我國國民中學階段校園霸凌防制之研究

Abstract

本研究在探究目前國中霸凌防制的現況，了解國中教學現場校園霸凌處理的困難。為了達成此目的，採取法制研究途徑，即從法律或制度的角度來描述我國在霸凌防制行為上所採行的相關制度、典章。再以文獻分析法，針對2004年起推動迄今的校園霸凌防制實務及政策進行歸納、整理、分析。最後輔以日本及美國紐澤西州相關法規、政策，介紹其校園霸凌防制的規範及作為，分析可以做為我國日後修改政策或制定新法時之參考。 根據分析結果，本研究的結論如下： 第一、處理校園霸凌的法律位階偏低，無法提升集體防範意識 一、有對策卻未立專屬法律，僅能由其他相關法律尋求處理依據。 二、有校園霸凌防制準則的制定，但規範層次明顯偏低。 三、囿於｢法律保留｣原則，涉及人民義務時較乏法律約束力。 第二、目前的課責制度仍有缺失，無法真正落實義務與責任 一、霸凌處理，尚須強化利害相關人等（政府、學校、家長）的課責。 二、在學校評鑑、教師、縣市考核等方面仍有改善空間。 三、家長部分，不是責任過輕，就是缺乏強制性，甚難規範配合。 第三、校方處理霸凌事件時有責無權且分工不清，通報無法真正落實 一、學校處理霸凌通報有法定義務，但缺乏要求利害關係人配合的權力。 二、校內責任分工不夠明確，防制小組也未明文規定其操作模式。 三、在無專人負責的情況之下，不利協調或有通報不力的狀況；加上承辦人員更迭過密，也有交接頻仍卻銜接不順的困擾。 第四、重輔導而輕懲戒、不夠看重普通教師之授權與增能 一、教師授權與增能是強化保護者能力的第一步，但在職前養成或在職要求上，對教師霸凌防制的增能部分尚缺欠規畫與考核。 二、重輔導而輕懲戒，目前法令並未對重大懲戒處分事由及程序予以規範，亦未賦予校方或教師在處理霸凌問題時，有一定的懲戒權限。

根據研究結果，提出下列建議： 第一、制定專法，提高集體防範意識 一、提高霸凌防制的立法層次，以強調各相關利害關係人課責。 二、明訂各相關人義務及違反時的責任，加強宣導，以彰顯防制的決心。 第二、透過公共課則的機制，確保「有效監督」 一、「重大事件」的調查的結果，須主動向民意機關報告。 二、霸凌政策的內容須提交地方議會認同。 三、縣、市統合視導考評方式可再檢討。 四、校方人員的霸凌處理能力，可要求通過一定學術機構檢驗。 第三、明訂家長積極配合的義務、讓家長管教責任法制化 一、確立家長管教責任法制化的原則。 二、落實父母究責與家長增能的機制。 三、賦予學校法令依據，要求家長出席諮商、輔導課程，配合學校之特定要求以改善學生行為。 第四、設置霸凌防制專職教師及設置霸凌防制專款 一、仿美國紐澤西州置專人負責(校內設專職教師，區內設霸凌協調專員或縣市設置霸凌保護官)，以更積極應對的方式解決問題。 二、設置專款，確保資源不被挪用，以利宣導防制、發現處理、輔導矯正各期程相關工作的進行。 第五、立法賦予學校適當懲戒權並落實替代教育措施 一、讓教師在充分授權及工具完備之下，進行有意義之管教。 二、建置行為改善支援輔導機制及提供更周延的替代教育。

This study aims to explore the existing bullying prevention and addressing strategies in junior high schools of Taiwan and to grasp the addressing and difficulty of such bullying. To attain this goal, research is done into relevant mechanisms, regulations, and laws currently adopted for the prevention and addressing of campus bullying. Accompanying it are two analyses: a documentary one of bullying prevention and addressing strategies and practices in Taiwan’s junior high schools that have been followed since 2004; a comparative one of the equivalents of Japan and New Jersey, USA, for future reference in modifying relevant policies and regulations. The concluding remarks of this study include: First, despite corresponding policies being formulated, relevant regulations are not potent enough to raise group awareness about bullying prevention and addressing. The legal hierarchy should be improved . Second, the current accountability system is still inadequate, can not really implement the obligations and responsibilities Third, school authorities, though legally held responsible for the addressing of campus bullying, are neither all-powerful nor effective in asking the relevant interested parties；Schools’ responsibility are also not clear enough, Bullying Prevention Panel is neither expressly provided its mode of operation nor the division of labor. Fourth, counseling is put more stress on than discipline in dealing with school bullying；not enough attention to the ordinary teachers’ empowerment and capability in dealing with school bullying. Drawing on the results of the study, suggestions are offered as follows: First, need to increase the level of bullying prevention legislation in order to emphasize the relevant interested parties accountability and to raise group awareness about bullying prevention and addressing. Second, through public accountability are mechanisms to ensure "effective oversight." . Results of the investigation of the major events, should takethe initiative to report to the public authorities；The content of bullying policies are required to submitted and agreed by public authorities；Bullying processing capabilities of school personnel shall be checked by some academic institutions. Third, parental duties are to be clearly specified and parental disciplining is to be legalized; Gives schools legal basis to require parents to attend counseling, counseling programs, with specific requirements for schools to improve student behavior Fourth, school anti-bullying specialist, bullying coordinator or protection officer and funds are to be designated，ensure that resources are not diverted. Fifth, try to legislate to gives schools the right to appropriate disciplinary measures and implement alternative education.