특목고의 학교단위책임경영제에 대한 연구

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this study was to investigate the perception of the current School-Based Mmanagement(SBM) of specialized high schools. and suggest a more efficient plan for the SBM.
SBM studies have been mostly conducted by the empirical research based on the quantitative analysis. The current study introduced the qualitative approach to the SBM perception of high school teachers and corresponding education institute officials. This study was designed for testing the hypotheses based on the results of Q-methodology, and also the hypotheses for empirical studies. This study was conducted as follows.
First, this study systematically analyzed the subjective perception of the SBM of teachers in physical education high schools by the Q-methodology. The Q-concourse (or population) was formed through a review of literature and an in-depth interview with 5 teachers working at physical education high schools. The Q-concourse was composed of 214 Q-statements, and 29 Q-statements were obtained. The 29 Q-statements were classified into 5 different categories including the education & educational curriculum (7 statements), the culture of organization (5 statements), the principal leadership & personal management (6 statements), the school management & financial management (7 statement), and the school evaluation system (4 statements). The 29 Q-statements were sorted by 32 P-samples. The P-samples were composed of teachers in physical education high schools, science high schools, and general high schools as well as school inspectors. The results of the Q-methodology are as follows;
Type I, an evaluation system diagnosis type consisting of 17 subjects, indicated that the professionalism and commitment of teachers, the weight of the principal's leadership, and the distinctive curriculum of the specialized high school from that of the general high schools were positively evaluated in general. On the other hand, not all results were positive, indicating there may be a problem. The understanding level on SBM for type I was higher than type Ⅱ.
Type II, a personnel system diagnosis type consisting of 15 subjects, demonstrated that the management of teachers and school principal and the distinctive curriculum of the specialized high school from that of the general high schools were positively evaluated, as in type I, whereas the personnel management system in schools, teacher participation in a decision making granted by a school principal, and an incentive system for teachers with specialty were negatively reviewed.
Second, the quantitative analysis was approached through the hypotheses used for the Q-methodology. To test the difference of personal characteristics and understanding level of SBM, two hypotheses were chosen in this study. An independent t-test, a paired t-test, and an analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed to test the significance f this difference using SPSS package for Windows. The results of this study were as follows; 1) there was a significant difference between personal characteristics (p<0.05); The teachers in physical education high schools scored higher on both the current and expectation level than the teachers in general high schools (p<0.05), and 2) there was a significant difference in the current level and expectation level in regards to the understanding level of SBM(p<0.05).
This study suggested some implications for the education policy makers. To establish SBM in specialized high schools, the administrative office should delegate more authority to specialized high schools, promote SBM aggressively to teachers in individual schools, and improve the evaluation system and personnel system in specialized high schools.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서 론 1
• 1. 연구의 필요성 1
• 2. 연구의 목적 4
• 3. 연구의 제한점 6
• 4. 용어의 정의 6
• 5. 본 연구에 대한 Q-방법론의 적합성 9
• Ⅱ. 이론적 배경 10
• 1. 학교자율화의 개념 10
• 2. 학교단위책임경영제의 개념과 의의 13
• 3. 특수목적고등학교의 특성 25
• 4. 방법론 및 선행연구 고찰 33
• Ⅲ. 연구방법 41
• 1. 연구모형 41
• 2. 연구과정 42
• Ⅳ. 결과 및 논의 57
• 1. Q-방법 분석결과 57
• 2. 학교단위책임경영제의 인식에 대한 가설발견 67
• 3. 실증분석결과 72
• 4. 논의 90
• Ⅴ. 결론 및 제언 102
• 1. 결론 102
• 2. 제언 104
• 참고문헌 106
• 부록 113
• ABSTRACT 132