헌법재판소의 수석교사제 결정례의 평석을 통한 수석교사제 규율의 문제점과 개선방안

Abstract

The Constitutional Court dismisses the promotion regulations such as Article 29-4 (4) of 「Public Educational Official Act」and the allowance regulations such as Article 9-8 of 「Decree on the Appointment of Public Educational Officials」that are requested for the adjudgment of unconstitutionality related to the master teachers’ fundamental rights. The Constitutional Court confirms that the master teachers are given a separate position which is different from administrative position and focuses on the teaching and researching activity against the vertical promotion system, and recognizes that the restriction of the master teacher’s acquiring qualification of principals and vice-principals during his term is rational discrimination for establishing the system. The Constitutional Court suggests that the master teacher’s position corresponds with the administrative position, comparing to the principals’ allowance as regards allowance regulations and to the vice-principal’s extra supporting expenses for the position. According to this, it is necessary to confirm that the master teacher has a position corresponding to the principals and vice-principals. As the Constitutional Court prescribed that the master teacher’s expenses for research is same with allowance or extra position expenses supplement for administrative position, the master teacher’s expenses for research should be included in 「The Regulations Concerning Allowances, etc. for Public Officials」 as allowance for research. Henceforth the request and trial for ‘the restriction of change of post’ rather than ‘the restriction of promotion’ of the master teachers should be treated.