本文首採試算法，比較公立國民中小學不同身分別教師薪資結構之異同；次就內容分析法，探討級任教師導師費的法律定位及其衍生的相關問題；此外，採憲法釋義學方法，援引大法官許宗力與許玉秀於釋字第596號「平等原則」不同意見書的審查模式，期以檢驗教育部2004年4月23日台人（三）字第0930054353號書函之同是兼職所得的行政職務加給、導師費區別對待之規範的合憲性；最後，基於研究結論，本文提出五項建議：立法院恪盡權責，及早完成攸關教師待遇權利的法案；確定公教分途，整合現行分散的教師薪資法令；將導師費納為職務加給，而非俸外津貼；讓法制化的導師費，隨同國家整體經濟財政實力與時調整；學校法定預算支應因公、差假所衍生之導師費扣、予問題。

This study used simulative method to compare the payment structure of junior high school and elementary school teachers who take up additional administrative posts with that of homeroom teachers. Besides, it used Content Analysis to discuss the legalities of homeroom teachers’ allowance and its related problems. Moreover, this study cited the investigating pattern of Grand Justices, Tzong-Li Sheu and Yuh-Shiou Sheu, regarding differing opinion paper of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 596, “principle of equality,” in order to test the constitutionality and legality of authorized explanation of Ministry of Education concerning different specification between the payment structure of teachers who take up additional administrative posts and that of homeroom teachers. Lastly, based on its main findings, this study made five suggestions: Legislation on teachers’ payment is urgently needed; all ordinances about teachers’ payment and benefits should be integrated, and they should be integrated based on the recognition that teachers should be distinguished from civil servants; homeroom teachers’ allowance should be considered post allowance, like the allowance of teachers who take up additional administrative posts; homeroom teachers’ allowance, upon its legislation, should be adjusted to the actual financial situation of the government; whenever homeroom teachers are on paid or unpaid leave, their allowance should be handled by their schools’ budgets allocated by the government.