PDF《德国大学学费政策施行现状与其所引发 争议之探讨》

教育政策论坛,2008 年8月十一卷三期,59-82 德国大学学费政策施行现状与其所引发 争议之探讨 余晓雯* 摘要德国高等教育自1960?代以?,经??一段扩张期,为提升高等教育的入学比 ?,并期盼改善教育机会分配?均的?态,1970?后,免学费政策成为德国高教用 ?吸引学生进入的重要手段之一.

但1990?后,各邦由於财政吃紧,收取学费之议 逐渐酝酿,1997?末,因而引发?广泛的学运风潮,强?抗议学费政策之引入. 2002?,反对学费政策的执政党「社会民主党」 (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, SPD) ,透过《高等教育纲?法》 (Hochschulrahmengesetz, HRG)的 修正,明?各邦禁收学费,此举引起赞成学费之邦的反弹,因此?袂向?邦宪法法 庭提出申请,要求对HRG修正条文之合宪性进?审查.2005?1月,?邦宪法法庭 做出判定,认为学费政策虽然划归为高等教育基本事务,属於?邦的权限之一,但 ?邦对此并未具备?法权,因此,修正条文与《基本法》之?意?合,是为无效之 规定. ?邦宪法法庭此解释一出,为支持收取学费政策之邦注入强心针.於是,下萨 克森、巴登―芙腾堡、汉堡、萨?、黑森,以及?莱茵―西法??个邦所组成的学 费?盟,一方面共同提出备忘?,订出学费收取的基本目标与特徵;

另一方面,各 邦则在此架构下,纷纷著手进??法程序,并自2006?开始,?续展开收取学费的 措施.目前为止,虽有此?个邦打头阵,但大部分的邦仍处在拒绝或观望的?态 中. 虽然此?邦皆决定开始对高教入学学生收取学费,?过,由於德国是为?邦国 家,其实施方式――无?是收取的费用、收取/减免的对象或其他相关配套措施如 * 余晓雯:国立暨南国际大学比较教育学系助理教授

2008 年8月第十一卷第三期

60 Educational Policy Forum 教育政策 论坛 贷款等,却存有许多差?.此研究之目的即一方面在对现??况进?介绍,另一方 面则将焦点汇聚在此波学费所引起的广泛争议与讨?上,因为其所牵涉的,?仅仅 是收与?收之差?,而是反映?背后所深藏的,对於高等教育定位或教育机会如何 均等分配之深意. 关键词: 教育机会分配、德国高等教育、学费政策 余晓雯 德国大学学费政策施行现状与其所引发争议之探讨

81 A Study on the Status Quo and the Controversy of the Tuition Policy in German Higher Education Hsiao-Wen Yu* Abstract Since

1960 the higher education in Germany had gone through a period of expansion. In order to raise the proportion of the enrollment and to improve the situation of the unfair chance in the education, the policy of free of charge became an important means which aims to attract the student to the higher education. But due to the difficult financial situation, the idea of the recharge of tuition has been brewing since 1990. This triggered the student movement which fought against the tuition policy in the end of 1997. In 2002, the governing party SPD forbad the charge of the tuition in Germany through the revision of the HRG. The union of the pro-tuition was against the act and asked the federal constitution court for judicial review of this article. In January 2005, the federal constitution court declared that even if the tuition policy is one of the basic matters which belongs to the competence of the federal government, the federal government has no right to legislate. Thus the revision of the HRG is invalid because it is not accord with the conception of the basic law. The declaration of the federal constitution court set spurs to the pro-tuition union, which addressed a memorandum about the basic aim and the characteristics of the tuition. Meanwhile, the legislation of relevant laws has also started. Since