本文主要採用文件分析法，彙整與中小學教師「學術研究加給」有關的規定，從薪酬管理薪資給付類型、法律明確性與授權明確性原則等觀點，探討行政院核定「公立中小學教育人員學術研究加給表」關於「中小學校長專屬學術研究加給」一制之適法性。權且不論地域給與、非經常薪資，教師待遇項目主要有三：「本薪（年功薪）」、「學術研究加給」與「職務加給」。前二項薪給，隸屬「屬人薪」，攸關教師自身的學（經）歷、教育專業知能；至於末者卻為「屬職薪」，居其位；司其職；履其事，即能支領該項給與。《教師待遇條例》既已明定校長待遇準用教師，大專院校校長、具教師資格的幼兒園園長之學術研究加給，皆已準用相應階段教師，何獨中、小學校長未能準用？昔教育部未諳「準用」、「適用」之別，或基於過往慣例，擬訂教育人員學術研究加給表，落致今日不僅逾越法律授權，且紊亂教育人員待遇制度整體法秩序之窘境，實是未洽。最後，根據研究結果，提出本文關於中小學教育人員學術研究加給規定之若干建議。

This study tried to use “Document Analysis” and aggregate the regulations concerning public elementary and high school educators’ academic research allowances, discussed the appropriateness of “the Academic Research Allowances Scale for Public Elementary and High School Educators” in Taiwan, approved by Executive Yuan, from the viewpoints of types of payment, compensation management, principle of legal certainty and principle of explicit authorization. Disregarding regional allowance and non-recurring salary for now, the remuneration of teachers was divided into basic salary (plus any seniority salary), the academic research allowances, and occupational allowances. The first two items belonged to “Paying for Person/ Person-Based Pay”, which were related to teachers' own learning (experience) and educational expertise. The latter item belonged to “Paying for Position/ Job-Based Pay”. This salary could be received by all persons who holded positions, performed duties, and completed affairs. Since the Teacher Remuneration Act had clearly stipulated, the provisions applicable to public school teachers should apply mutatis mutandis to public school principals, the academic research allowances for public elementary and high school teachers and preschool teachers would apply mutatis mutandis to elementary and high school principals and preschool principals with teacher qualifications. Why only elementary and high school teachers' allowance wasn’t applicable mutatis mutandis to elementary and high school principals? In the past, the Ministry of Education drafted “the Academic Research Allowances Scale for Public Elementary and High School Educators” without the clear distinction between “apply mutatis mutandis” and “application”, based on past practice. This design not only went beyond the language of the Teacher Remuneration Act, but also undermined the concordance of legal order about the system of treatment of educators. Finally, based on the findings, this study made some recommendations for the academic research allowance system about educators in public elementary and high schools.