중등 사학의 교육력 실태 및 동인 분석 = The present status and determinants of private secondary schools' educational competitiveness

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study attempted to examine the present status and determinants of private secondary schools' educational competitiveness in Korea, employing both quantitative and qualitative research methods. First, while private schools appear to be disadvantageous compared to public schools regarding the actual condition of school education such as the workload of teachers, their employment security and educational facilities, the former are found to be better than the latter with respect to the process of school education including classroom teaching, students' learning attitude, teachers' attitude and school culture. As for the outcome of school education, the levels of academic achievement in English and mathematics, students' satisfaction with school life and their self-esteem are higher for private school students than for public school students.
The educational competitiveness of private schools to public schools can be attributed to the teacher personnel policy, relationships to educational bureaucracy and religion. Regarding the teacher personnel policy, private schools are able to maintain the continuity and consistency in school policies by virtue of limited teacher mobility. The promotion structure restricting its opportunities in private schools enables teachers to be free from wasteful competition for promotion and to devote themselves to teaching and instruction. Being secured of relatively more autonomy for teacher recruitment and more flexibility in teacher supply and demand, private schools have more room for adaptable curriculum management. Since private schools are relatively less liable to the control of education authorities, their teachers tend to have less burden of administrative and clerical work and can be absorbed in caring for students. Further, teachers and staffs are likely to reach a faster decision. With respect to religion, mission schools tend to have strength in securing the emotional stability of students, encouraging teachers' devotion and supporting disadvantaged students.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구에서는 사립 중등학교 교육력의 실태 및 교육력을 증진시키는 데 기여하는 요인을 분석하였다. 교육력의 실태 분석을 위한 자료는 2006년도 KEDI 교육통계DB 가운데 일반계 고등학교 통계자료와 KEDI 「학교교육 실태 및 수준 분석 연구: 고등학교」의 설문조사자료를 사용하였으며, 교육력의 동인을 분석하기 위해서는 사립과 공립 중등학교에 모두 근무해 본 경험이 있는 교사 9명 대상 비구조화 심층 면담조사 결과를 사용하였다. 교육력 실태 분석 결과 첫째, 교사의 근무여건과 신분보장, 교육시설 등 교육여건 면에서는 사립학교가 공립학교에 비해 평균적으로 열악한 것으로 나타났으나, 수업, 학생의 학습태도, 교사의 태도, 학교문화 등 교육의 과정 면에서는 사립학교가 공립학교에 비해 평균적으로 우월한 것으로 나타났다. 교육 산출 면인 수학과 영어 영역을 중심으로 검토한 학업성취 및 학교생활 만족도와 자아존중감을 중심으로 한 정의적 성취에 있어서도 사립학교 학생이 평균적으로 더 높은 것으로 나타났으며, 학교에 대한 학부모의 만족도 역시 사립학교에서 평균적으로 더 높은 것으로 나타났다. 이와 같이 우리나라 사립학교와 공립학교의 교육력에 차이를 가져오게 하는 요인은 교원인사, 교육관료제와의 관계, 종교 등에서 찾아볼 수 있다. 교원 인사와 관련하여 사립학교에서는 교사의 이동이 제한되어 있어 학교정책의 연속성과 일관성을 유지할 수 있으며, 승진기회가 제한되어 있는 구조로 인하여 교사들이 소모적인 승진경쟁에서 자유로워 학생 지도에 몰두할 수 있고, 교사의 충원에 자율성이 보장되고 교원수급이 상대적으로 유연하여 교육과정을 유연하게 운영할 수 있다. 사립학교는 공립학교에 비해 교육청의 지시와 통제로부터 상대적으로 자유롭기 때문에 행정적 업무처리와 잡무가 상대적으로 적어 학생들에게 더 많은 관심을 기울일 수 있으며, 의사결정과 의사소통이 보다 신속하고, 교육과정 운영에 있어 보다 많은 자율성을 가지고 있어 보다 수요자 중심으로 운영할 수 있다. 가톨릭이나 기독교계와 같은 종교계 학교에서는 학생들의 정서적 안정, 교사의 사명감, 취약계층에 대한 지원 등에서 강점을 지닌다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김양분, "학교교육 수준 및 실태 분석: 고등학교" 한국교육개발원 2003

2 김재춘, "초·중등학교에서의 종교교육의 허용범위와 한계" 59-60, 2006

3 김영화, "중등 사학의 학교효과 분석 연구: 일반계 고등학교 편" 한국교육개발원 2006

4 김영화, "정치·사회적 맥락에서 본 OECD 주요국의 중등 사학에 대한 국가 지원과 통제" 17 (17): 1-28, 2007

5 김영화, "설립별 학교유형과 역사적 전통에 따른 사학 유형이 학업성취도에 미치는 영향: 일반계고교를 중심으로" 17 (17): 53-78, 2007

6 Neal,D, "What have we learned about the benefits of private schooling?" 4 (4): 76-89, 1997

7 Lubienski, C., "What do we know about school effectiveness? Academic gains in public and private schools" 89 (89): 689-696, 2008

8 Witte,J.F, "The market approach to education: An analysis of America's first voucher program" Princeton University Press 2000

9 Dronkers,J, "The existence of parental choice in the Netherlands" 9 : 227-243, 1995

10 Greene, J.P., "The effectiveness of school choice in Milwaukee: A secondary analysis of data from the program's evaluation(Occasional Papers)" Program on education policy and governance, Harvard University 1996

11 Dronkers, J, "The effectiveness of public and private schools from a comparative perspective. Session International Perspectives on the Sociology of Education" 2004

12 Howell, W.G, "The education gap: Vouchers and urban schools" Brookings Institution Press 2006

13 Alexander, K.L, "School sector and cognitive performance: When is a little a little?, Comparing public and private schools. Volume 2: School achievement" Falmer Press 1987

14 Greene, J.P., "School choice in Milwaukee: A randomized experiment, Learning from school choice" Brookings Institution Press 1998

15 Corten, R. and J. Dronkers, "School achievement of pupils from the lower strata in public, private government-dependent and private government-independent schools: A cross-national test of the Coleman-Hoffer Thesis. Educational Research and Evaluatio" 2006

16 Denessen, E., "Reasons for school choice in the Netherlands and in Finland. Occasional Paper 24. NCSPE. Teachers College" Columbia University 2001

17 Lubienski, C, "Re-examining a primary premise of market theory: An analysis of NAEP data on achievement in public and private schools" NCSPE. Teachers College, Columbia University 2004

18 Coleman, J.S., "Public and private schools. Reprint submitted to the National Center for Education Statistics" National Opinion Center 1982

19 Coleman, J.S, "Public and private high schools: The impact of communities" Basic Books 1987

20 James,E, "Public and private education in international perspective, Private schools and public policy: International perspectives" The Falmer Press 1989

21 Dijkstra, A., "Private schools as public provision for education: School choice and marketization in the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe, Occasional Paper 20. NCSPE. Teachers College" Columbia University 2001

22 Chubb, J.E, "Politics, markets, and organization of schools" 82 : 1065-87, 1988

23 Bryk, A, "Is politics the problem and markets the answer? An essay review of politics, markets and America's schools" 11 (11): 439-451, 1992

24 Evans, W.N, "Finishing high school and starting college: Do catholic schools make difference?" 10 (10): 941-974, 1995

25 Witte, J.F., "Fifth year report: Milwaukee Parental Choice Program" Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction 1995

26 Scott, W.R, "Environmental linkages and organizational complexity: Public and private schools, Comparing public and private schools vol. 1: Institutions and organizations" Falmer Press 1988

27 Dronkers, J, "Differences in scholastic achievement of public, private government-dependent and private independent schools: A cross-national analysis" 22 (22): 541-577, 2008

28 Levin,J, "Differences in educational production between Dutch public and religious schools" Occasional Paper 93. NCSPE. Teachers College, Columbia University 2004

29 McEwan,P.J, "Comparing the effectiveness of public and private schools: A review of evidence and interpretations" Occasional Paper 3. NCSPE. Teachers College, Columbia University 2000

30 Braun, H., "Comparing private schools and public schools using Hierarchical Linear Modeling. Statistical analysis report of National Center for Education Statistics. Washington" National Assessment of Educational Progr 2006

31 Bryk, A., "Catholic schools and the common good" Harvard University Press 1993

32 Greeley,A, "Catholic schools and minority students" Transaction 1982

33 Watkins,S, "Are public or private schools doing better? How the NCES study is being misinterpreted. Backgrounder No. 1968(ED498007). Heritage Foundation" Heritage Foundation 2006

34 Benveniste, L., "All else equal: Are public and private schools different?" Routledge Farmer 2002

35 Van Laarhaven, P., "Achievement in public and private secondary education in the Netherlands, The third sector: Comparative studies of nonprofit organizations" 1990

36 Lubienski, S.T, "A new look at public and private schools: Student background and mathematics achievement" 86 (86): 696-699, 2005