入學査定官制의 政策誤差와 誤差修正 分析

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In this dissertation, I explore the policy errors of the Admission Officer Policy(AOP), analyze the sources of the errors, and investigate how the agents perceive and correct the policy errors. The study contributes in accumulating knowledge about reducing policy errors, and presents a theoretical grounds in policy implementation that include the perception and correction of policy error.
The time span of this study ranges from 2004 to May, 2012; from the year that the discussion of the introduction of the AOP had begun to the present where government financial support is provided to the AOP. The key agents of the policy error analysis are the government and the Korean Council for University Education(KCUE). I use case study and document analysis.
In chapter two, I reviewed theories and studies related to the concept of policy, the policy implementation processes, bounded rationality and incrementalism. Then, I reflect on the concept of policy errors and error correction to provide a conceptual framework of this dissertation.
In chapter three, I analyze the implementation process in three phases: the preparation phase(2004-2006), the introduction phase(2007-2008), and the expansion phase(2009-2012). In the preparation phase(2004-2006), government and the universities were concerned that the financial support of the government might work as government interference. For this reason, the government has not considered a direct financial support for the introduction of AOP. In the introduction phase(2007-2008), the government has begun providing financial support, and the AOP was implemented with an emphasis on professionalism and the diversification and specialization of admission criteria. In the expansion phase(2009-2012), government has expanded the financial support. The number of participating universities increased through the differential financial support under a ‘selection and concentration’ logic. Restriction over private education and normalization of public education are emphasized in this phase.
In chapter four, I analyze the policy errors and the sources of errors of each phase. In the preparation phase, a decision error has occurred and left the condition and inducement of the new policy unattained. The decision errors stem from the perception gap between the government and the target of the policy. In the introduction phase, a decision error that transferred the college admission task through political decision and an operation error of a cursory management of AOP by the universities. Moreover, it has failed to provide a countermeasure that secure specialization for admission officers and build an infrastructure for high schools due to the lack of analytical rationality. A decision error that failed to incorporate the preference of the policy targets has occurred due to the lack of procedural rationality. In the expansion phase, various policy errors were observed. A vast increase of AOP, failure of the government prenotification, ambiguousness of the policy goal, mismatch between AOP and fairness and the increase of private education are examples of the errors.
In chapter five, I analyze how the government perceived the policy errors of AOP and corrected the errors, and investigated the factors that limit the error correction. First, recognition of the policy error by the agent should precede in order for the error correction to occur. A lively media attention on the problems and proper checks of the National Assembly enabled the government to recognize the policy errors. Also, attention of other Ministries on the AOP policy has contributed to the government’s perception of the errors.
Second, the government’s corrections of the various policy errors are made in the expansion phase. The government has made error corrections to promote participation of the universities by deciding to provide financial support to the universities in the preparation phase and putting forth efforts to resolve conflicts between the government and the universities in the introduction phase. In the expansion phase, the government has intervened in the college admission, a function that had been transferred to KCUE, in order to resolve the differences between the universities and secure social accountability and begun suggestion solutions for specialization of Admission Officers and connections to the high school system. Moreover, the government endeavored to reduce the distrust over qualitative evaluations, enhance the operation of AOP through inspections, prevent private education and ease the pace of the policy.
Third, the mere perception of the policy error does not guarantee policy correction. Various barriers influence the scope of error corrections. In AOP, decline of organizational learning with the change of government, uncertainty of the policy, expansion of the policy through political parties and the identity of policy decision makers and policy implementers were identified as barriers of policy corrections.
In chapter six, I summarize the findings of the analysis, draw conclusions and provide suggestions for the following studies and policy implications. A hasty expansion of the AOP policy that lack rational planning and systematic analysis has lead to various policy errors. Operational errors were corrected promptly while decision errors were corrected with limitation. In order to prevent policy errors, government should improve procedural rationality in the policy formulation process and hold an incremental approach in policy implementation.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서 론 1
• 제1절 연구의 필요성 및 연구목적 1
• 1. 연구의 필요성 1
• 2. 연구목적 5
• 제2절 연구방법과 연구범위 6
• 1. 연구범위 6
• 2. 연구방법 7
• 제2장 이론적 배경 11
• 제1절 정책이론 11
• 1. 정책의 개념과 특성 11
• 2. 정책과정 16
• 제2절 제한된 합리성과 점진주의 19
• 1. 제한된 합리성(bounded rationality) 20
• 2. 점진주의(incrementalism) 23
• 제3절 정책오차와 오차수정 29
• 1. 정책오차의 개념 29
• 2. 정책오차의 발생원인 34
• 3. 정책오차의 인지 38
• 4. 오차수정의 개념 39
• 5. 오차수정의 제약요인 41
• 제4절 연구의 분석틀 45
• 제3장 입학사정관제의 정책추진과정 50
• 제1절 입학사정관제의 추진배경 50
• 1. 입학사정관제의 개념과 특징 50
• 2. 도입배경과 현황 53
• 3. 입학사정관제에 대한 선행연구 61
• 제2절 입학사정관제의 정책추진과정 67
• 1. 준비단계(2004-2006) 70
• 2. 도입단계(2007-2008) 74
• 3. 확산단계(2009-2012) 87
• 제4장 입학사정관제의 정책오차 103
• 제1절 준비단계(2004-2006)의 정책오차와 발생원인 103
• 1. 선결조건의 미비 103
• 2. 대학에 대한 유인책 미비 104
• 제2절 도입단계(2007-2008)의 정책오차와 발생원인 107
• 1. 입학사정관제 지원사업에 대한 대학의 저조한 참여 107
• 2. 정치적 판단에 의한 책임 없는 자율 109
• 3. 분석적 합리성의 부족 120
• 4. 절차적 합리성의 부족으로 인한 정책대상자의 선호 미반영 130
• 제3절 확산단계(2009-2012)의 정책오차와 발생원인 132
• 1. 조급한 성과주의에 의한 급속한 확대 132
• 2. 교과부의 사전 예고제 무시 138
• 3. 정책목표의 모호성 141
• 4. 입학사정관제와 공정성의 부조화 144
• 5. 입학사정관제에 의한 사교육 유발 148
• 제5장 입학사정관제의 오차수정 151
• 제1절 정책오차의 인지 151
• 1. 언론의 적극적인 문제제기 151
• 2. 국회의 정책감사 기능 163
• 제2절 입학사정관제 정책오차의 수정 168
• 1. 준비단계(2004-2006)의 오차수정 168
• 2. 도입단계(2007-2008)의 오차수정 170
• 3. 확산단계(2009-2012)의 오차수정 171
• 제3절 오차수정의 제약요인 194
• 1. 정권교체로 인한 조직 내 학습기능 저하 195
• 2. 정책의 불확실성 197
• 3. 정치적 결정에 의한 정책 확대 198
• 4. 정책결정자와 정책집행자의 일치 201
• 제6장 결 론 204
• 제1절 요약 204
• 제2절 결론 206
• 제3절 제언 210
• 참고문헌 215
• ABSTRACT 228