| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 法律學研究所 === 106 === With the awareness of how modern countries decide the content of law-related education through procedural regulations, this thesis aims to analyse the development of the model of how state power controlled course curriculum guidelines from 1945 to 2018, based on the research method of Taiwan legal history.
Under Japanese colonial rule of 1895 to 1945, and KMT’s ruling before the lifting of the martial law in 1990s, Taiwan’s experience of being controlled by procedural regulations on education-related issues did not end with the change of governers. Firstly, considering the legislative authority power was not authorized to stand in education-related issues under Meiji Constitution, the course curriculum guidelines were promulgated by Governor-General of Taiwan with full authority. Secondly, when KMT regime came to Taiwan, not only the take-over policy was made in favor of Chungking KMT members’s proposals, but also the transitional measures did not take native Taiwanese’s opinions into consideration. Thirdly, although ROC Constition has been effective since Dec. 25th 1947, KMT regime continued functioning its party-state system, which was established in the period of political tutelage, in order to take Taiwan as the base to retake the Chinese Mainland. Under the constitutional operation that on the one hand, legislative power could not reflect native Taiwanese’s opinions, on the other hand, administrative power operated following the KMT leader’s instructions, the Ministry of Education (MOE) controlled the content of course curriculum guidelines to implement Chinalization education and partified education by means of the rights to design organization and the rights to appointment according to the blank authority of High School Law or Senior High School Law.
Generally speaking, education was regarded as instrument to achieve the goal of the rulers under strict administrative control during Japanese colonial rule and KMT’s ruling before the lifting of the martial law in 1990s. More specifically, the educational aim of law-relate education during these eras was to train people to surrend to specific ideology. Both Japanese colonial rule and KMT regime connected the concept of “national tradition” with specific moral codes, then described the attitude of “self-surrender” as correct. The difference between these two governers was the object to be surrended to, while one was “Emperor System” based on myth, the other was “party-state system” based on the political concept of “the Chinese nation.”
Though the comprehensive re-election has been held since 1990s, the congress had never made any amendment of the blank authority of Senior High School Law until the third partisan turnover in 2016. According to such law, before the first partisan turnover in 2000, KMT government still continued to utilize the MOE’s rights to design organization and the rights to appointment in order to reserve moral education and cultural education partially, which appllied to the educational aim of teaching “self- surrender.” On the contrary, DPP government began to build a communicative framework for diversity values to make amendments on course curriculum guidelines, thus started to teach “self-reflection” instead of “self-surrender” in law-related education.
However, only if the problem of blank authority be solved, and the course curriculum guidelines’ characterization became clear, could people’s rights of participation in procedure be protected by legal institution. Indeed, the controvercy of adjustment of curriculum guidelines in 2014 after the second partisan turnover in 2008 serves as an example of reappear of the KMT’s party-state system to control the content of the law-related education in senior high school. Considering the legal history of procedural regulations on law-related education in senior high school mentioned above, how shall a modern country arrange the separation of powers on education-related issues to ensure the inclusiveness of education has became an improtant legal issue. As for current regulations, the administratice power plays the leading role in the stage of development of courses, while the legislative power leads the stage of deliberation on currirulum guidelines in accordance with Senior High School Education Act. By and large, in light of the necessity of the legislative power’s participation in the context of historical experience, and the professional autonomy regarding to education-related issues, the arrangement on separation of powers can be considered as being worthy of adoption, except for the type of resolution that the Curriculum Deliberation Council (CDC) could adjust the draft directly.
|
|---|
