보육시설 평가인증제에 대한 교사의 인식연구 : 청주시를 중심으로 = (A) study on the perception of teachers about the accreditation system of Child-care centers : Focusing on Cheongju City

국문 초록 (Abstract)

국 문 초 록

보육시설 평가인증제에 대한 교사의 인식 연구
- 청주시를 중심으로

청주대학교 사회복지·행정대학원
사회복지학과 사회복지 전공
남 인 양

본 연구에서는 보육시설 평가인증제에 대한 교사의 인식 연구에 대한 연구로서, 이번 연구를 통하여 평가인증제에 대한 시설장과 교사의 인식과 만족도를 알아보았다. 또한 평가인증제에 대해서 느끼는 문제점을 알아보고 문제점을 수정 보완하여 평가인증제도가 더 좋은 방향으로 발전할 수 있도록 개선 방안에는 무엇이 있는지 알아보는 것에 초점을 두고 있
다.
본 연구의 대상은 청주시 지역에 위치하고 있는 보육시설 중 평가인증을 받은 시설장과 보육교사를 선정하고 평가인증제에 대한 인식과 만족도, 문제점 및 개선방안을 알아보기 위한 설문지를 통해 조사하였다.
자료는 연구자가 전화로 연구 논문의 취지를 설명하고 설문조사를 실시하였으며, 직접 방문을 기본으로 하여 배부·환수 하였다.
설문조사를 통해 수집된 자료는 SPSS 14.0을 활용하여 분석하였으며 연구대상자의 일반적 배경, 평가인증에 대한 시설장과 교사의 인식, 평가인증지표 평가항목 이해도의 어려움, 평가인증의 문제점, 평가인증 이후 사후유지관리 개선방안 등에 관한 사항에 대한 기초통계랑 분석을 위해 평균, 백분율, 빈도분포를 실시하였다.
본 연구의 결론은 다음과 같다.
첫째, 평가인증 제도에 대한 교사의 인식을 살펴본 결과 평가인증의 필요성과 목적을 느끼고 이로 인해 보육의 질이 향상 된다고 생각하여 평가인증에 대해 인지를 하고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 평가인증에 대한 재참여 의향을 물어본 결과 169명이 참여할 의향이 있다고는 하였으나 절반 가까이 149명이 재참여 할 의향이 없다고 하였다. 그 이유로는 57.4%가 업무과다로 인한 스트레스가 높기 때문 이라고 하였으며 26.4%가 현장 관찰로 인한 부담감 때문에 재참여 할 의향이 없는 것으로 나타났다.
둘째, 평가인증 운영체제에 대한 교사의 인식을 살펴본 결과 83.1%가 보육정보센터가 평가인증에 도움이 된다고 응답을 하였다. 평가인증 시 자체점검 과정으로는 162명(59.1%)가 “지표를 보고 자체적으로 준비”를 한다고 하였으며 평가인증 결과 인증, 인증유보, 불 인증 으로 하는 것에 대해서는 큰 만족감이나 불만은 없었다. 그러나 인증 유효기간을 3년으로 하는 것에 대해서는 다소 반대하는 의견이 많았다.
셋째, 평가인증 지표의 만족도에 대한 교사의 인식을 살펴본 결과 174명(54.7%)이 대체로 만족하고 있는 것으로 나타났으며 가장 높게 만족하고 있는 영역이 건강과 영양으로 평균이 4점 만점에 2.86으로 나타났다.
평가인증제의 유지 방안으로는 119명(37.9%)이 “인증 통과시설 교사에게 특별수당 지급해야 한다.”고 응답을 한 것으로 보아 평가인증에 참여한 교사에게는 특별 수당을 지급해야 할 것이다.
넷째 평가인증 과정 중 애로점 및 사후유지관리 개선방안에 대한 교사의 인식을 살펴 본 결과 평가인증 준비 과정 중 가장 큰 애로점으로는 “보육교사들의 과중한 업무”가 252명(79.7%)이 가장 높게 나타났으며 연장 근무로 인해 보육교직원의 피도로가 상당할 정도로 증가 하였다. 그리고 불평 또한 상당할 정도로 증가 한 것으로 나타났다. 시설장의 경우 평가인증 준비하는 과정에서 많은 비용을 사용하게 되는데 5백만 원~천만 원 정도가 사용되며 조달방법으로 ‘정부보조금+자비’라고 응답을 하였다. 평가인증을 통해 시설에 많은 투자를 하여 보육시설이 더 많이 발전되고 있지만 시설장님들의 개인적인 자비로 투자를 많이 하기 때문에 시설장님들은 많은 재정적인 어려움을 격고 있다.
평가인증에 대한 개선방안은 사후유지 관리를 잘 하기 위해서는 국가의 재정적인 지원이 필요하다고 가장 높게 응답을 하였으며 그 다음으로 ‘보육교사의 질 향상을 위한 제도 개선’이라고 응답을 하였다. 구체적으로 재정적 지원은 추가근무 수당 지원이 필요하다고 하였으며 보육교사의 질 향상을 위한 제도 개선 부분에서는 응답자의 84명(65.5%)이 ‘봉급체제의 개선’이 필요하다고 하였다. 봉급 책정이 달라진다면 보육교사들은 질 향상을 위해 더 많은 연구와 노력을 할 것이다. 평가인증에 대한 자체적 노력으로는 “평가인증 영역의 지표에 대한 꾸준한 교육” 116명(36.7%)이 가장 높게 나타났는데 이것으로 보아 지표 교육의 중요성을 알 수 있다. 그리고 평가인증 자체점검을 “년 1회” 실시하는 경우가 86명(27.4%)로 가장 많았다. 이로 인해 사후유지 관리가 지속적으로 이루어지고 있지 않음을 알 수 있으며 사후유지 관리를 위한 개선 방안이 필요한 상황이다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Abstract

(A) study on the perception of teachers
about the accreditation system of
Child-care centers
Major in Social Welfare
Department of Social Welfare
Graduate School of Social Welfare and Public Administration
Cheongju University
Nam, In‐yang


This study, which is about teachers’ perception of the childcare
center accreditation system, examined childcare center directors’ and
teachers’ perception of and satisfaction with the accreditation system.
In addition, this study identified problems in the accreditation system
and suggested solutions for the problems so that the accreditation
system would be improved in a desirable direction.
The subjects of this study were the directors and teachers of childcare
centers in Cheong-ju City that had received accreditation, and they
were surveyed using a questionnaire on their perception of the
accreditation system, satisfaction, problems, and solutions.
Basically, the researcher explained the purpose of this research to each
childcare center by phone, and then visited the facility in person and
distributed and recollected questionnaires.
Data collected through the questionnaire survey were analyzed using
SPSS 14.0, and means, percentages and frequencies were analyzed as
basic statistics on the subjects’ general background, their perception of
accreditation, difficulty in understanding assessment items, problems
in accreditation, what to be improved in maintenance and management
after accreditation, etc.
From this study were drawn conclusions as follows.
First, in the result of examining childcare teachers’ perception of the
accreditation system, they recognized the necessity and purposes of
accreditation and thought that accreditation improves the quality of
childcare. With regard to the intention to participate in accreditation
again, 169 of the subjects replied that they had an intention to
participate again but 149, almost a half of the respondents, did not
want to participate again. The reasons for not wanting were stress
from excessive workload (57.4%) and the burden of being observed
(26.4%). childcare teachers’ overtime work and overtime allowance
should be paid.
Second, with regard to teachers’ perception of the operating system of
accreditation, 83.1% replied that the childcare information center was
helpful for accreditation. As to self‐assessment before accreditation,
162 (59.1%) replied “Prepare internally based on the indicators,” and
as to the results of accreditation, they were neither highly satisfied
nor dissatisfied with the accredited, reserved or non‐accredited
result. To 3 years’ effective period of accreditation, however, a
somewhat large number of the respondents expressed opposition.
Third, with regard to teachers’ satisfaction with accreditation indicators,
174 (54.7%) were generally satisfied and the most satisfactory area was
health and nutrition, for which the satisfaction level was 2.86 out of 4.
With regard to how to maintain the accreditation system, 119 (37.9%)
replied, “Special allowance should be paid to teachers at childcare
centers that have passed accreditation.” This suggests that it is
necessary to pay special allowance to teachers who have participated
in accreditation.
Fourth, with regard to difficulties in the accreditation process and in
maintenance and management after accreditation, 252 (79.7%)
mentioned “childcare teachers’ excessive workload” as the biggest
difficulty in the process of preparation for accreditation. Overtime work
increased their fatigue as well as their complaints up to a considerably
high level.
Childcare center directors replied that a large amount of expenditure (5
10 illion won) was spent to prepare accreditation and they raised the
money from governmental subsidies and their own pocket. Investments
in facilities for accreditation improve childcare centers, but they bring
financial difficulties to childcare center directors because a large portion
of the investments is out of their own pocket.
With regard to how to improve accreditation, the most frequent reply
was ‘the government’s financial support’ for better maintenance and
management after accreditation and the second most frequent reply
was ‘institutional improvement for enhancing the quality of childcare
teachers.’ Specifically, they replied that overtime allowance should be
paid, and concerning institutional improvement for enhancing the
quality of childcare teachers 84 (65.5%) of the respondents mentioned
‘improvement in the wage system.’ If the wage system is improved,
they may commit themselves to research and education more for
improving the quality of their works. With regard to internal efforts
for accreditation, 116 (36.7%) replied “continuous education on
the indicators of accreditation areas.” This suggests the importance of
indicator education. In addition, 86 (27.4%) replied that they performed
self‐assessment “once a year.” This suggests that accreditation is not
followed by continuous maintenance and management and thus it is
necessary to take measures to improve post maintenance and
management.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 목 차
• Ⅰ. 서론···································································· 1
• 1. 연구의 필요성 및 목적··············································· 1
• 2. 연구문제······························································· 3
• 3. 용어정의······························································· 4
• Ⅱ. 이론적 배경························································ 6
• 1. 평가인증제의 필요성 및 목적········································ 6
• 2. 평가인증제의 운영체제·············································· 10
• 1) 평가인증의 과정·················································· 10
• 2) 평가인증 지표의 영역············································ 19
• 3) 평가인증제의 현황··············································· 27
• 3. 선행연구·························································· 30
• 4. 외국의 평가인증제················································· 34
• 1) 미국······························································ 34
• 2) 호주······························································ 36
• 3) 외국의 보육관련 인증 제도의 시사점··························· 38
• Ⅲ. 연구 방법························································· 41
• 1. 연구대상 및 연구절차············································· 41
• 2. 연구도구···························································· 41
• 3. 자료분석···························································· 42
• Ⅳ. 연구 결과························································ 43
• 1. 연구대상자의 일반적 특성········································· 43
• 2. 보육시설 평가인증에 대한 교사의 인식··························· 45
• 1) 보육시설 평가인증제에 대한 인지도····························· 45
• 2) 보육시설 평가인증제의 재 참여의향····························· 45
• 3) 보육시설 평가인증제의 필요성··································· 46
• 4) 보육시설 평가인증과 관련한
• 정부 지원의 필요성 및 필요한 부분······················ 47
• 3. 보육시설 평가인증제의 운영체제에 대한 교사의 인식············· 48
• 1) 보육정보센터 활용도 및 조력이 필요한 영역···················· 48
• 2) 보육시설 평가인증 과정·········································· 50
• 3) 보육시설 평가인증 결과 및 인증 유효기간······················ 51
• 4. 보육시설 평가인증 지표의 만족도에 대한 교사의 인식············ 52
• 1) 보육시설 평가인증 지표의 만족도································ 52
• 2) 보육시설 평가인증 지표의 유지방안····························· 53
• 5. 보육시설 평가인증의 애로점 및 사후유지관리 개선방안에 대한
• 교사의 인식························································· 54
• 1) 보육시설 평가인증제의 애로점··································· 54
• 2) 보육시설 평가인증제의 정착을 위한 사후유지관리 개선방안··· 58
• Ⅴ. 요약 및 결론······················································· 63
• 1. 요약······························································· 63
• 2. 결론······························································· 65
• 참고 문헌································································ 71
• ABSTRACT······························································ 74
• 부록(설문지)····························································· 78