本文以憲法釋義學，援引大法官許宗力與許玉秀於釋字第596號「平等原則」不同意見書的審查模式，期以檢驗教育部2005年11月8日台人（三）字第0940144739號書函關於「現職專任教師超時授課鐘點費」及非專任教師兼課相應法令之規範關係的合憲性。一學期兼課專任教師之實領鐘點恆大於（或等於）實授鐘點，立意雖良善，然所採取之手段與目的達成間之實質關聯，應通盤設想同工同酬，絕非以排除非專任教師兼課鐘點費請領標的來宣示，此等毋為撙節人事經費所必要，且非正當合理之區別對待的有力論證；其次，教育部為統一規範中小學外聘教師作業程序，特定《中小學兼任代課及代理教師聘任辦法》，然課稅配套措施之減授課方案卻讓基層學校於聘用相應契約人力之際，面臨無法可依的窘境；最後，根據研究結論，提出本文的建議。

This study cited the investigating pattern of Grand Justices, Tzong-Li Sheu and Yuh-Shiou Sheu, regarding differing opinion paper of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 596, “principle of equality,” in order to test the constitutionality of authorized explanation of Ministry of Education (MOE) about full-time and non-full-time teachers’ hourly pay for teaching extra classes at elementary and junior high schools. It is a gesture of goodwill that full-time teachers’ hourly pay for teaching extra classes is equal to or more than the actual number of extra hours they teach per semester. However, authorities should ensure that the equilibrium between the means and the end is not achieved by bluntly ignoring the idea of equal pay for equal work or by deliberately depriving non-full-time teachers of the right that full-time teachers enjoy. Also, to regulate the employment of external teachers at elementary and secondary schools, MOE has set up “Regulations for Employing Part-time Teachers, Substitute Teachers, and Deputized Teachers at Elementary and Secondary Schools.” However, these regulations have caused difficulties for the schools that need to employ non-full-time teachers to cope with the “Reducing Teaching Hours Program,” which is a supporting measure for the levy of the income tax for elementary and junior high school teachers. Finally, based on its main findings, this study offered a number of suggestions.