교직사회 개혁정책의 이데올로기적 성격, 논쟁점, 그리고 과제

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

By the turn of the 1980s, education reform efforts in many countries had been
moving toward the way in which education systems respond to the challenges of
new political and economic ideologies, and how the education system could be
organized to the meet these changes. Current educational reform policy and
practices are rooted in market-oriented and bureaucratic ideologies, which have
been rising as new political and economic forces.
The purpose of this paper is to identify how the market-oriented and
bureaucratic ideologies are related to educational reform movements, to discuss the
controversial issues in educational policy and practices under debate in the process
of transforming this reform ideology into the teaching profession, and to explore
how the teaching system can be restructured to be held more accountable.
Since the mid-1990s, educational reform in Korea has been moving towards
national standards, national curriculum, and more marketized forms of schooling, in
an effort to hold the national education system more accountable. This has
resulted in educational policy and teaching practices which are subject to more
bureaucratic procedures and control, but also government regulation such as
national standards and evaluation, and teacher rewards and sanctions.
The negative effects of market and bureaucratic control generate various
controversial issues in educational policy and teaching practices. First, there were
contradictions in combining the two different ideologies of marketization and
bureaucratization into teaching profession reform, and tensions between the
conflicting goals of educational accountability and teachers professional
development. Secondly, national standards and evaluation, and more accountable
forms of teaching have been highly emphasized as a strategy to restructure the
national educational system. Finally, as a result, reform policy and practices in the
teaching profession have been subjected to more bureaucratic procedures and
control, and also to more marketized forms of creating national standards and
evaluation, teacher rewards and sanctions, etc.
These findings showed that current reform policy and practices have raised
questions as to the negative effects of market and bureaucratic control, such as
lack of teacher autonomy and stratification of the teaching profession. Finally, it
was suggested that reform policy and practices in teaching should be restructured
with more educational and social vision, value, needs, and strategy.