新移民家庭的母語資源，以及處理新移民子女特殊的教育需求，遂成為重要的課題，雙語教育措施可能是重要的途徑之一，目前已經藉由火炬計畫、外籍配偶子女輔導計畫等措施付諸實行。 為了探求雙語教育的憲法定位，本文擬先介紹美國、加拿大的雙語教育學理，將雙語教育區分為若干類型，簡介相關的教育心理學、教育社會學研究，以作為討論法律、憲法爭議的前提問題。 本文以美國法作為主要的比較觀察對象，對移民學生提供雙語教育不論是法律上或社會上，在美國都具有極大的爭議性，本文從歷史脈絡、法律沿革、法院判決中進行爬梳整理，探討美國憲法上雙語教育的定位，發現提供雙語教育可能會遭遇某些憲法上的障礙，人民也有可能依據美國憲法來請求雙語教育，另外有部分篇幅討論國際人權法與加拿大憲法的相關規定，作為比較解釋的參照。 比較法的參照可以給我國憲法若干啟示，本文認為，強勢的雙語教育比弱勢的雙語教育更有利，而憲法平等權之規定將會是新移民子女請求雙語教育的最佳途徑。