Goto Main Content
:::

Chapter Law Content

Chapter 5 Review Procedures
Article 29
The accreditation of the qualifications of teachers is divided into two stages: a review by the institution and a review by the Ministry. An approved institution(including any institution which has been given partial approval)is not required to arrange a review by the Ministry.
The criteria governing the approvals referred to in the previous paragraph shall be announced by the Ministry.
Article 30
An institution shall formulate professional development goals for its teachers and plan a diversified teacher promotion system and incorporate these into the institution’s internal rules.
An institution shall include the following matters in the institution’s internal rules and publicly announce them for the purpose of processing the teacher accreditation review:
1. Focus on the teaching, research, services, and student advising of the teacher applying for the accreditation and formulate clearly defined rules governing review procedures and methods, criteria for reviews and passing, the principle of avoiding conflicts of interest, handling of matters raising doubts, and appeal and remedy mechanisms. The institution may set separate benchmarks for teaching, research, service and student advising, taking into account the differences between full-time, non-established project and part-time teachers.
2. Establish external review procedures and methods that meet the professional assessment standards, criteria for reviews and passing, principles for selecting external scholars and experts to be reviewers and avoiding conflicts of interest, and the mechanism for handling doubtful external opinions.
3. Notification of accreditation review results, storage of various documents and information, and public storage and use of works submitted for review.
For full-time and non-establishment project teachers who do not have the proposed teaching certificate, the institution shall, within three months of their appointment, apply to the Ministry for teacher accreditation review in accordance with the previous institution’s internal rules. Unless there is a reason that cannot be attributed to the teacher, if a teacher is not submitted for an accreditation review at the end of the term, they shall not be re-appointed after the termination of the contract; if they are unqualified of the accreditation review, their appointment shall be revoked immediately.
Article 31
An institution shall conduct a teacher accreditation review in accordance with the following regulations:
1. The members of the teacher evaluation committee shall not evaluate teachers at a higher level while they are at a lower level; if the number of members of the teacher evaluation committee is insufficient, scholars and experts from within or outside the institution may be hired to make up for the shortage.
2. The teacher evaluation committee shall follow the principles of professionalism, impartiality, and confidentiality in selecting a list of reviewers in the professional field of the submitted work for external review.
3. The number of external reviews is limited to one. For approved institution self-examination cases, the number of reviewers shall be at least five; for non-approved institution self-examination cases, the number of reviewers shall be at least three. The institution will set its own benchmarks for passing the review.
4. The teacher evaluation committee shall respect the reviewer's opinion on the professional review of the work submitted for review, and shall respect their judgment, except as provided in Article 39, and shall not overturn the results of the external review solely on a majority vote.
5. The decision process of the teacher evaluation committee shall be detailed in the minutes of the meeting and kept securely; the decision of the committee shall state the specific reasons and inform the applicant in writing; if the result of the decision is unqualified, the submitter shall be informed of the remedy if they are not satisfied with the result.
Article 32
The following provisions govern the operation of reviews by the Ministry:
1. If an applicant submits any degree or diploma for an accreditation review, the documentary evidence of their academic and professional qualifications is handled in accordance with the provisions of the Act, these Regulations, and other relevant regulations. If it is determined that some aspect(s)of a degree raises doubts, or if the institution did not carry out a review of submitted degree(s)or diploma(s), the Ministry may then review the degree(s)and/or diploma(s)and make a determination. If necessary, the Ministry may have an applicant’s academic writing, creative works, evidence of achievement, or technical reports reviewed.
2. For academic writing submitted for an accreditation review, after categorizing the writing into its appropriate academic field(s), the Ministry will engage a consultant in that academic field(s)to recommend scholars and/or experts to evaluate it.
3. For creative works, evidence of achievement, or technical reports submitted for an accreditation review, after categorizing the submitted material into its appropriate academic field(s), the Ministry will engage a consultant with practical experience in the field(s)to recommend teachers who have practical experience or experts who are experienced practitioners in the field(s)and who also have teaching qualifications to evaluate the submitted material.
The Ministry may commission a different educational institution, a professional academic institution, or an organization(hereunder referred to as an “external review body”)which has a well-established review system to undertake an external review of submitted academic writing, creative works, evidence of achievement, or technical reports.
Article 33
When the Ministry conducts a review, the items and the assessment criteria for reviewing academic writing, creative works, evidence of achievement, and technical reports will be publicly announced by the Ministry.
Article 34
When academic writing, creative works, evidence of achievement, or technical reports are submitted for an accreditation review, the Ministry will send the material to three scholars or experts to evaluate it. A person with a lower level of academic attainment than an applicant is not permitted to be a reviewer of the material submitted by the applicant.
Article 35
When the Ministry conducts a review, the pass mark when evaluating an applicant’s academic writing, creative works, evidence of achievement, or technical reports is 70; if the mark given is less than 70, the accreditation will not be approved. Those who pass the review by two reviewers will be qualified.
Article 36
If the Ministry is handling a teacher’s accreditation review case, it shall finalize the review within four months of the date that it receives the related documents, not counting any summer or winter holiday period as part of the four-month timeframe. If, however, the details of a case are complex, or if plagiarism is suspected, or if obstacles or difficulties are encountered while handling it, the period within which the accreditation review must be completed may be extended and the applicant will be notified.
When the Ministry conducts a review, if the case requires supplementary material or some explanation, the institution shall deliver the supplementary material or provide the explanation(s)within one month from the date of being notified by the Ministry. If the supplementary material or explanation(s)is not received before the deadline or if the provisions of Articles 14 to 18, Article 20, or Article 21 have not been complied with, the case will not be handled and the original documents will be returned. This does not apply if in cases where special circumstances have been reported to the Ministry and the Ministry approved an extension.
While review procedures being conducted by the Ministry have not yet been completed, the applicant is not permitted to lodge a separate application for an accreditation review at the same level.
Article 37
After completing an accreditation, the Ministry shall inform the institution of the result of the review in writing and notify the applicant of the result in accordance with the following provisions:
1. For those who are qualified, the institution shall notify the applicant of the result in writing within 14 days from the date of receiving the result of the review from the Ministry.
2. For those who do not pass the review, the Ministry will notify the applicant in writing.
Article 38
After a Ministry review is completed, the Ministry shall select an appropriate location at which the applicant’s academic writings, their degree treatise, creative works, technical reports, and/or evidence of achievement that were submitted for an accreditation review that was qualified are made publicly available and held in safekeeping. If an institution approved by the Ministry(or any institution given partial approval)completed the review and the application was qualified, and if the circumstances specified in the proviso in Paragraph 3 of Article 21 do not apply, the institution shall make these materials publicly available and hold them in safekeeping in the institution’s library.
Article 39
In the process of teacher accreditation review, if the teacher evaluation committee or the Ministry finds that there is a doubt in the opinion of the external reviewer, the following provisions shall be followed:
1. Misspellings, miscalculations, or other obvious errors in scores or comments: After sending to the original reviewer for clarification, the teacher evaluation committee or the Ministry will confirm.
2. Contradictions between scores and comments, research methods and content, or other doubts that may affect the credibility and accuracy of the professional review: After the professional review team has been formed, it will be sent to the original reviewer for clarification and will be validated by the professional review team and the teacher evaluation committee or the Ministry.
The professional review team in the second paragraph of the previous paragraph shall be composed of scholars and experts with sufficient professional competence in the field of the work submitted for review.
If the first external review meets the following conditions, the teacher evaluation committee or the Ministry shall cite clear and specific reasons for rejecting the opinion and send a sufficient number of academic experts for review according to the number of rejections:
1. Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1, the doubt has been verified by the teacher evaluation committee or the Ministry, and there is indeed a misspelling, miscalculation or other obvious error in the scores or comments.
2. After the professional review team and the teacher evaluation committee or the Ministry have determined that there is a specific reason for the professional academic basis for the doubt in Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2, the credibility and correctness of the professional review is undermined.
In the same teacher accreditation review case, the teacher evaluation committee or the Ministry shall, in accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of the previous paragraph, exclude the opinion of the external examiner, up to once.
Article 40
Details of the review processes of the institution and of the Ministry, the reviewers, and their comments shall be kept confidential in order to maintain the impartiality of the review. However, this restriction does not apply in either of the following circumstances:
1. Details of the review process, and reviewers’ comments may be provided to an appeal agency or other remedy agency that the applicant has asked to act on their behalf.
2. The reviewers’ comments may be provided to the applicant if their application was assessed as unsuccessful.
Article 41
An approved institution may formulate its own regulations regarding the following matters and not use the provisions of the related specified articles of these Regulations:
1. Regarding the accreditation review criteria for technical reports: Article 15 and Article 16.
2. Regarding creative works and evidence of achievement submitted for an accreditation review, apart from the stipulations detailed in Attachment 3 for the scope and categories of submitted materials, the material that must be submitted, and the review criteria: Article 17.
3. Regarding ways in which academic writing is published: Subparagraph 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 21 relates to the number of works submitted for review, the number of works to be added or replaced when reapplying after the previous teacher accreditation has been unqualified, and Paragraph 2 regarding the method of publication of specialized works.
4. The percentage of reviewers' qualified review for external review as stipulated in Paragraph 3 of Article 31.
5.If a teacher has ever worked as a professor in a full time position or a faculty member of academic research institutions at a foreign university, or at a university in Hong Kong or Macao, which satisfies the provisions of the appropriate recognition regulations, and they are in one of the categories listed below, some other procedure shall be formulated for reviewing their academic writing and conducting their accreditation review. The categories are:
(1)A Nobel laureate or the recipient of an award of equivalent standing.
(2)An academician of a national research institution.
(3)A fellow of a major international learned society.
(4)A person with outstanding achievements in an academic or professional field, equivalent to those of a person in one of the three categories above.
An approved institution(including any institutions given partial approval)may formulate its own procedures and criteria for accreditation reviews which are more stringent than the procedures and criteria stipulated in these Regulations.
Article 42
If a teacher passes an accreditation level review, the teacher shall be issued a Teacher’s Accreditation Level Certificate for the level that they applied for.
The format of the Teacher’s Accreditation Level Certificate will be determined by the Ministry.
A Teacher’s Accreditation Level Certificate shall have a one-inch photograph of the teacher’s head and shoulders directly facing the camera, taken within the past three months on it, with an embossed stamp affixed over the photograph, and the certificate shall record the following details:
1. Name
2. Date of birth
3. National ID No. or Resident Permit No.
4. The accreditation level.
5. The certificate no.
6. The starting date for associated seniority.
7. The educational institution.
8. The date of issue of the certificate.
Article 43
The starting month and year for seniority associated with a Teacher’s Accreditation Level Certificate is determined as follows:
1. If the appointment of a new teacher is qualified, seniority will start to accrue from the month and year recorded in their letter of appointment.
2. If the promotion of a teacher is qualified, seniority will start to accrue from the month and year that the semester began.
The school shall report to the Ministry for review within three months from the beginning of the semester for the promotion of teachers in the second paragraph of the previous paragraph.
If a teacher whose application for promotion was not qualified for the accreditation review then initiates remedy action, resulting in the original decision being set aside, and their accreditation is qualified after another review, seniority may be determined in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 1, Subparagraphs 2.