平生學習都市政策 評價硏究 = An Evaluation Study on Policy for Lifelong Learning City

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study aims to evaluate whether the policy for lifelong learning city, under development in Korea since 2001, has been rooted reliably and effectively. It will also analyze its direction and development issues. There are three research questions to consider in order to achieve its research objectives. First, what are the outcomes and future tasks during the process of planning the draft and implementing the policy for lifelong learning city? Second, what are the outcomes and future tasks during the implementation of the designated lifelong learning cities? What is the future prospective of the lifelong learning city? Third, what are the implications and the developing issues derived from the analysis of the problems arising in the process?
For the theoretical background of this study, the evaluation system of the lifelong learning city in Japan, England, and Australia are investigated, and the domestic precedent studies in Korea are also reviewed. The research methods applied with these subjects used the document analysis and both quantitative and qualitative methods. The qualitative evaluation includes literature review, in-depth interviews, phone interviews, while the quantitative evaluation used questionnaire surveys to analyze the officials and residents' needs. The results of the literature review and the interviews are classified according to the policy background, the planning, the implementation, and the outcome. The questionnaire survey is analyzed by descriptive statistics and the one way analysis of variance; one-way ANOVA for the evaluation and the prospective of the officials in charge of the policy to find out the residents' awareness and to evaluate lifelong learning and the development of the lifelong learning city.
The results of the evaluation of the policy for lifelong learning city are as follows:
First, the policy for lifelong learning city is regarded as an appropriate policy to diagnose and to cope with the changes of the international environment. It will be recognized in terms of the direction of the international organizations such as UNESCO and OECD and the trends of foreign countries' promotion of the lifelong learning community. It is also considered as the policy to reflect the demands of the domestic lifelong learning system and the policy-making trends of the local government due to the enlargement of decentralization and deregulation.
Second, there is no sufficient embodiment of a full-fledged vision at the stage of planning and no concrete materialization of the policy. In spite of the participation of experts such as professors, researchers, and public officials, there are still limitations in the dynamic collaboration between the authorities concerned and no official processes to openly collect public opinions.
Third, the selected lifelong learning cities are much more equipped with ordinances, implementing organizations, staffs in charge and excellent lifelong learning facilities than those of the general autonomous local governments. The lifelong learning city projects are relatively successful in establishing the organizations and the systematic infrastructure. But the central government was unable to designate new lifelong learning cities, since 2008, it failed to secure the special subsidy for the project. The lack of systematic monitoring of the policy leads to the uncertainty of the fruitful outcomes and difficulties in securing supporting budgets thus creating a vicious circle.
Fourth, the residents living in the lifelong learning cities tend to be more attracted to the lifelong learning activities than the residents living in other cities. Their participation rate in lifelong learning programs is higher than that of the residents in general cities, and they paid relatively lower participation fee.
Next, the results of the evaluation and the prospective of the officials in charge of the projects in lifelong learning city by analyzing the questionnaire survey. There is no statistically significant difference in terms of the designated fiscal year and the section of the administration at the level of activation of the main tasks in the lifelong learning community. This means there are no statistically significant differences between the outcome of the lifelong learning cities designated 9 years ago and that of the lifelong learning cities designated 2 years ago. In addition, there are also no statistically significant differences between the outcome of the lifelong learning in Seoul and other metropolitan cities, and that of other local provincial cities.
The participants who take part in the lifelong learning programs operated by the lifelong learning cities according to the age range are as follows: first majority group, 45～60(58.6%); second majority group, 26～45(33.3%). The main programs includes the supportive education for a neglected class of people(24.2%), citizenship education(18.9%), culture and art education(15.5%), and health-care education(8.7%), etc. The outstanding outcome consists of the increase in learning opportunities for the residents in a lifelong learning city(29.4%), the increase of participation in local community activities(21.1%), and the increase of the local elites, strengthening social solidarity among the local communities(18.0%), the increase of job opportunities due to the improvement of vocational aptitude(14.8%), and the economic development of local communities(8.6%). The problems in pursing the lifelong learning projects include the difficulties in securing sufficient budgets(32.3%), the low rate of a practical workforce such as lifelong learning specialists in local governments(15.5%), and the lack of directors' strong will to purse the lifelong learning project(8.8%). The ways to promote the lifelong learning projects consist of the development of high qualified programs reflecting the needs of the local residents(25.0%), social approval of the outcome of lifelong learning(23.1%), the collaborative link to getting a job(16.4%).
Lastly, there is an investigation about the awareness and the residents' evaluation of the lifelong learning city. 51.4% are aware of lifelong learning and the lifelong learning city. 65.8% agreed with the opinion that the establishment of the learning city contributed to the development of a lifelong learning community. The reasons for participating in a lifelong learning program are self-improvement, self-realization, acquirement of new knowledge, technology, and pleasure of learning in order of preference. The criterion to choose lifelong learning programs includes the distance from their residence regardless of gender. Another criterion for choosing a lifelong learning program is the content of the program. The economic burden, the lack of variety in programs, and insufficient spare time are the hindrances to the participation in lifelong learning programs. The programs female residents prefer to study in the lifelong learning programs are job-related courses, increasing vocational experiences, liberal arts, general cultivation courses, culture, and professional development courses in order of preference. The programs male residents prefer to study in lifelong learning are liberal arts, general arts, health class, hygienic subject, and sports in order of preference. In answering the question, "which type of institutes would you prefer to study in?", all residents prefer to study at the lifelong learning city's community center regardless of gender. Among them, men prefer to study in the local community center and local schools in order of preference. Women prefer to study in the local community center and local schools at the same time. Residents of all ages prefer to study in a lifelong learning community center. Activation of the lifelong learning needs to develop and serve the high qualified programs(34.0%), to increase professional lifelong learning specialists (19.2%), and establish a lifelong learning community center(12.2%). Most residents agree that it is necessary to hire professional lifelong learning experts(85.7%).
Focusing on the above findings of study, these are the following implications for the developing directions of the policy for lifelong learning city:
First, in order to promote the lifelong learning project, the project should be pursued with concrete planning to embody the obvious vision.
Second, the monitoring system should be introduced at the central government and the local autonomous government levels at the same time.
Third, how to secure professional lifelong learning specialists and how to develop the application to make use of them should be considered as a prerequisite for the activation of the lifelong learning city.
Fourth, the general accounts budget should be supported by the government to pursue a consistent municipal policy for the establishment of a lifelong learning city.
Fifth, the specialized lifelong learning programs should be provided to the residents, reflecting their needs and the local communities' characteristics. The infrastructure to maintain the social approval system to achieve the lifelong learning goals should be provided.
Sixth, the discovery of the best practices for the lifelong learning cities should be conducive to the generalization for the other lifelong learning cities.
Lastly, the highly qualified programs to meet a variety of the residents' needs should be provided with a relatively low participation fee to increase their dynamic involvement in the programs. The participation and support of the central government and the local governments should be connected to the projects. Central and local government can raise accessibility to the lifelong learning community and expand the lifelong learning facilities.
The policy for lifelong learning city should be analyzed not on the level of central governments, but on the level of local governments. They should reflect the introductory aims of the policy, and focus on how to effectively introduce the ideal models of a lifelong learning city. Taking into consideration of each local population, the local characteristics, the independent financial status of the lifelong learning cities, the typological researches and the analyses of the ideal model of the lifelong learning communities, an in-depth comparison should be made between the best practices of lifelong learning cities and those of the advanced foreign learning cities. The researches and the analyses will have an influence on the other lifelong learning cities' development in the similar situations. In this view, the following studies need to be continued on the basis of this study's findings and its implications in the near future.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론 = 1
• 1. 연구의 필요성 및 목적 = 1
• 2. 연구문제 = 5
• 3. 연구내용 = 6
• 4. 연구의 제한점 = 8
• Ⅱ. 이론적 배경 = 9
• 1. 평생학습도시정책 이론 = 9
• 2. 평생학습도시정책 평가 = 29
• Ⅲ. 연구방법 = 52
• 1. 연구 설계 = 52
• 2. 연구 대상 = 53
• 3. 연구 방법 = 56
• 4. 연구 절차 = 59
• Ⅳ. 연구결과의 해석 = 60
• 1. 정책시행과정 평가 = 60
• 2. 평생학습도시 사업담당자의 평가와 전망 = 79
• 3. 도시민들의 평생학습과 평생학습도시에 대한 인식과 평가 = 97
• Ⅴ. 평생학습도시정책의 발전 방향 = 113
• Ⅵ. 요약 및 결론 = 119
• 참고문헌 = 126
• 부 록 = 136
• Abstract = 153

참고문헌 (Reference)

1. Practice, DfEE, , 1998

2. Social problems, Voss, Stepard, , 1978

3. 정책과정론, 주재현, , 2008

4. 정책분석론, 이흥재, , 2005

5. 정책평가론, 최영훈, , 2007

6. 정책학원론, 정정길, 대명, , 1992

7. 평생교육개론, 조화태, 한국방송통신대학교출판부, , 2003

8. 평생교육백서, 교육과학기술부, , 2010

9. Evaluation thesaurus, Scriven, Michael, Edgepress, , 1981

10. Evaluator's handbook, Herman, Joan L, Sage Publications, , 1987

11. Public policy-making, Anderson, James E, Praeger, , 1975

12. Evaluating with validity, House, Ernest R, Sage Publications, , 1980

13. The governmental process, Truman, , 1971

14. Educational policy-making, Kogan, , 1975

15. The Policy-making process, Lindblom, Charles Edward, Prentice-Hall, , 1980

16. The politics of education, Cistone, Iannaccone, , 1974

17. 북미 평생학습동향, 권인탁, , 2008

18. Choice in public education, Elmore, , 1987

19. Legislating centralization, Frymier, , 1986

20. Fourth generation evaluation, Goba, E. G., , 1989

21. Reforming the reform movement, Shanker, Reforming the Reform Movement, , 1988

22. Learning Towns Learning Cities, DfEE, , 1998

23. The implementation perspective, Williams, , 1980

24. Educational reform: Its meaning, Levin, , 1984

25. 정책평가 : 이론과 적용, 정정길, 법영사, 정책평가 : 이론과 적용, , 2004

26. 지역공동체와 평생교육, 오혁진, 집문당, , 2006

27. 평생학습마을 만들기론, 김득영, , 2003

28. 정책평가의 이론과 실제, 차의환, , 1999

29. 학습권론의 형성과 전개, 김신일, 서울대학교 사범대학 교육연구소, "「평생교육연구」, , 1999

30. Educational policy implementation, Odden, , 1991

31. 한국 교육의 중장기 비전, 김영철, , 1999

32. A framework for political analysis, Easton, David, University of Chicago Press, , 1979

33. PoliticsandPolicyMakinginEducation, Ball, , 1990

34. Thepoliticsofeducationalinnovation, House, The politics of educational innovation, , 1974

35. Public policy and program evaluation, Vedung, Evert, Transaction Publishers, Public policy and program evaluation, , 1997

36. The politics of school restructuring, Timer, , 1989

37. State educational governance patterns, McGivney, , 1984

38. The Politics of Policy Implementation, Smallwood, , 1980

39. The case for participatory evaluation, Earl, Cousins, , 1992

40. The new meaning of educational change, Fullan, Michael, Teachers College Press, , 2001

41. Shaping education policy in the states, Rosenthal, Furhman, , 1981

42. Steps in designing an indicator system, McDonnell, Shavelson, , 1991

43. Public policy analysis : an introduction, Dunn, William N, Prentice Hall, Public policy analysis: An introduction, , 1994

44. The program evaluation standards(2nd ed.), The Joint Committee on St, ards for Educational Evaluation, The program evaluation standards (2nd ed), , 1994

45. 평생교육진흥기본계획(2008~2012), 교육인적자원부, , 2008

46. State policy making for the public schools, Campbell, Mazzoni, , 1976

47. The context of state-level policyformation, Mitchell, Marshall, Wirt, The context of state-level policy formation, , 1986

48. 평생학습도시 도입 및 실시방안, 김신일, , 1996

49. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (4th ed.), Rossi, Freeman, Evaluation: A systematic approach (4th ed), , 1989

50. Local control - The vanishing myth in Texas, Killian, , 1984

51. 평생학습도시 주민의 만족도 조사, 변종임, , 2007

52. Cities and Regions in the New Learning Economy, OECD, Cities and Regions in the New Learning Economy,

53. Culture and education policy inAmerican states, Mitchell, Wirt, Marshall, Culture and education policy in American states, , 1989

54. Legislative education leadership in the states, Furhman, Rosenthal, , 1981

55. 전주시 평생학습 중?장기 발전계획, 서재복, 권인탁, 유평수, , 2005

56. Political power and educational decision-making, Kimbrough, Ralph B, McNally, , 1964

57. Schools in conflict : the politics of education, Wirt, Frederick M, McCutchan, , 1982

58. The power structure in state education politics, Bowles, , 1968

59. Educational politics and policy: The state level, Mitchell, , 1988

60. 일본의 평생학습체제화에 대한 연구, 김득영, 김도수, , 1998

61. 2006 평생교육센터 평생학습도시 사업, 한국교육개발원 평생교육센터, , 2006

62. Educational policy analysis: The state of the art, Mitchell, , 1984

63. Public policy analysis: An introduction (2nd ed.), Dunn, Public policy analysis: An introduction (2nd ed), , 1994

64. 평생학습도시 조성사업 성과분석연구, 교육과학기술부, 평생교육진흥원, , 2008

65. 평생학습도시 조성사업 운영계획서」, 교육인적자원부, , 2005

66. Fatal remedies : the ironies of social intervention, Sieber, Sam D, Plenum Press, , 1981

67. 평생학습지원체제 종합발전방안연구(I), 이희수, , 2000

68. Foundations ofprogram evaluation: Theory and practice, Shadish Jr, Levition, Cook, Foundations of program evaluation: Theory and practice, , 1991

69. Education and politics in 1990s: Conflict or consensus, Lawton, , 1992

70. What are educational indicators and indicator systems?, Shavelson, , 1991

71. 신교육체제 수립을 위한 교육개혁 방안 I, 교육개혁위원회, , 1995

72. Evaluating the arts in education: A responsive approach, Stake, , 1975

73. 평생학습도시 정책의 형성과정 평가 연구, 김영아, , 2007

74. 평생학습도시 조성을 위한 추진모형 연구, 김신일, 한국평생교육학회, "「평생교육학연구」, , 2004

75. 평생학습사회와 새로운 교육문화의 가능성, 김신일, , 2000

76. Conflict of interests : the politics of American education, Spring, Joel, McGraw-Hill, , 2002

77. School-based evaluation: A dialogue for school improvenent, Nevo, School-based Evaluation: A dialogue for School Improvenent, , 1995

78. 평생학습도시 운동과 교육자본 측정의 과제, 한준상, , 2006

79. 평생학습도시 주민의 평생학습 참여율 조사, 홍지영, 변종임, , 2005

80. 지역 평생학습체제 구축을 위한 대학의 역할, 양병찬, 한국평생교육학회, "「사회교육학연구」, , 1998

81. Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation, McLaughlin, Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation, , 1987

82. Evaluation Research: Methods ofassessingprogram effectiveness, Weiss, Evaluation research: methods of assessing program effectiveness, , 1972

83. What have we learned about the politics of programevaluation?, Chelimsky, What have we learned about the politics of program evaluation?, , 1987

84. City Strategies for Lifelong Learning-A Study by the OECD/CERI, Begtsson, , 1992

85. Research perspectives on state legislatures and education policy, Lehne, , 1983

86. 평생학습도시 유형별 조성전략에 관한 비교연구, 양흥권(Yang Heung-Kweun), 한국비교교육학회, 「비교교육연구」. 16(1). 155-180, , 2006

87. Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and pracm evalguidelines, Sanders, Fitzpatrick, Worthen, , 1997

88. The Politics of State Testing ; Implementing New Student Assessment, McDonnell, , 1997

89. Politics, power and policy : the governing of local school districts, Iannaccone, Laurence, Merrill, Politics power and policy: The governing of local school districts, , 1970

90. Research in policy analysis: The intelligence and appraisalfunctions, Lasswell, Research in policy analysis: The intelligence and appraisal functions, , 1975

91. 지역발전을 위한 평생학습도시 운영 실태분석 연구, 권인탁, 변종임, 양병찬, 양흥권, 김남선, 채재은, , 2005

92. Making lifelong learning work : learning cities for a learning century, Longworth, Norman, Kogan Page, Making lifelong learning work: learning cities for a learning century, , 1999

93. Title I of ESEA: The politics of implementating federaleducation reform, Murphy, Title I of ESEA: The politics of implementating federal education reform, , 1971

94. 지역혁신의 성공적 실행을 위한 평생학습도시 매뉴얼, 한국교육개발원, , 2005

95. Evaluation models-View points on educational and human services evaluation, Modaus, G. F., Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation, , 1991

96. Improving education indicators and economic indicators: The same problems?, Murnane, improving education indicators and economic indicators : The same problems?, , 1987

97. The two conflicting trends in school reform: Legislative learningrevisited, Wise, The two conflicting trends in school reform: Legislative learning revisited, , 1988

98. 평생교육의 활성화를 위한 고등교육 체제 개혁 방안 연구, 윤여각, 평생교육의 활성화를 위한 고등교육 체제 개혁방안 연구, , 2000

99. 신교육체제 정착을 위한 대학사회교육의 역할제고 방안 연구, 정기수, 노종희, 최돈민, , 1996

100. 지역을 살리기 위한 평생학습마을/도시 만들기 관리자 매뉴얼, 양병찬, , 2002

101. 지방자치 수준에서의 평생교육체제 구축 방안 「평생교육학연구」, 권인탁, , 2006

102. 세계화·정보화시대를 주도하는 신교육체제 수립을 위한 교육개혁 방안, 교육개혁위원회, 세계화?정보화 시대를 주도하는 신교육체제 수립을 위한 교육개혁 방안, , 1995

103. California educational interest groups:Collective action as a logical response to proposition 13, Somers, Kirst, California educational interest groups: Collective action as a logical response to proposition 13, , 1981

104. Interest groups and the changing environmentof state educational policymaking: Developments in Pennsylvinia, Karper, Boyd, Interest groups and the changing environment of state educational policymaking: Developments in Pennsylvinia, , 1988

105. Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches, Guba, E. G., Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches, , 1981

106. 지역평생교육활성화를 위한 평생학습도시 시범 사업의 평가 및 모델 도시 구축 운영 방안 연구, 이희수, , 2002

107. 평생학습도시 사업 평가체제 구축방안 「평생학습도시 발전을 위한 지원시스템 체계와 전략」, 권두승, , 2006

108. 민?관 협력체계를 바탕으로 한 평생학습도시만들기- 부천시 사례 중심으로 「지역사회교육연구Ⅰ」, 홍숙희, , 2005

109. 지역혁신형 학습도시시스템 구축과정에 관한 연구 : 일본 카케가와시의 평생학습도시 사례를 중심으로, 양흥권, 서울대학교 대학원, 지역혁신형 학습도시시스템 구축과정에 관한 연구: 일본 카케가와시의 평생학습도시 사례를 중심으로, , 2004

110. 지역 평생학습 문화 활성화: 시민사회의 형성을 중심으로 「지역공동체 형성을 위한 평생교육의 과제」, 김민호, , 2001

111. 평생학습도시에서 지역사회교육기관과 학교의 역할 「광명시평생학습시스템 구축을 위한 세미나자료」, 양병찬, , 1999

112. 평생학습도시/마을 조성 정책 동향과 과제 「제1차 평생학습도시 연찬회 자료」. 평생학습도시로 가는 길, 이희수, , 2002

113. 주요국의 평생학습도시 개념과 우리나라 평생학습도시 운동의 발전과제 「평생학습도시 최고지도자 연수ㆍ협의회 자료집」, 권인탁, , 2009