「公教並稱」在我國向屬社會通念，惟1995年制定公布之《教師法》，除明定教師資格檢定與審定、聘任、權利義務、待遇、進修與研究、退休、撫卹、離職、資遣、保險、教師組織、申訴及訴訟等悉依本法之規定（第2條），其待遇、退休、撫卹、離職、資遣及保險，亦均宣示應另以法律定之（第20條、第25條第2項）。然而，即使僅以教師為主體之單一法制體系（準用範圍或及於其他教育人員類別），迄今仍因若干法律之未盡完備，致其「公教分途」政策難以落實；準此，則更遑論目前尚無專法的學校校長、運動教練、社會教育機構專業人員及學術研究機構研究人員等各類教育人員。本研究除欲釐清公教分途之意涵，亦將透過比較分析現行法規以檢視「公教分途」的實施情形，並嘗試提出法制架構與調整上之可能作為與妥適方案，俾供我國未來持續推動相關政策之參考。

　　而為深入瞭解目前我國公教分途政策實施現況及未來推動方向之實際需求，本研究除文獻探討與法令分析外，在研究方法上亦同時採取質性取向的專家焦點訪談，以期兼納教育、法律學術領域與各級學校教師及其相關利益團體之各方多元觀點。據此，本研究乃以「一、釐清公教分途之意涵，並以《教育人員任用條例》及《教師法》規範內涵為基礎，確認公教分途之政策方向及其應有樣貌」；「二、就各類教育人員之資格、任用、考核、待遇、進修、請假、申訴、退休、撫卹、離職、資遣、保險等事項，比較其適用法制之差異」；「三、規劃並提出教育人員專屬法制之可行方向及其基本架構，以 進一步健全未來持續推動公教分途政策之有利環境」等三項為研究目的。而經前揭研究過程後，本研究乃提出結論與建議如下：

一、結論

（一）公教分途係指公務人員與教育人員分途管理之意：公教分途概念下之教育人員，應以《教育人員任用條例》第2條列舉之公立學校校長、教師、運動教練、社教機構專業人員、學術研究機構研究人員等五類為基礎，並宜排除本應適用公務人員法制的學校職員。故確立公教分途管理制度後，並不表示教育人員自此脫離公務員之概念範疇，亦不表示公、私部門教育人員必須適用同一制度。

（二）公教分途政策應兼顧人員取向、事務取向與法制取向：基於各類教育人員之內在關連性，應優先使其共同適用專屬法制，而不宜動輒準用公務人員法制；又凡與教育目的之達成愈具直接關連之人員資格要件等事項，即愈有分途建置制度之必要。此外，公教分途法制除應以保障學生之受教育權為作用基礎與界限，並應兼顧其與大學組織自治及私人興學自由等法制間之衡平。

（三）現行教育人員法制以教師部分最為完備惟仍有待補強：教師係與教育目的之達成及學生受教育權之保障最具關連的教育人員，故以教師專屬制度為推動公教分途政策之首務洵屬正確；而在《教師法》的實定基礎上，其相關法制亦已大致確立，惟有關待遇、資遣、離職等事項則仍有待補強。相對於此，社教機構專業人員與學術研究機構研究人員之相關法制，則最屬薄弱而亟待關照。

（四）教育人員相關事項法制已初具規模並與公務人員法制約略區隔：除待遇、資遣事項外，有關教育人員之資格、任用、考核、進修、請假、申訴、退休、撫卹、離職、保險、證照等相關法制大致均已具備，且形式上多與公務人員有所區隔。惟其本質仍以教師法制為主體，且為校長、運動教練多所準用，另社教機構專 業人員、學術研究機構研究人員則較常準用公務人員法制。

二、建議

（一）建議大幅修正《教育人員任用條例》，並使其成為教育人員法制之基本法。

（二）建議優先強化社教機構專業人員與學術研究機構研究人員相關法制，以進一步落實公教分途政策。

（三）建議全面建置教育人員證照制度，以確立並提升教育人員專業屬性。

（四）建議全面建置教育人員評鑑法制，並使其逐步取代現行考核制度。

　　The status of teachers as government employees has been commonly accepted in Taiwan. Yet, according to Teachers’ Act established in 1995, the certification and accreditation of teachers’ qualifications, employment, rights and obligations, payment, further studies and research, retirement, consolation, separation, severance, insurance, teachers’ organizations, appeals and litigations of teachers are governed by and interpreted in accordance with this law (Article 2). Also, the payment, retirement, consolation, separation, severance, and insurance shall be separately stipulated by law (Article 20, 25). Because a single legal system with teachers as the subject is still unavailable, the policy of distinguishing teachers from government employees has not yet been realized. For the same reason, special laws are also not available for school principals, athletic coaches, the professionals of social education institutions and the researchers of the academic research institutions.

　　This study clarifies the connotation of the policy of distinguishing teachers from government employees. Through comparative analysis of current regulations, it attempts to examine how the policy has been realized. It also proposes suggestions for establishing a legal framework and making probable adjustments, which may serve as reference for promoting related policies in Taiwan in the future. In addition to literature review and legal analysis, this study conducts qualitative research oriented focus group interviews to incorporate multiple perspectives from education, legal academic fields, teachers from different levels of schools and other related interest groups.

　　The purposes of this study include: 1. to clarify the connotation of distinguishing teachers from government employees, as well as to set the direction of related policies based on Act of Governing the Appointment of Educators and Teachers’Act; 2. to compare the differences of the laws that apply to different educators in terms of qualification, employment, evaluation, payment, further studies, taking leaves, appeal, retirement, consolation, separation, severance, insurance, and so on; 3. to suggest a fundamental framework of special laws for educators to facilitate the realization of distinguishing teachers from government employees. Based on the above research process, this study proposes conclusions and suggestions as follows.

Ⅰ.Conclusions

1. Distinguishing teachers from government employees refers to manage government employees and educators respectively: According to the concept of distinguishing teachers from government employees, educators include five basic categories: public school principals, teachers, athletic coaches, the professionals of social education institutions and the researchers of the academic research institutions as listed in Act of Governing the Appointment of Educators (Article 2). School staff should be excluded as the government employee law is applied to them. Therefore, once the new management system is established, it does not mean educators are separated from the conception of government employees; neither does it mean the same system should apply to educators of both public and private institutions.

2. The policy of distinguishing teachers from government employees should take into consideration the personnel, general affair and legal aspects: Because of the connection of different educators, it is important to have a common special law, rather than turn to the government employee law. It is even more essential for those directly related to realizing educational goals to have a separate system in terms of their qualification and employment. Additionally, the policy of distinguishing teachers from government employees should not only protect students’right to education but also seek its balance with university autonomy and freedom of private schooling.

3. In current laws, the teacher section is the soundest but can still be intensified: Teachers are educators who are most closely related to realizing educational goals and protecting students’right to education. It is thus right to promote establishing special laws for teachers. On the solid foundation of Teachers’Act, related laws have been established, but the aspects of payment, severance and separation can be intensified. In contrast, related laws for the professionals of social education institutions and the researchers of the academic research institutions are limited and should receive more attention.

4. The law for educators is roughly shaped and slightly distinguished from the government employee law: Educators’qualification, employment, evaluation, further studies, taking leaves, appeal, retirement, consolation, separation, insurance and certification have been shaped in laws, except payment and severance. Their forms are different from those for the government employees. The laws are essentially based on teachers’laws and can be applied to principals and athletic coaches. On the other hand, the government employee law is applied to the professionals of social education institutions and the researchers of the academic research institutions.

Ⅱ.Suggestion

1. It is necessary to modify Act of Governing the Appointment of Educators and make it the fundamental law for educators.

2. It is a priority to intensify the related law for the professionals of social education institutions and the researchers of the academic research institutions to further the policy of distinguishing teachers from government employees.

3. A complete certification system of educators should be established to promote their professionalism.

4. A complete evaluation system of educators should be established to gradually replace the current system.