本文主要採用文獻分析法，彙整與教師獎金有關的國會審議紀錄及諸法規範，從行政法學的觀點，探討教育部「公立學校教師獎金支給辦法草案」之適法性。教師獎金名目不一，部分攸關績效；部分則與績效無直接關係。《教師法》、《教師待遇條例》所稱的獎金允屬於前者，至於資深優良教師獎金、年終工作獎金等，則歸類於後者。各類獎金立意不同，或慰勉；或績效，效益自是不同，不可混淆。此外，個人或團隊獎金設計，目的不同，不可一概而論。專任校長與專任教師，身分有別，獎金支給規範允應明確。再者，《教師法》、《教師待遇條例》既立意於績效，奈又僅用「獎金」二字，教育部所擬訂法規命令之草案，連帶祇能照用獎金二字，此舉讓該法令於「明確性原則」之檢驗，徒惹爭議。最後，在衡平行政管理與法治要求、尋求教師獎金規範整體和協的前提下，本文建議適度修正教育部「公立學校教師獎金支給辦法草案」之部分規定。

This study tried to use “Document Analysis” and aggregate central government’ regulations about teachers’ bonuses and records of review in Legislative Yuan, discussed the legality of the Scheme of “Regulations for Performance Bonus Payment of Public School Teachers” from the viewpoint of administrative law. The types of teacher bonuses are different, some bonuses are related to performance, while others are not directly related to performance. The bonus promulgated in both “Teachers Act” and “Teacher Remuneration Act” is the former, as well as “Senior teachers bonus” and “Year-end Bonuses”, etc., belong to the latter. The intention of bonuses could be for “Comfort” or “Performance”,we wouldn’t be confused. In addition, the object of bonuses could be “individual” or “team”, the position of bonuses couldn’t be generalized. Full-time principals and full-time teachers are different, supply regulation should be clear. In addition, the attempt of “Teachers’ Act” and “Teacher Remuneration Act” should be for performance, but they only use legal word “Bonus”. The Ministry of Education draws up the Scheme and has to only use legal word “Bonus” also. Therefore, the ordinance mentioned above could be controversial in future when tested by “Principle of Legal Certainty”. Lastly, under the premises regarding balance between administrative management and “Principle of Legal Reservation”, seeking the regulative consistence of teachers’ bonuses, this study suggested to amend moderately partial regulations of the Scheme of “Regulations for Performance Bonus Payment of Public School Teachers”.