교육복지정책 평가 연구 : 교육복지투자우선지역 지원사업 = A Study on The Evaluation of Education Welfare Policies: Supportive Project for the Priority Region of Educational Welfare Investment

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this study is to evaluate and analyze the difference among groups of school employees by dividing supportive project for the priority region of educational welfare investment』 into categories of the policy's establishment, process and output. The supported project is part of the Education Welfare Policies which took effect from 2003 to 2007. To attain such a goal, research areas are set as follows:
First, in the category of the policy's establishment, the study evaluates the appropriateness of the policy's goals to the national and social demand. It also evaluates whether the collection and reflection of opinions were democratic. Second, in the category of the process, it evaluates consistency in operation. It questions whether the operation was democratic and managed appropriately for the policy's situational change. Third, in the category of output, it evaluates the achievement of the policy's goals and the possibility of their continuation. In fact, it identifies reasons for the difference in school employees' evaluation by conducting depth interviews. Finally, it aims to provide further implications for future operations by analyzing and discussing problems arose after the evaluation.
In order to explore above research areas, the study is integrated, in order, from the evaluation's policy establishment, process to the output. In such a fashion, it analyzes the result of the survey, the quantitative method, and divides the questionaries into the one with employees' different evaluations and the one with similarity. Additionally, interviews, which is the qualitative method, is used by experts.
The conclusions of this study are as following:
First, in terms of establishing supportive project for the priority region of educational welfare investment, the government or Ministry of Education in 2002 accurately diagnosed national and social problems of the period and reflected them on its policy-making. Thus, the study concludes that having the project's goal as constructing school-centered regional community by providing priority students with multidimensional support in education, culture, and welfare is appropriate. However, in terms of adjusting the balance among priority regions of the project's program, it is necessary to suggest a more practical operational model through thorough research. It can be positively viewed that collection and reflection of opinions were democratic processes. However, because the policy was established in such a short period of time, it lacked considerations when reflecting various opinions from educational welfare experts or other relevant members in project-operated schools or regional Offices of Education. In addition, the possibility of realization in relation to the political, financial, social, and technological contexts, is high, due to special grants necessitated by social, financial, or political demands.
The experts' or school employees' evaluation on the adequacy of human resources was positive but relatively low in comparison to other categories. Their evaluation implies the inadequacy of efficient operation of the project in project-operated schools or city, provincial, or other regional Offices of Education. Overall, employees from project-operated schools expressed their satisfaction for financial support. However, the financial support may be lacking in terms of providing high quality programs to priority students. They also evaluated that human resources were adequately provided by incorporating outside human resources. However, they pointed out their limited authorities and roles when stationed in schools or offices. Project-operated school employees agreed upon appropriateness of rules or policies in relation to such limit and suggested the necessity for pre-legalization in this project to provide them with stability for their status. They evaluated that low realization of horizontal equality was expected. In the establishment of the project, much of the policies' direction lied on selection and focus. Thus, many experts and employees concluded that vertical equality is realized effectively. Therefore, they suggested the solutions for pursuing horizontal equality must be searched.
Second, in terms of processing supportive project for the priority region of educational welfare investment, it is noteworthy that staff from Ministry of Education and Science, Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, city, provincial and other regional Offices of Education, and project-operated schools have put great efforts to maintain the consistency in establishing and in operating the project. Because all school staff members were participants for the project, the study evaluates that collection of opinions and reflections were achieved democratically. However, it overlooked the importance of widening the channels for communications with project-operated schools or Offices of Education. Management of the policy's situational change was smoothly carried out as previously planned. The project first had 2 years of project experiment period from 2003-2004, followed by expanding its area from cities to local districts in 3 years from 2005-2007. However, experts noted that the project's stability declines due to frequent change of members in Ministry of Education or Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
Third, in terms of the output in supportive project for the priority region of educational welfare investment, school employees highly agreed upon the effectiveness of the supportive project. On the other hand, some experts claimed that fundamental goals have been established, but the ultimate goal of constructing school-centered regional community was not yet attained. Moreover, they highly supported the continuous monitoring system for project amendment, which is the area for appropriateness in evaluation system. On the contrary, they criticized city or provincial Offices' lack of efforts in constructing such systems for regional Offices of Education. They generally agreed upon evaluations on the regular basis for identifying the supportive project's effectiveness. However, they pointed out the need for further discussion on the evaluation's method or period for feedback on the result.
As seen above, the integrated evaluation of supportive project for the priority region of educational welfare investment as part of Education Welfare Policies was achieved by school employees and other educational experts. While their recognition differed in various evaluation areas, they expressed positive agreement in many aspects and provided suggestions or implications for further development. When the efforts for reflecting the evaluation results can be built at the level of the nation, not only by school employees but also members from community-level institutions, the ultimate goal of constructing school- centered regional community can be attainable.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론 1
• 1. 연구의 필요성 1
• 2. 연구목적 및 내용 4
• 3. 연구의 제한점 5
• Ⅱ. 이론적 배경 7
• 1. 교육의 형평성과 교육복지 7
• 2. 교육복지투자우선지역 지원사업 10
• 3. 교육정책 평가의 의의와 준거 26
• 4. 교육복지정책 평가를 위한 모형 35
• Ⅲ. 연구방법 47
• 1. 연구 설계 47
• 2. 평가모형의 개발 48
• 3. 조사 도구 59
• 4. 자료 수집 65
• 5. 자료 분석 68
• 6. 연구의 타당도와 윤리 70
• Ⅳ. 연구결과 73
• 1. 교육복지정책의 수립단계 73
• 2. 교육복지정책의 과정단계 101
• 3. 교육복지정책의 산출단계 114
• 4. 교육복지정책의 세 단계에 대한 종합적 평가 135
• Ⅴ. 논의 및 결론 144
• 1. 요약 및 논의 144
• 2. 결론 및 제언 155
• ￭ 참고문헌 160
• ￭ Abstract 167
• ￭ [부록 1] 교육복지투자우선지역 지원사업 일지 170
• ￭ [부록 2] 교육복지투자우선지역 지원사업 평가를 위한 설문지 173
• ￭ [부록 3] 교육복지투자우선지역 지원사업 평가를 위한 면접조사표 178

참고문헌 (Reference)

1. 질적 연구, 조용환, , 2005

2. 정책평가론, 최영훈, , 2007

3. 정책학원론, 정정길, 대명, 정책학원론, , 1992

4. The Paradigm dialog, Guba, Egon. G., Sage Publications, , 1990

5. Naturalistic inquiry, Lincoln, Yvonna S, Sage Publications, , 1985

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

7. Systematic evaluation, Stufflebeam, Shinkfield, Systematic evaluation, , 1985

8. 프로그램 평가론, 배호순, 원미사, , 2003

9. Public Policy Education, Nachmias, , 1979

10. Evaluative Research, N.Y, Suchman, "Evaluative Research, , 1967

11. 질적연구방법론Ⅰ, 김영천, , 2006

12. 점검체계에 대하여, 김명수, , 1992

13. 신 교육행정 및 경영, 박종렬, 형설출판사, , 2007

14. 지방자치와 복지행정, 봉민근, , 1995

15. 정책평가론의 확장과 활용, 정정길, , 1989

16. (정치경제학적) 사회문제론, 김영화, 교육과학사, , 2005

17. 21세기사회의 교육복지정책, 尹正一, 서울大學校 師範大學 敎育學科, , 1990

18. A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Mass, Rawls, "A Theory of Justice, , 1971

19. Policy analysis for public decisions, MacRae, Duncan, University Press of America, , 1985

20. The Planning Process : A Fact Design, Dror, , 1963

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

22. 참여정부 교육복지 종합계획, 교육인적자원부, , 2004

23. 정책평가를 위한 새로운 모형, 이진주, 나남출판, , 1996

24. 통합연구방법론(Mixed methodology), 염시창, , 2001

25. 21세기 교육복지 발전방안 연구, 한만길, 한국교육개발원, , 2000

26. 과정평가. 정정길 외. 정책평가, 이윤식, , 1997

27. Qualitative inquiry: The continuing debate, Peshkin, Eisner, , 1990

28. Qualitative evaluation and research methods, Patton, Michael Quinn, Sage Publications, , 1990

29. 특성화 대안학교 정책 평가 연구, 김태연, 홍익대학교 대학원, "박사학위논문, , 2008

30. 독일의 학교사회복지에 관한 고찰, 조미숙, 한국학교사회복지학회, "학교사회복지, , 2004

31. 문민정부 이후 대학 정원정책 분석, 장석환, Jang Seok-hwan, 한국교육행정학회, , 2007

32. 평생학습사회론 : 교육복지의 차원, 이상오, 교육과학사, , 2000

33. 초·중등 교원의 보수체제 변천 분석, 이지영, Lee Jee-Young, 한국교육행정학회, "초?중등 교원의 보수체제 변천 분석. 교육행정학연구, , 2008

34. 참여정부의 교육복지정책의 평가연구, 유은수, , 2008

35. Understanding Public Policy 4th ed. Englwood Clifts, Dye, , 1981

36. 빈곤의 정의와 규모. 유경준·심상달 편, 김대일, 빈곤의 정의와 규모. 유경준?심상달 편, , 2004

37. 사이버가정학습 우수운영사례 질적연구, 김영천, 사이버가정학습 우수운영사례 질적 연구, , 2006

38. 인수위원회 교육정책에 대한 평가와 제언, 김호기, , 2008

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

40. Research design : Qualitative and quantitative approaches, Creswell, J. W., Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, , 2003

41. 교사발달단계에 따른 현직교육체제의 평가, 고완태, 한국교육학회, "교육학연구, , 1999

42. 지방자치단체의 성과평가를 위한 지표개발, 라휘문, 한표환, 한국정책학회, , 1999

43. 지역사회교육전문가 서울지역 연수 자료집, 윤철수, , 2004

44. Public Policy Analysis : An Introduction. Englewood Cliffs, Dunn, , 1987

45. 직업분야 특성화고등학교 정책의 평가 연구, 강형근, , 2003

46. 통합연구방법론:질적 양적 접근방법의 통합, 염시창, 통합연구방법론 - 질적?양적 접근방법의 통합 -, , 2001

47. 영?유아 교육복지 통합서비스 제공 방안 연구, 서영숙, 장명림, 신지현, , 2006

48. 절대 빈곤자 복지지원 정책에 대한 평가적 연구, 김우수, , 2005

49. 특수교육 교육과정 평가 모형과 평가 준거 연구, 이만영, , 2003

50. 교육정책 평가모형 개발과 실험대학 정책의 연구, 김창곤, 한국교육행정학회, "박사학위논문, , 1987

51. 한국사회의 가정 내 사회적 자본의 본질과 가변성, 이현철, , 2009

52. Toward a conceptural framework for mixed- method evaluation designs, Greene, Toward a conceptural framework for mixed-method evaluation designs, , 1989

53. 학교 내의 복지 전문 인력과 교사의 협력 관계 연구, 진혜경, 가톨릭대학교 대학원, , 2005

54. 교육복지투자우선지역 지원사업의 의의와 추진방향, 신익현, 한국도시연구소, "도시와 빈곤, , 2003

55. 미국의 교육복지정책과 법제의 동향. 공법연구, 35(3), 노기호, "미국의 교육복지정책과 법제의 동향. 공법연구, , 2007

56. 2007년도 교육복지투자우선지역 지원사업 평가보고 서, 이경희, 김정원, 김도희, , 2008

57. 지방교육재정의 결정요인에 관한 연구. 박사학위논문, 승융배, , 2003

58. CIPP 평가모형에 의한 대학평가인정제의 발전방향 탐색, 정진국, 대구가톨릭대학교 대학원, "박사학위논문, , 2000

59. 소외계층을 위한 ICT 교육정책 분석 OECD 회원국 중심으로, 방명숙, , 2003

60. 학교에서의 교육기회의 보상적 평등에 관한 비판적 고찰, 안관수, , 1996

61. 2007년도 교육복지투자우선지역 지원사업 성과와 발전방향, 김정원, , 2008

62. Program evaluation(second edition) - Alternative approaches and practical guidelines, Sanders, Fitzpatrick, Worthen, , 1997

63. 한국교육자치제에 관한 연구: 교육의 형평성-효율성 분석을 중심으로, 윤병환, 대구대학교 대학원, , 2000

64. 2005년 교육복지투자우선지역 지원 사업을 위한 연구지원 사업 결 과 보고서, 이혜영, , 2006

65. TheCIPPmodelforprogram evaluation,InG.F.Madaus,M.Scriven,& D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.),Evaluationmodels, Stufflebeam, "The CIPP model for program evaluation, , 1983

66. 프랑스 ‘ZEP’이 한국의 ‘교육복지투자우선지역’ 정책 보완에 주는 시사점, 조발그니(Cho Balkeuni), 한국교육사회학회, "교육사회학연구, , 2005

67. 중학교 재량활동 교육과정 모형 개발과 효과: 다중지능이론과 몰입이론 중 심으로, 김신, , 2008

68. CIPP 평가모형에 의한 전래동요 프로그램 평가준거 개발과 유아교육기관에 적용방안, 김애자, 계명대학교 대학원, CIPP 평가모형에 의한 전래동요 프로그램 평가준거 개발과 유아교육기 관에 적용방안, , 2008

69. CIPP 평가모형을 적용한 초등학교 특별보충과정 평가 - 부산광역시 초등학교를 중심으로 -, 전화춘, 한국초등교육학회, CIPP 평가모형을 적용한 초등학교 특별보충과정 평가 : 부산광역시 초 등학교를 중심으로, , 2007

70. 지역사회교육전문가의 역할 형성 과정: 서울시 강서구 교육복지투자우선지역을 중심으로, 윤철수 ( Cheul Su Yoon ), 한국아동복지학회, , 2005