學生之身體自主權及人格發展權，均為《教育基本法》所明文保障；事實上，除體罰對學生身心發展存在不良影響外，要求學生道歉或寫悔過書等強制表意管教措施，亦對學生表現自由與人格發展權有所侵害。惟相對於「體罰」向為教育主管機關所嚴禁，「強制表意」非但未被禁止，歷來更屬有關法令明文例示教師所得採取之措施；然而，此等措施除可能抵觸憲法所保障的言論自由與人性尊嚴外，與國際人權發展趨勢亦顯有出入。就此，本文乃試圖在法令相關規範、司法實務見解、基本人權理論與國際人權文件等基礎上，綜合觀察表意管教措施所可能存在的問題點並提出見解，以提供實務運作之參考。本文認為，表意管教措施除在法制層面上難以具備法律依據，有關學生個人的內心真意亦本即無從強制；因此，學校若有運用表意管教措施之必要，則除須恪遵不強制表意的基本原則外，更應著重此等措施所具有之實質輔導意涵，並依學生最佳利益法則，進一步在程序上導入鼓勵合作而不強制的正向管教理念與作法。

Students’ rights to body autonomy and personality development are protected in the Educational Fundamental Act in Taiwan. In contrast to corporal punishment which is prohibited by law, disciplinary measures of compulsory expression such as asking students to apologize or confess in writing are commonly practiced in elementary and middle schools. Although such disciplinary measures are likely to negatively impact one’s personality development, they have been widely accepted in most education related laws. However, these particular disciplinary measures might not only conflict with freedom of speech and human dignity protected by the Constitution but also differ from the trend of international human rights development. As a result, this paper attempts to analyze the problems that disciplinary measures of compulsory expression may have caused based on regulations in law, views in judicial practice, basic human rights theories and international human rights documents. This study finds that it is practically difficult for disciplinary measures of compulsory expression to have a legal basis as students’ inner thoughts cannot be manipulated. Therefore, when schools need to carry out disciplinary measures of compulsory expression, it is essential to do it in a noncompulsory way and focus more on the intention of such measures in counseling. To act in students’ best interests, school counselors may incorporate some positive values and encourage cooperation—in a noncompulsory manner.