資遣是政府機關或民間企業組織變革中所採取的手段，透過金錢給予而終止原來的法律關係，現行公立學校教師之資遣，主要依據《教師法》第14條及第15條，以及即將於2018年7月1日實施的《公立教職員退休資遣撫卹條例》第24條，本文從訴願案例發想出問題意識，即公立中小學教師因教學行為失當，親職溝通及班級經營不良經輔導後仍無法改善，究應採取《教師法》第14條第1項第14款之「解聘、停聘、不續聘」或同法第15條之「資遣」在立法論與法律解釋與適用論上均有探討之價值。基此，本文透過文獻分析法，從公立中小學教師資遣的法規範體系解釋適用出發，並就教師資遣立法脈絡加以評釋，同時透過裁判分析法，考察現行教育行政實務在處理上述情事有無漏洞，以及是否會造成不公平現象。經研究發現，由於現行《教師法》第14條第1項第14款「教學不力或不能勝任工作有具體事實」與同法第15條後段「現職工作不適任」可能產生競合，實務操作上可能產生教評會在教育主管機關的指導下濫用專業判斷，於事實認定時「避重就輕」。同時，也可能基於同事情誼或過於鄉愿或而錯誤適用法律效果。本文認為要避免此一情況，權宜之計應考量《教師法》第14條及第15條重新設計，個別明定「解聘」、「不續聘」及「資遣」的法定事由，否則任由教評會選擇法條適用，將造成法安定性的衝擊。

Severance is a method adopted by government agencies or private enterprises for organizational reform, in which an employment relationship is terminated through a payment scheme. Teacher severance in public schools is based on Articles 14 and 15 of the Teachers’ Act, and Article 24 of Act Governing Retirement and Bereavement Compensation for the Teaching and Other Staff members of Public Schools (to take effect on July 1, 2018). In this study, we have identified problems based on some appeal cases. For teachers in public elementary and secondary schools who do not perform adequately, do not have proper communication with students’ parents, or do not manage their classes properly, and furthermore, do not show improvement after counseling and guidance, it is worth exploring from the perspectives of de lege ferenda, de lege lata, and law application whether Teachers’ Act Article 14, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 14 about “dismissal, suspension, or non-renewal employment,” or Article 15 about severance should be adopted. This study adopted document analysis to explain the applicable scope of the regulations about teacher severance in public elementary and secondary schools as well as the related legal context. In addition, using the referee method of analysis, we examined whether a loophole exists in current educational administrative practice that may cause injustice. One of our research findings is Teachers’ Act Article 14, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 14 “Specific instances of their not fulfilling a teacher’s duties, or being unfit to teach” overlaps Article 15 “those who are unfit for their current positions.” In practice, the education council may abuse their professional judgment under the guidance of competent educational authorities and fail to make proper judgments according to the facts. In addition, the education council may improperly explain regulations out of hypocrisy or because of rapport between colleagues. This study proposes that to avoid this situation, Teachers’ Act Articles 14 and 15 should be redesigned to stipulate legal reasons separately for dismissal, non-renewal employment, and severance; otherwise, letting the education council choose the applicable act articles may affect legal certainty.