A Lawyer's Perspective on the Current State of Rule of Law in Schools (Part II): Post-2026 Reforms and the Future

A Lawyer's Perspective on the Current State of Rule of Law in Schools (Part I): 2019–2025

Authors: Wu Ching-han, Chiao (First Half), Attorney Chen Linxiang (Second Half)

Editors: Tsai Ta-jung, Pan Pei-chen, Lee Ming-ju

---

In this newsletter, besides highlighting the contents of this year's legal amendments and summarizing the commentaries by Attorney Weng Kuo-yen and Attorney Hsiao I-hua, we have also invited retired teacher and practicing attorney Chen Linxiang to comment on the new system and look forward to the future.

I. Reconstruction: The 2026 Legal Amendment Introducing Case Diversification and Named Reporting

Five years after the implementation of the 2020 new system, criticisms from various sectors received a response in 2025. Minister of Education Cheng Ying-yao promised to amend the laws. On January 12, 2026, the amendments to the Regulations Governing the Dismissal, Non-Renewal, Suspension, or Disqualification of Teachers in Schools at and Below the Senior High School Level were officially promulgated, with the new system taking effect on the 14th of the same month.

"The necessity of the School Affairs Meeting lies in the fact that there are still teachers in the teaching field involved in severe corporal punishment, sexual assault, sexual harassment, or bullying. It is imperative to bring in external personnel to conduct investigations within schools and ascertain the facts; it is impossible to leave everything to schools to investigate behind closed doors.

However, for other minor cases that do not reach the threshold of dismissal, where a teacher's initial reaction and handling might simply lack sufficient nuance and precision, these should be reconcilable through administrative measures by school supervisors, or provide the parties concerned with an opportunity for improvement and adjustment. By establishing certain mitigating mechanisms to allow teachers a slight margin for 'error tolerance,' the Ministry of Education's amendment of the dismissal regulations early this year is likely a step in the right direction." ——
Attorney Weng Kuo-yen

The core rationale of this legislative amendment is the recognition of a "breakdown in case diversification"—not all cases entering the School Affairs Meeting require the same most rigorous investigative standards.

Summary of the January 2026 Amendments

Reform	Summary
Case Diversification	Serious cases of teacher unfitness proceed through School Affairs Meetings; ordinary disciplinary disputes return to the performance-evaluation process without external investigators.
Named Reporting	Anonymous reporting provisions are removed; complainants must identify themselves and take responsibility for their statements.
Acceptance Review	A four-member panel comprising the principal, an external expert, a teacher representative, and a parent representative decides whether to accept a case.
Principal’s Role	The principal chairs the acceptance-review meeting but does not vote, reducing undue pressure and institutional imbalance.
Competent Authority	The education bureau may decline a case before it reaches the school and need not forward it to the school.
Assisting Person	A teacher under investigation may be accompanied by an assisting person during an interview.
Information Disclosure	The investigation report must be proactively provided to the respondent within the prescribed period.

(1) Major Cases Go to School Affairs Meetings, Minor Cases Return to Performance Evaluation Regulations

The new system explicitly regulates that School Affairs Meetings shall only handle unfitness cases stipulated by the Teachers’ Act—namely, those involving sexual assault, severe corporal punishment or bullying, and conduct violating relevant laws and regulations making dismissal necessary. If a case falls under general disciplinary circumstances stipulated by the Regulations Governing the Performance Evaluation of Teachers at Public Senior High Schools or Lower Levels, such as teaching negligence or improper discipline, it returns to the performance evaluation regulations for handling, with the school independently dispatching personnel to investigate without initiating the full procedure of an external investigation committee.

In other words, the previously "one-size-fits-all" door has now been divided into two: severe unfitness cases follow the rigorous School Affairs Meeting procedure, while general disciplinary disputes follow internal performance evaluation procedures.

(2) Named Reporting Raises the Threshold for Complaints

The new system deletes the provisions for anonymous reporting. Hereafter, complaints against teachers must be submitted with a real name, and the complainant must take responsibility for their statements.

(3) Four-Member Panel Decides on Acceptance; Principal Does Not Vote

Previously, whether to accept a case was primarily dominated by the principal, and the predicament of principals bearing pressure from all sides and struggling to make independent judgments was widely criticized. Under the new system, the acceptance review meeting is convened by the principal and consists of four members: one professional from the external investigation talent pool, one teacher representative from the School Affairs Meeting, and one parent representative. Decisions are made by secret ballot, with the principal presiding over the meeting but not participating in the vote.

The design logic is to remove the principal from the position of "having to shoulder everything," allowing multiple representatives to jointly decide, thereby reducing the possibility of a principal hastily or coercively initiating an investigation due to undue pressure.

(4) Upstreaming the Gatekeeping Role of Competent Authorities

The new system stipulates that if a competent authority (county or city education bureau) receives a report or becomes aware of an incident and determines that there are grounds for non-acceptance, it shall directly notify the complainant of non-acceptance without further notifying the school for handling. In other words, the education bureau can block the case directly before it reaches the school, sparing schools from unnecessary administrative burdens.

(5) Assisting Person System: Teachers No Longer Have to Face It Alone the First Time

The new system introduces the assisting person system. When interviewed, a teacher under investigation may invite a school teacher, parent, or other internal or external personnel to act as an assisting person to accompany them, helping them understand the procedure and express their opinions.

This change may seem minor, but it is of great significance. In the past, teachers walking into investigative interviews often faced a panel of investigators entirely alone, without an investigation report in hand, and without knowing the specific content of the accusations, leaving them to defend themselves solely based on memory and guesswork.

Simultaneously, the new system stipulates that once the investigation report is completed, the school must proactively provide it to the respondent within the time limit. Teachers no longer need to face the Teacher Review Committee in a state of "feeling around in the dark."

II. After the Amendment: Issues Awaiting Observation

While the new system appears to offer partial reviews and corrections to old problems, it has only been a few months since its launch on January 14, 2026. Therefore, apart from old issues not touched upon by the new system itself, its systemic effects still await verification over time.

(1) Old Ills Untouched by the New System

Attorney Weng points out that regarding the revision of remand mechanisms, this amendment does not address the issue of education bureaus exerting one-way pressure on school decisions—such as the practice of remanding non-established cases to demand a finding of establishment, or remanding light penalties to demand heavier ones. Regarding the quality of investigators, the structural problems of the talent pool persist, and the professional standards and independence of external committee members remain key variables determining the quality of investigations, an issue not directly addressed in this amendment.

Furthermore, this amendment also leaves untouched the aforementioned vulnerability of testimonies and procedural safeguards for teachers. Teachers below senior high school still have to fend for themselves when faced with cases where student testimonies are induced or tainted. Attorney Hsiao mentions that if he could change only one thing, he would start by pursuing procedural justice. The problem he most frequently observes in practice is that when teachers walk into interviews, they have no idea what they are accused of. In some cases, complaints are dragged out for a long time, and teachers who have taught for decades and guided thousands of students are completely unable to pinpoint which student or incident is at issue. The handling officer dares not inform them in advance, nor do the investigative committee members clarify things before the interview; the case details are only revealed during the interview, and teachers are asked to answer on the spot despite unclear people, matters, times, places, and objects.

Attorney Hsiao believes the correct approach is to let teachers know at least the approximate class and incident type before the interview, and give them ample time to recall. Alternatively, supplemental written statements of opinion could be submitted within a week, allowing teachers time to prepare and respond. Attorney Hsiao considers this the most basic requirement of procedural justice; otherwise, if the substance of the allegations is not disclosed, how can anyone respond? Additionally, critical evidence must also be confirmed by the parties concerned—"Is this your chat history with the other party? Is this the conversation between you two?"—rather than being directly cited and determined by committee members.

Furthermore, Attorney Hsiao also cares about the teaching field following procedures. He believes that psychological counseling and support are of paramount importance. After a case concludes, regardless of which party, emotional reactions often remain unpacified and harms unhealed. Attorney Hsiao I-hua believes that counseling is not only needed when someone falls ill, but rather that when emotions arise, someone is needed to teach you how to adjust your mindset. If schools perform well in this area, the subsequent harm of many cases can be mitigated.

(2) Issues and Concerns Awaiting Observation Under the New System

Many parts of the newly revised and added mechanisms require the test of time. First, the new system permits lighter cases not involving dismissal to be resolved through coordination by school administrative departments, avoiding the routine initiation of School Affairs Meeting investigations and interview procedures, which may help teachers retain a certain degree of discretion and professional judgment. However, Attorney Weng points out that according to the newly amended Article 9-1 of the Dismissal Regulations and Article 6-1 of the Regulations Governing the Performance Evaluation of Teachers at Public Senior High Schools or Lower Levels, how exactly will cases not involving dismissal be investigated by the Performance Evaluation Committee? Will an investigation team still need to be formed? What will the effectiveness be? These are all matters awaiting observation following the new reforms.

Attorney Weng notes: The necessity of the School Affairs Meeting lies in providing an external, independent investigative mechanism for truly severe misconduct, moving away from schools handling matters behind closed doors. This function is a genuine need. The problem has never been the existence of this procedure, but rather that it has been used to handle too many cases that do not belong to it. Whether case diversification can truly keep "cases wrongly entering School Affairs Meetings" outside the door, and whether the design of the new acceptance mechanism is sufficient, both require continuous observation in actual operation.

Before standing the test of time, divergent opinions among various parties have already fermented following the legal amendments. Parent and human rights groups are relatively positive about the direction of the amendments, calling for the implementation of supporting diversification measures to ensure that students' rights to education are not impaired by diversification. Teacher groups remain concerned that "malicious vexatious litigation" after naming might still occur, and current amendments lack clear preventive or accountability mechanisms for this. Student groups also have reservations, believing that removing the anonymous mechanism might cause genuine victims of campus bullying and sexual harassment to remain silent out of fear of retaliation. Student groups specifically remind that following the abolition of anonymous reporting, personal data protection audits must be strengthened to prevent the leakage of complainants' identities.

Evidently, the tensions and value divergences among mechanisms before and after the amendments have not yet dissipated.

---

In the second half of this article, we invited retired teacher and practicing attorney Chen Linxiang to contribute an article, adding minor subheadings to further bring out the issues that still need to be faced after the legal amendments:

Author: Chen Linxiang (Retired Teacher, Practicing Attorney)

With the completion of educational legal systems, the handling of campus incidents is indeed moving continuously toward the requirements of a "rule of law state." However, the balance between judicial intervention and education has become a major issue in the educational community in recent years; whether current regulations transform schools' mission from "running schools" to "handling cases" has been subject to high skepticism from grassroots teachers at large.

I. What Are the Effects of Deleting the "Anonymous" Mechanism?

Whether this regulatory amendment can truly achieve the aforementioned purpose usually requires verification over time. Because this revision deletes the provisions on "anonymous reporting" to enhance the rigor and fairness of "case non-acceptance" (Article 9 of the Dismissal Regulations), it has indeed significantly reduced cases "entering School Affairs Meeting investigations"; however, these cases "not entering School Affairs Meeting investigations" have not truly disappeared. Instead, pursuant to the newly added Article 6-1 of the Regulations Governing the Performance Evaluation of Teachers at Public Senior High Schools or Lower Levels, the mechanism previously found in the Dismissal Regulations whereby "schools independently dispatch personnel to investigate minor cases" has been entirely transplanted.

Therefore, it is foreseeable that school performance evaluation committees will likely become busier henceforth, and furthermore, 【the provision of "non-acceptance of anonymous reports" does not apply】 here (Article 9-1 of the Dismissal Regulations); this offers virtually no help in reducing the workload of schools "handling cases."

Under current regulations for handling campus incidents, cases related to teachers can be divided into two streams:

1. School Affairs Meetings (Teacher Review Committees, Performance Evaluation Committees)

2. Gender Incidents (Gender Equity Education Committees, Teacher Review Committees, Performance Evaluation Committees).

The provision that "anonymous reports shall not be accepted" has long been stipulated in Article 32, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 2 of the Gender Equity Education Act (hereinafter the "GEEA"); logically, this should reduce "gender incidents" entering investigations. However, Article 18, Paragraph 3, Subparagraph 3 of the Regulations Governing the Prevention of Gender-Related Incidents on Campuses stipulates that if "the respondent is the principal or a staff member," discretion may be exercised to initiate a public interest investigation1. The original intent of this regulation was to proclaim "rigorous handling of gender incidents," but the practical result is that as long as a gender incident involves a teacher as the respondent, it effectively disregards the "restrictions on anonymous reporting"; even if the school's gender equity committee decides not to accept the case (not to initiate a public interest investigation), the education bureau will usually still order the school to initiate a public interest investigation. The author has personally witnessed such matters enter investigative procedures and ultimately conclude with a finding of "no substantial evidence." When investigative procedures are this laborious and exhaustive, the enthusiasm of the teacher concerned is heavily depleted while anonymous actors pay no price whatsoever—is this truly appropriate?

II. Rights of Defense of the Investigated Person and Rules of Evidence

The author affirms that this amendment to the Dismissal Regulations introduces fairer revisions regarding investigations:

(1) Understanding the gist of the reported content prior to investigation: It is added that when the investigation team notifies parties and complainants to cooperate with an investigation, their written notice shall state the reasons for investigation (Article 19, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4).

(2) Accompanying assisting person: When a party is interviewed, they may invite a school teacher, parent, or other internal or external personnel to act as an assisting person to assist in the investigation, with the number explicitly limited to no more than two (Article 16, Paragraph 3).

The above two points correct past situations where the investigated person—especially when a teacher is the respondent—was often investigated in a state of confusion without any protection of their right of defense. Secondly, facing three or more investigative committee members, fighting entirely alone without the accompaniment of a lawyer is extremely difficult and helpless.

However, it remains noteworthy that to achieve the purpose stated in the legislative explanation—【ensuring teachers receive a "fair investigation"】—in addition to the above two points, the rules for "fact-finding evidence" should also be adjusted accordingly. According to official letters from the Ministry of Education2, administrative investigations of "campus sexual assault" adopt the "preponderance of evidence rule," meaning: combining all evidence to prove that "the possibility of sexual assault is greater than the possibility of no sexual assault" permits a finding, which implies that as long as there is over 50% factual evidence, illegal conduct can be concluded.

Other offenses such as sexual harassment and sexual bullying are judged by the "clear and reasonable rule" (i.e., when an ordinary reasonable person, presented with the same evidence, would conclude such a possibility exists), meaning illegal conduct can be established with merely 35% to 45% of evidence3. Such a low threshold for fact-finding evidently fosters an atmosphere of "presumption of guilt"; although the aforementioned official letter applies to gender incidents, it is very likely to form a benchmark for other campus administrative investigations. Perhaps the Ministry of Education believes administrative investigations have lesser impacts and lack the coercive powers of courts or prosecutorial and investigative agencies, hence lowering the standards. However, the results of an investigation can deprive a teacher of their right to work (dismissal, non-renewal, or suspension for up to 3 years)—can this still be said to have an insignificant impact?

III. The Reality Gap in Practicing Fair Investigation: Should Investigated Persons Bear the Detrimental Consequences? Is That Still Justice?

Furthermore, looking across the "universal bias" in investigations, it likely also stems from expectations of the "sacredness of education." Coupled with professional divides, waving the high banner of "sacred education" generally places high standards on teachers; this certainly shapes teachers of high caliber, yet such severe expectations plunge investigated teachers into a whirlpool of the "presumption of guilt," which is profoundly unfair to teachers. Logically, investigative committees should include individuals from the educational sector, but in reality, these education-background committee members almost fail to exercise empathy toward the plight of teachers.

Seeking the truth relies on seeking facts through investigation, but investigations inherently harbor a high degree of "uncertainty" and require corresponding institutional supportive measures to genuinely achieve a "fair investigation"; if one naively believes that a mere "few days of training" can ensure the professionalism, objectivity, and impartiality of investigators, that is taking the problem far too lightly.

Schools should after all still focus on "running schools" and reduce the mission of "handling cases"; when facing investigations, relevant personnel should also be aware of the limitations of investigations, and investigators should possess a mindset of judicial restraint. Only thus can campuses be restored to their original appearance and the educational enthusiasm of the vast body of teachers be sustained.

IV. Potential Solution: Conflict Reconciliation Rooted in Benevolent Communication

The development of our society has transitioned from teachers occupying lofty positions, occasionally abusing authority and protecting their own, to the inclusion of the corporal punishment ban in the Educational Fundamental Act in 2006. Each subsequent legislative amendment has focused on how to regulate teachers, evolving to where we are today. In short, supervision of teachers has shifted from none to excessive, and we have reached a point where adjustment is imperative.

The other afternoon when I went to court for a hearing, the judge, likely overwhelmed by a heavy caseload, inserted a case two minutes before my scheduled hearing time. Consequently, I happened to witness the judge earnestly pleading with a plaintiff in a criminal incidental civil lawsuit who had been defrauded and was unwilling to settle. Facing the resolute plaintiff, the judge asked the opposing attorney to step aside and shielded the defendant participating via video from a correctional institution, patiently reasoning with and advising the plaintiff on how to settle under the mindset of loss reduction, in order to recover as much money as possible and minimize losses.

In truth, after practicing law, I have deeply felt that entering the judicial system (broadly including campus investigative procedures) is quite exhausting. Yet, no matter how minor a matter is, judicial procedures consume a tremendous amount of time. After becoming a lawyer, I feel that litigation truly tempers one's patience; however, the mental and physical suffering endured by parties undergoing long-term, uncertain torment is beyond description by outsiders.

Many educators are concerned with "how to protect teachers." Of course, if a teacher possesses sufficient psychological resilience, they can have greater stress tolerance—this belongs to promoting physical and mental health, a subject everyone needs, and teachers are no exception.

On a case-by-case basis, if appropriate counseling (psychological and legal) can be provided when teachers feel doubtful, ensuring they obtain equivalent information to make judgments, this would constitute a substantial and effective assistance. Secondly, if disputes genuinely arise, having a third party (schools can usually help) available for mediation (settlement) is, in the author's view, the best approach as well as the most time-, energy-, and cost-saving method. However, communication truly takes time and requires methods. For instance, when I participated in restorative justice facilitator training, it focused on reconciliation based on nonviolent communication (benevolent communication). If schools possess such capacity, or if education bureaus can establish mediation centers to intervene early in parent-teacher disputes, I believe the results would surpass directly following current existing reporting regulations. I previously handled a gender incident where parents naively thought communication was ineffective and yet could not manage their own child, so they reported a gender incident. As a result, the teacher might indeed have been penalized, but were parent-child relationships restored? Certainly not, because the child trusted the teacher more than the parents, and the parents' report initiating an investigation and penalty made the child even less understanding of the parents. Consequently, the parents continued to blame the teacher for stealing away their child's heart—how wronged was the teacher? This also demonstrates that many conflicts are never properly examined at their core. A lack of "disease insight" is the source of most disturbances in current society. Therefore, having an objective and empathetic third party to mediate conflicts—much like the aforementioned judge helping a resolute plaintiff understand that settlement yields more benefits than persistent litigation—is crucial. Nevertheless, people also worry about intermediaries becoming parties to the dispute, making it no easy task.

---

Coincidentally, echoing the conclusion by Attorney Chen Linxiang, on the eve of this newsletter's publication, the editorial team brought up this topic with Attorney Chen Yicheng, founder of the Benevolent Communication Restorative Association, who also anchored the "solution" in "benevolent communication training" and "a human-centric reconciliation system."

At the same time, we also observe that regarding how to rebuild trust among campus parents, teachers, and students, Attorney Lu Tan-chi's legislative proposals presented at the National Human Rights Commission's symposium on January 12 this year also mentioned suggesting the codification of a "remediation system" to be utilized prior to formal investigations into minor corporal punishment or improper discipline incidents.

Although this issue of the newsletter cannot yet delve deeply into the concepts and methods of communication and reconciliation mentioned above, it is presented as a preliminary contribution to draw forth further insights, with the hope of continuing to monitor and discuss this topic through future articles or events in due course.

Note: The event co-organized with Attorney Chen Yicheng is scheduled to take place on the afternoon of December 12 at the JRF Taichung Office.

---

1 Article 18, Paragraph 3 of the Regulations Governing the Prevention of Gender-Related Incidents on Campuses: If a school or competent authority becomes aware that a suspected campus gender incident involves any of the following circumstances, the established gender equity committee shall evaluate the impact of the incident on students' right to education and campus safety, and through a meeting resolution, initiate investigative procedures in the form of a reported case to clarify facts and take necessary measures to safeguard students' rights and campus safety: ... 3. The respondent is the principal or a staff member.

2 Official Document No. 1142801109, Ministry of Education, April 8, 2025, regarding the basis for determining administrative investigations in campus gender incidents.

3 However, analyzing purely from court judicial practice, the "clear and reasonable rule" appears stricter than the "preponderance of evidence rule." The explanatory notes in this official letter from the Ministry of Education seem to raise questions of systemic argumentation; reference may be made to Supreme Administrative Court Judgments 2020-Shang-363 and 2022-Shang-395.