國家教育研究院

　　依據《國民教育法》相關規定，除人事、主計單位外，小型學校亦須至少設置教導處、總務處及輔導室或輔導教師，且各處室之下另得設組；至其處室主任及組長，則多由教師兼任。若以六班的小型學校而言，全校將有三分之一以上的教師必須兼任行政職務，其中甚至有部分教師另須同時兼任班級導師，此對該等教師的本職教學工作，難免產生分心、分力的不利影響，進而直接損及學生的受教品質。此外，就處室主任及組長的人選而論，小型學校除教師人力本極為有限外，其依法不得擔任處室行政職務的代理教師比例亦屬偏高；校長基於此等現實條件，或恐更無擇人適任的裁量空間，而顯然不利於校長的行政領導及其校務經營。據此，本研究主要針對國民教育階段之小型學校「處室編制相關規範」及「教師兼任行政職務之實際運作」等二項課題進行探討，並透過文件分析、焦點團體座談與個別專家訪談等研究方法，以蒐集相關資料並形成本研究之結論與建議如下：
一、結論
（一）學校處室編制係由法律設定且不同規模學校間之差異甚小，又處室所屬單位編制雖另由地方法規規範，惟目前並無促使學校精簡編制之誘因。
（二）全校班級數六班以下之小型學校，所有教師均須就行政職務或班級導師中兼任至少一職，其教師兼任行政職務之比例明顯過高。
（三）小型學校之校務行政工作分量，並未隨班級數、學生數之降低而等比例減少，致使相對有限的教師人力未能以教學為主軸進行配置。
二、建議
（一）建議學校規模之設定，宜同時考量班級數及學生數，並使「全校六班以下且學生總人數50人以下」之小型學校適用行政職務精簡方案。
（二）建議各縣市可配合既有學校規模區分公文下達對象，並可分區設置中心學校提供小型學校行政輔助措施，以使其有限人力回歸教學主軸。
（三）建議小型學校可採取行政工作化整為零方案，全校教師均以學習領域編組參與「行政轉化教學」，並將既有主管職務加給改編列為教師工作費。
（四）建議小型學校可採取精簡職位提升誘因方案，並基於總量管制、彈性運用之原則，修正法規使校長擁有適度調整主管人數及職務加給之權限。
?

　　According to the related regulations in “Primary and Junior High School Act,” in addition to personnel and payroll offices, small-scale schools should set up offices of academic affairs and general affairs and a counseling center or a counselor. Each office may have sections under it. Teachers usually have to take multiple positions from directors to section chiefs. Taking a small-scale school with six classes as an example, more than one-third of the teachers in the school must undertake administrative duties, and some of them also have to serve as home-room teachers. It has adverse effects to both teaching and student learning. Moreover, because of the shortage of manpower in small-scale schools and the high proportion of substitute teachers who are not eligible for performing administrative duties, principals do not have many choices regarding office directors and section chiefs. It may impose a negative impact on principals’ administrative leadership and school management. As a result, this study focused on the related regulations of small-scale schools’ administrative office organization, as well as the actual operation of teachers undertaking administrative duties. Through document analysis, focus group interviews and in-depth interviews, this study collected data and formed conclusions and suggestions as follows:
Ⅰ. Conclusions
1. Schools’ administrative office organization is determined by the law, so there is little difference among schools of different scales. Also, divisions of each office is regulated by local law. So far, it seems there is little incentive to simplify the system.
2. For small-scale schools with less than six classes, all the teachers have to either undertake administrative duties or serve as home-room teachers. The proportion is apparently too high.
3. The school administrative workload at small-scale schools is not reduced proportionately according to the number of classes and students. As a result, limited manpower cannot be arranged to serve the best interest of teaching.
Ⅱ. Suggestions
1. The school scale should be set up according to the number of classes and students. Simplified administrative duty policy should apply to small-scale schools with less than six classes or less than 50 students.
2. To help small-scale schools devote their manpower to teaching, the county and city governments may differentiate school scales to determine whom to send its official document or announcement to. It is suggested that center schools can be set up in different districts to help administrative work at small-scale schools.
3. Small-scale schools may break up the administrative work into parts. All the teachers may be divided into different learning areas and participate in transforming administrative work into teaching. Supervisory allowance can be turned into allowance for teachers.
4. Small-scale schools may simplify administrative duty as an incentive. Based on the principles of total amount control and flexible use, regulations can be modified to give the principals the right to adjust the number of administrators and their allowance.
?