1998年原教法制定之初，本有原住民族學校應以優先聘任原住民各族教師為原則之規定；及至2013年修正時，則調整為其聘任具原住民族身分之教師比率，應不得低於學校教師員額三分之一或不得低於原住民學生占該校學生數之比率。而相較於本法制定時，該條文係以「提高原住民學生學業成就」為立法目的，修正後則改以逕言「保障原住民教師任教權益」為修正理由。本文透過原住民族學校教師族群身分之規範內涵分析，並就學校教師族群身分與學生學習成效之關連進行探討，認為教師族群身分規範，對於原住民學生之教育權益，除與入學機會層面無涉外，亦僅於教育過程公平具有部分助益及合理連結可能性；至於教育結果之公平，則甚而可能發生阻礙目的達成之反向效果。此外，針對原教法有關保障原住民工作權之規範內涵，本文認為已逾越教育法制之應有範疇；且在原住民族籍教師與原住民族學校較無文化落差的前提下，其本即具有依循公平甄選程序脫穎而出的優勢地位，而無需於原教法中另訂保障規範。

When the Education Act for Indigenous Peoples was initially enacted in 1998, indigenous schools were mandated to give priority to indigenous teachers if they apply. As the act was amended in 2013, it clearly stated the proportion of indigenous teachers shall not be permitted to be less than one-third of the teaching staff of an indigenous school, or to be no less than the proportion of the indigenous students in the school. Compared to the act’s initial intention of promoting indigenous students’ academic achievement, the amendment was declared to protect the rights and interests of indigenous teachers. By analyzing the connotation of the act concerning teacher ethnicity in indigenous school and discussing the connection between teacher ethnicity and the effectiveness of student learning, this study infers that teacher ethnicity is not closely related to indigenous students’ opportunities of education. Teacher ethnicity may have some positive effects on fair treatment of students, but it may have an adverse effect on student achievement. Furthermore, the study deems that it is beyond the scope of the educational law to protect the working rights of the indigenous people. With the familiarity of indigenous culture, indigenous teachers are privileged to apply for a position in indigenous schools. Therefore, there is no need for the act to mandate teacher ethnicity in indigenous schools.