公立高中教師教學自由與其限制之合憲性檢視：以十二年國教課綱總綱為例
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2022
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
本論文旨在探究中小學教師教學自由的憲法基礎，以及針對十二年國教課綱對於教學自由之限制，進行合憲性檢視。採取的研究方法包括：「文獻分析法」（document analysis）以及「比較研究法」（comparative research method）。1970年代，美國聯邦法院較為保障中小學教師教學自由。1988年，最高法院作成Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier案判決，下級法院將其標準用來審查中小學教師的課堂言論，中小學教師的教學自由漸受限制；2006年，最高法院作成Garcetti v. Ceballos案判決，下級法院將此案標準應用在中小學教師的教學，使得課堂言論不受憲法第一修正案保障，大幅限縮教學自由。2015年Arce v. Douglas (2015)判決中，聯邦巡迴法院法官運用了最高法院Board of Education v. Pico (1982)案之標準，肯定學生「獲取資訊的權利」亦受憲法第一修正案的保障，判決學生勝訴。因此從憲法第一修正案中學生的「獲取資訊的權利」亦可推導出中小學教師的教學自由。有別於美國憲法第一修正案並未明文列舉學術自由，我國憲法第11條提到講學自由，但過去偏重大學層面的學術自由制度性保障；至於教學自由是否是中小學教師的憲法基本權利，對此問題，本研究肯定中小學教師教學自由應受憲法承認，其憲法依據，包括三者共同形成：1.憲法第11條之學術自由下教師的個人權2.憲法第21條學生受教育權之衍生權，以及3.憲法第15條之執行職業自由。本研究試圖勾勒出合憲的十二年國教課程綱要的圖像：1.形式上符合法律保留原則：修正高級中等教育法第43條，就其授權的內容、目的、範圍具體明確的規定。2.中小學教師教學自由限制之違憲審查標準採取「中度審查」。十二年國教課綱中「公開授課」之規定，部分通過中度審查基準（共同備課），部分並未通過中度審查基準（每學年公開授課一次）。「學習歷程檔案」之目的及手段有實質關聯，通過中度審查基準而合憲。關於「跨領域或跨科目協同教學」，協同教學之規定（手段）與提升學生學習成效（目的）並無實質關聯，未能通過中度審查基準而違憲。
The purpose of this research is to explore the basis of teaching freedom for public high school teachers, and constitutional review of General Guidelines of the 12-Year Basic Education Curriculum restriction. The methods used in this research include “document analysis” and “comparative research methods”.This paper will proceed in five parts. Part I discusses the constitutional basis of Teaching Freedom for Primary and Secondary School Teachers in German, Japan, and America.Part II discusses the current approaches to analyzing curricular speech under the Free Speech Clause. Federal circuit courts have applied four distinct doctrinal approaches to determine whether the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause protects curricular speech:1.the Tinker test；2. the Pickering-Connick approach; 3.the Hazelwood test; and 4. the Garcetti test. Part III proposes the constitutional basis of Teaching freedom for public high school teachers in Taiwan, and Part IV explore constitutional review of General Guidelines of the 12-Year Basic Education Curriculum restriction. After introducing U.S. courts decisions, part V poses suggestions on Taiwan’s policies by comparing with American policies.
The purpose of this research is to explore the basis of teaching freedom for public high school teachers, and constitutional review of General Guidelines of the 12-Year Basic Education Curriculum restriction. The methods used in this research include “document analysis” and “comparative research methods”.This paper will proceed in five parts. Part I discusses the constitutional basis of Teaching Freedom for Primary and Secondary School Teachers in German, Japan, and America.Part II discusses the current approaches to analyzing curricular speech under the Free Speech Clause. Federal circuit courts have applied four distinct doctrinal approaches to determine whether the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause protects curricular speech:1.the Tinker test；2. the Pickering-Connick approach; 3.the Hazelwood test; and 4. the Garcetti test. Part III proposes the constitutional basis of Teaching freedom for public high school teachers in Taiwan, and Part IV explore constitutional review of General Guidelines of the 12-Year Basic Education Curriculum restriction. After introducing U.S. courts decisions, part V poses suggestions on Taiwan’s policies by comparing with American policies.
Description
Keywords
十二年國教課綱總綱, 教學自由, 教育自由, 教師專業自主權, General Guidelines of the 12-Year Basic Education Curriculum, Teaching freedom for public high school teachers, Teachers' Professional Autonomy