단위학교 책무성 정책변화에 관한 역사적 신제도주의적 분석

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study examines the process of changes in performance-based accountability and factors influencing on it. As a framework of analysis, historical neo-institutionalism is employed to explore the research questions. I analyse the factors influencing on changes in various levels of structure, institutes, and agents through institution change theory of historical institutionalism.
For this, the research questions are set up as follows: (1) what is like the process of changes in school accountability policy? (2) What are factors as independent variables to influence the changes? (3) What are characteristics of institution change in the process of changes in school accountability policy? Research findings are as follows:
Fist of all, I find out that the process of changes can be divided into three periods.
May 31 Edcuation Reform in 1995 and IMF economic crisis in 1997 introduced neoliberal rationale and became a moment to bring the introductory stage of outcome-based accountability out of bureaucratic accountability. And It is found out that the period of outcome-based policy formation began from Lee Myung Bak administration in 2008.
May 31 Educational Reform set up its basic direction as outcome-based accountability utilizing autonomy, performance evaluation, and incentives/sanction. So I argue that outcome-based accountability is intentional accountability policy. And school evaluation and achievement standardized tests are administered through the period of introduction and formation of outcome-based accountability. However, the result of school evaluation is not open to the public and does not reflect achievement test scores. With regard to achievement tests, the coverage of information release is limited and incentives/sanctions are confined. This means that unintended result occurs by soft accountability. Futhermore, bureaucratic accountability continues to have characteristics of previous control, supervision, and audit by laws, rules. Thus, it implies that bureaucratic accountability system coexists with layering outcome-based accountability ones.
As independent variables, factors at the level of structure, institution, and agents impact on changes of school accountability policy. Above all, at the structural level, institutional changes in globalization, information knowledge society, and IMF monetary crisis shocks to education field that was aligned with May 31 Educational Reform. In face of the momentum of institutional changes, agents persue outcome-based accountability policy and are influenced by institutional setting. Gradual institution change takes place toward soft accountability policy. In detail, bureaucratic accountability based on previous regulation and supervision and institutional setting is thought of as reasons to produce unintended result as a result of contradictory relation with newly introduced policy. Institutional setting means, in this context, HSEP(High School Equalization Policy, centralized governance, seniority-based promotion, and educational fever. Since educational culture in Korean is much different from ones of U.S. and U.K., there occurs cross-national mismatch even through policy borrowing of outcome-based accountability policy.
Third, in the process of change, previous regulation and supervision as parts of bureaucratic accountability system are layered with outcome-based accountability system. It is difficult to explain this phenomenon using dichotomy perspectives of traditional punctuated equilibrium. Rather Streeck and Thelen(2005)'s gradual institutional transformation theory seems more plausible.
This provides some implications as follows: First, more efforts should be made to perform comparative historial research investigating the way outcome-based accountability has been implemented in each country. Second, when a policy is borrowed from elsewhere, policy makers in home countries should consider complementary relations between different institutions and cultural contexts. Third, policy makers should consider time difference approach in designing educational policies. This dissertation give more priority on devolution and autonomy.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• I. 서 론 1
• 1. 연구의 필요성 및 목적 1
• 2. 연구내용 및 범위 4
• 가. 연구내용 4
• 나. 연구범위 6
• 3. 연구방법 7
• II. 이론적 배경 9
• 1. 책무성 9
• 가. 책무성의 개념 9
• 나. 책무성의 유형 15
• 2. 성과중심 책무성 정책 22
• 가. 성과중심 책무성 정책의 개념 및 특성 22
• 나. 성과중심 책무성의 이론적 배경 29
• 다. 영․미의 학교 성과중심 책무성 정책 36
• 라. 우리나라 학교 성과중심 책무성 정책 46
• 3. 역사적 신제도주의 52
• 가. 신제도주의 52
• 나. 제도의 정의 55
• 다. 역사적 신제도주의의 특징 58
• 라. 제도 변화 이론 61
• 마. 분석수준 72
• 4. 연구의 분석틀 75
• III. 단위학교 책무성 정책의 변화과정 79
• 1. 관료적 책무성 정책기(1995년 이전) 79
• 가. 책무성 내용 79
• 나. 책무성 수단 81
• 2. 성과중심 책무성 정책 도입기(1995 - 2007년) 87
• 가. 5·31 교육개혁방안 87
• 나. 학교평가 92
• 다. 학업성취도 평가 98
• 라. 관료적 책무성 제도 103
• 3. 성과중심 책무성 정책 형성기(2008 - 현재) 107
• 가. 학업성취도평가 및 공시제도 107
• 나. 학교평가 112
• 다. 관료적 책무성 제도 115
• 4. 종합 119
• IV. 단위학교 책무성 정책변화의 역사적 분석 122
• 1. 성과중심 책무성 정책 도입기 122
• 가. 구조적 수준 122
• 나. 제도적 수준 129
• 다. 행위자 수준 149
• 라. 논의 159
• 2. 성과중심 책무성 정책 형성기 162
• 가. 구조적 수준 162
• 나. 제도적 수준 164
• 다. 행위자 수준 173
• 라. 논의 182
• V. 결론 186
• 1. 요약 186
• 2. 결론 190
• 3. 제언 195
• 가. 후속연구에의 함의 195
• 나. 정책적 시사점 197
• 참고문헌 200
• ABSTRACT 216