本文選題：高校教師 + 申訴制度��； 參考：《中南民族大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)體制的轉(zhuǎn)型，高校自主辦學(xué)權(quán)逐步得到落實(shí)，我國(guó)《高等教育法》規(guī)定高校具備獨(dú)立的法人資格，高校對(duì)教師的評(píng)聘、配備、考核等事項(xiàng)有自主管理的權(quán)力。在學(xué)校對(duì)教師的一系列管理中，不可能盡善盡美地照顧到每位教師的權(quán)力，難免會(huì)產(chǎn)生各種糾紛。《國(guó)家中長(zhǎng)期教育改革和發(fā)展規(guī)劃綱要（2010－2020年）》中要求“尊重教師權(quán)利，加強(qiáng)教師管理”、“健全符合法治原則的教育救濟(jì)制度”。教育申訴制度是一項(xiàng)法定的行政申訴制度，它與教育行政復(fù)議、教育行政訴訟既有聯(lián)系，又有區(qū)別，同為處理教育糾紛、教育維權(quán)的重要法律途徑。高校教師申訴制度則是高校教師對(duì)教育管理中的侵權(quán)行為尋求法律保護(hù)的最佳途徑，隨著高校管理體制全面改革的深入，已經(jīng)越來越受到教師們的關(guān)注和教育行政管理部門的重視。 本研究立足于對(duì)高校教師申訴程序的合理性研究，不涉及具體的技術(shù)研究。通過對(duì)12所樣本高校部分教師（以一線教師和行政管理人員為主）的問卷調(diào)查，結(jié)果顯示目前我國(guó)教師申訴制度在實(shí)施中存在的主要問題為程序的不合理，表現(xiàn)為：缺乏相應(yīng)的規(guī)章制度和專門的受理機(jī)構(gòu)；教師和行政人員缺乏對(duì)申訴制度的了解；申訴程序不透明，申訴結(jié)果的公正性遭質(zhì)疑；申訴途徑不通暢，申訴處理的效率無保障。 因此，發(fā)展和完善高校教師申訴制度使其能真正實(shí)現(xiàn)對(duì)教師侵權(quán)行為的法律救濟(jì)功能，構(gòu)建適應(yīng)我國(guó)的高校教師申訴制度極具重要性，而申訴程序的合理又是整個(gè)制度的核心價(jià)值體現(xiàn)。本文通過對(duì)馬克斯韋伯合理性理論及西方程序價(jià)值理論的分析，將申訴程序的合理分解為價(jià)值合理和技術(shù)合理（工具合理）兩個(gè)方面，即公正與人道、效率與可操作性四個(gè)緯度。在對(duì)這四個(gè)緯度的源流和內(nèi)涵進(jìn)行探析后，將公正、人道、效率和可操作性定為判斷程序合理的四項(xiàng)原則，，并論述了它們?cè)诟咝＝處熒暝V程序中的體現(xiàn)和要求。 圍繞上述四項(xiàng)原則，結(jié)合我國(guó)高校的實(shí)際情況，本文提出了圍繞程序合理來構(gòu)建高校教師申訴制度的五條路徑：制定和完善國(guó)家法律和大學(xué)內(nèi)部管理制度，為教師申訴提供基本法律保障；合理設(shè)置教師申訴的受理機(jī)構(gòu)，為教師申訴提供組織基礎(chǔ)；設(shè)計(jì)多樣化的申訴處理程序，為教師申訴提供多重選擇；建立有效的監(jiān)督機(jī)制，為教師申訴過程公開提供保障平臺(tái)；高校和行政人員要努力轉(zhuǎn)變管理觀念，為教師申訴提供通暢渠道。
[Abstract]:With the transformation of the social and economic system, the independent right to run a school has been gradually carried out. The higher Education Law of our country stipulates that colleges and universities have independent legal personality, and colleges and universities have the power to independently manage such matters as the evaluation, allocation and examination of teachers. In the course of the school's management of teachers, it is impossible to take care of every teacher's rights in a perfect way, and it is inevitable that various disputes will arise. "respect for teachers' rights is required in the outline of the National Medium- and Long-Term Education Reform and Development Plan 2010-2020". To strengthen the management of teachers and to improve the educational relief system in line with the principle of rule of law. The educational appeal system is a statutory administrative appeal system, which is an important legal way to deal with educational disputes and to safeguard the rights of education. The appeal system of college teachers is the best way for college teachers to seek legal protection for the tort in education management. With the thorough reform of the management system in colleges and universities, It has been paid more and more attention by teachers and educational administration departments. This research is based on the research on the rationality of the complaint procedure of university teachers, and does not involve specific technical research. Through the questionnaire survey of some teachers (mainly front-line teachers and administrators) in 12 sample universities, the results show that the main problems existing in the implementation of the teacher complaint system in our country are unreasonable procedures. They are: lack of corresponding rules and regulations and specialized institutions for accepting complaints; lack of understanding of the complaint system among teachers and administrators; lack of transparency in the complaint process; the fairness of the outcome of the complaint is questioned; and the channels of complaint are not smooth, The efficiency of handling complaints is not guaranteed. Therefore, it is of great importance to develop and perfect the appeal system of college teachers so that it can truly realize the function of legal relief to teachers' tort, and to construct a system suitable for our country. The reasonableness of the appeal procedure is the core value of the whole system. Based on the analysis of Max Weber's rationality theory and western procedural value theory, this paper divides the appeal procedure into two aspects: reasonable value and reasonable technology (reasonable tools), that is, justice and humanity. Efficiency and maneuverability are four latitudes. After analyzing the origin and connotation of these four latitudes, the author regards justice, humanity, efficiency and operability as the four principles of reasonable judgment procedure, and discusses their embodiment and requirements in the appeal procedure of university teachers. On the basis of the above four principles and the actual situation of colleges and universities in China, this paper puts forward five ways to construct the appeal system of university teachers according to the reasonable procedure: to formulate and perfect the national laws and the internal management system of universities. To provide basic legal protection for teachers' complaints; to set up a reasonable organization for teachers' complaints, to provide an organizational basis for teachers' complaints; to design diversified complaints processing procedures to provide multiple choices for teachers' complaints; and to establish an effective supervisory mechanism. Colleges and administrators should try their best to change the management concept and provide a smooth channel for teachers' complaints.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中南民族大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D922.16;G645.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 陳瑞華;;通過法律實(shí)現(xiàn)程序正義——薩默斯“程序價(jià)值”理論評(píng)析[J];北大法律評(píng)論;1998年01期

2 季衛(wèi)東;程序比較論[J];比較法研究;1993年01期

3 張少華;;美國(guó)高校教師申訴機(jī)制探索——密歇根大學(xué)迪爾伯恩分校個(gè)案研究[J];比較教育研究;2007年02期

4 劉彥博;楊珍;;美國(guó)高校教師申訴制度的運(yùn)行機(jī)制分析[J];中國(guó)地質(zhì)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2011年06期

5 孫笑俠;法律程序剖析[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));1993年06期

6 鐘金魁;;論"可操作性"[J];黨政論壇;1991年03期

7 金勁彪;杜志宏;;海峽兩岸教師申訴制度的比較研究[J];高等工程教育研究;2007年06期

8 魚霞;申素平;張瑞芳;;教師申訴制度研究[J];教師教育研究;2005年03期

9 曹海晶;試析我國(guó)教師申訴制度[J];高等函授學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);1998年06期

10 丁建芬;;海峽兩岸高校教師申訴制度比較研究[J];高教探索;2008年03期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 鄧?yán)^好;程序正義理論在西方的歷史演進(jìn)[D];華東政法大學(xué);2010年

2 程苗;韋伯形式理性法理論之評(píng)析[D];吉林大學(xué);2011年

本文編號(hào)：1928658