미국 법정판례에 나타난 교육의 평등과 재정중립의 개념 = Concepts of Educational Equality and Fiscal Neutrality in the American Judicial Decisions

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Korean society recently has adopted local determinism in various aspects. Education is not exception. However, local determination may unexpectedly result in differences of educational expenditure per student among local school districts. So, this study intends to help Korean society make prepared itself for the would-be legal issuings concerning unequal distribution of educational expenditures. With this aim in view, this study focused on identifying and analyzing major legal cases concerning school finance in American courts, with the purpose of reding some basic principles of equality that American courts seek to embody through their rulings. As a framework for the analysis, Wise's 9 concepts of equal educational opportunity were consulted. The result is as following.
In early cases, such as McInnis and Rodriguez, the court was reluctant to interfere with the mainly locally controlled school finance area. In these cases, American courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to put more emphasis on the principle of autonomy than that of equality. In finance, court seemed to admit the 'maximum variance ratio' principle.
However, with the Serrano case as turning point, where plaintiffs based their complaints rather on education provisions in the state constitutions rather than the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, 'fiscal neutrality' has been ruling courts. In succeeding several cases(such as Robinson, Seattle, Cincinnati cases), more positive configuration of 'educational adequacy' has been sought. This concept tends to be intimately related to the principle which is inclined to emphasize 'basic education.'
As for the method of distributing educational finance, the court did not show a great respect for flat grant and low level foundation program. Through evidences submitted in courts, flat grant was seen ineffective in lessening the differences of expenditure since it could not reflect special needs of particular students and local property valuation status. Foundation program decided at low level also did not help very much since it could not guarantee the necessary basic education for all and could not control additional sum from local leeway taxes in rich districts. Seeking educational fairness, only 'full state funding' and 'district power equalizing' or foundation program decided at sufficiently high level were recommended.
As for Korean future, it is suggested that a proper model of educational fairness should be prepared. And considering provisions concerning education in Constitution, it is well recommended not to abandon traditionally centralized system of educational finance, especially in the area of obligatory free education. And there needs to be much concern for students with special needs, too.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 들어가는 말
• Ⅱ. 교육적 평등의 여러 가지 의미
• Ⅲ. 미국 법정 판결들과 평등 및 재정중립의 원리
• Ⅳ. "적정한 교육"과 관련된 법정판례들
• Ⅴ. 매듭말 및 한국교육에의 시사
• 참고문헌
• 영문초록