Opinion: Should School Affairs Committees Become a Thing of the Past? What Truly Needs Rebuilding Is Trust in Education

The Education and Culture Committee of the Legislative Yuan recently returned for revision partial amendments to the 'Regulations on Dismissal, Non-renewal, Suspension, or Dismissal of Teachers in Senior High Schools and Below' and the 'Performance Evaluation Regulations for Public Senior High Schools and Below.' This has once again sparked debate within the education sector regarding the school affairs committee system. Some interpret this discussion as a power struggle between teacher groups and the Ministry of Education, others see it as a sign of stalled reform, while some worry that adjusting the system might affect students' rights. However, I believe the real issue has never been whether teachers should be 'protected,' but rather what kind of system education truly needs to safeguard students' right to education and allow teachers to confidently fulfill their educational responsibilities. In recent years, as I travel across counties and cities to conduct teacher training and participate in educational exchanges, the most frequently asked question is no longer about teaching methods or how to integrate generative AI into curricula, but a deeply thought-provoking one: 'Teacher, can we still discipline our students today?' Some worry whether a simple reminder might lead to parental complaints; others fear that a single disciplinary action could trigger a lengthy investigation process; and some frankly admit that the safest approach now is to intervene less, demand less, and take on less responsibility. This is not the anxiety of a few isolated teachers, but a collective mindset gradually forming across the educational landscape. The original purpose of the school affairs committee system was to establish a more comprehensive mechanism for handling campus incidents, protect students' right to education, and ensure fairness in incident resolution through investigative procedures—a goal that is inherently commendable. However, no system should be judged solely by its legislative intent; we must also examine whether it actually achieves its reform goals in practice. If the system forces teachers to spend increasing amounts of time preparing documents, responding to investigations, and maintaining records—rather than teaching—and if it causes teachers, before every educational intervention, to first consider 'Will this get me in trouble?' instead of 'Will this help the child grow?', then we must honestly confront a critical question: Is the system itself changing the nature of education? The real concern is not that teachers are becoming more cautious, but that 'defensive teaching' is gradually becoming a new campus culture. When teachers reduce demands, interactions, and responsibilities, conflicts may appear to decrease, but so do opportunities for guidance, support, and education. The most important value in education lies not in how we investigate students after they make mistakes, but in whether teachers are willing to offer timely reminders, appropriate discipline, and patient support before mistakes occur. If the system discourages teachers from doing these things, the ultimate victims will not be only teachers, but every single child. Therefore, I support establishing a fair, impartial, and efficient system for removing unfit teachers, and I support legally investigating teachers who genuinely violate laws or neglect duties. Such systems are essential for protecting students' rights. However, systems should not place the majority of law-abiding, dedicated teachers in a state of constant distrust and high risk simply to address a small number of problematic cases. A mature system should precisely handle truly problematic cases, rather than requiring all teachers performing their duties legally to operate under constant vigilance every day. Recently, many teacher organizations and educators have advocated for a re-examination of the current school affairs committee system, with some proposing a new system that better balances professional judgment, procedural justice, and student rights. This discussion should not be reduced to simplistic narratives of 'protecting teachers' or 'letting teachers off the hook,' but should return to education's most fundamental question: What kind of system will truly provide better education for students? Education requires oversight and accountability—but it also requires trust. If the end result of our systems is that a teacher's greatest skill is no longer educating children well, but learning how to avoid being investigated, then even the most perfect procedures may gradually deviate from the original purpose of educational reform. Therefore, what we should truly reflect on is not merely whether school affairs committees should exist, but whether we have the courage to build a new system that balances student rights, teacher professionalism, and procedural justice. Whether the future brings adjustments, consolidation, or replacement of the current school affairs committee system, the goal should never be merely procedural change, but the restoration of trust within the educational environment. True reform is not about preserving or abolishing a particular system, but about creating an educational system where students are protected, teachers are willing to take responsibility, and parents are willing to trust. Because systems can regulate behavior, but cannot replace education; procedures can assign responsibility, but cannot cultivate trust. What education truly needs to rebuild is not just systems, but the relationships of mutual trust within the educational community. Only when teachers feel safe to teach can students truly feel safe to learn; only when systems trust professionalism can educational reform return to its original purpose—ensuring that every child grows better because they encountered a teacher willing to accompany, guide, and take responsibility for them. *The author is Deputy Secretary-General of the Pingtung County Education Industry Union.