Nine trade unions including Taiwan’s education industry and industry call for the abolition of school affairs meetings and the establishment of a reputation recovery and compensation mechanism

The Ministry of Education announced a reformed version of the school council meeting today (7th), which clearly stipulates that if a teacher’s behavior is clearly not punishable by law or meets reasonable discipline standards, the school should directly close the case; for general punishment cases, the conditions for external investigation will be further clarified. Nine teachers' unions, including the Taiwan Education Industry Union, issued a statement today criticizing the Ministry of Education for only "fine-tuning" and failing to solve the fundamental problems of school meetings. They called for the abolition of school meetings and the enactment of teachers' reputation restoration and compensation mechanisms into law.

The Ministry of Education revised Articles 8 and 9-2 of the Measures for Dismissal of Teachers. After the school receives a report, if the teacher's behavior is clearly not punishable by law, or meets the guidance and discipline standards set by the school in accordance with the law, the case should be closed directly without convening a meeting to decide whether to accept the report. After the school receives the report, if it is clear that the teacher's behavior is not punishable by law, the case can be closed directly. The teacher performance evaluation method clearly stipulates that only when it is difficult to conduct an on-campus investigation due to staffing, remote areas, or other special circumstances, external personnel can be sent to investigate.

Kuo Yan-cheng, chairman of Taiwan Education Industry, said that there have been long-term disputes about roles and responsibilities in school council meetings, and the investigation process is time-consuming. Conflicts that could have been handled through parent-teacher communication or in-school counseling may also enter formal investigations, increasing the burden on teachers and school administration.

Guo Yancheng questioned that although the assessment method clearly stipulates the conditions for external investigation, it still retains "other special circumstances" and believes that the boundaries are not clear enough and may become a flexible space for external investigation. In addition, although anonymous reports have been excluded, the union believes that when schools face lack of specific evidence or malicious reports, they may still initiate procedures for fear of being questioned and "taking the case."

Nine unions including the Taiwan Education Industry and Trade Unions put forward three demands, including the abolition of school council meetings, returning administrative discretion and disciplinary powers to schools, and clarifying that cases with malicious abuse and lack of specific evidence will be rejected; shortening the investigation period before the system is abolished; and establishing a teacher reputation recovery and compensation mechanism. For teachers who are confirmed to have been falsely accused or abused after investigation, there should be public clarification and reputation recovery measures, and consideration should be given to compensating teachers for related losses caused by cooperating with the investigation.

The nine major trade unions that jointly issued the statement include Taiwan Education Industry Union, Tainan City Education Industry Union, Kaohsiung City Teachers Professional Union, Pingtung County Education Industry Union, Yilan County Teachers Professional Union, Keelung City Teachers Professional Union, Miaoli County School Industry Union at all levels, Hsinchu City Teachers Professional Union and Hsinchu County School Industry Union at all levels.