CHOSUN

학교 밖 돌봄과 학교 내 돌봄 연계의 유형 및 관계자 인식분석

Metadata Downloads
Author(s)
임미숙
Issued Date
2016
Keyword
돌봄," "연계
Abstract
Abstract

Analysis of the type of linkage between out-of-school and within-school care and awareness levels of the concerned people

Lim Mi suk
Advisor : Song, Kyung-Oh
Department of Education
Graduate School of Chosun University

This study takes a multiple step process to understand the linkage between out-of-school and within-school care. First, a group interview with four people will be conducted and a questionnaire will be composed after carrying out a field-centered literature review. We will then analyze the type of linkage between out-of-school and within-school care, and awareness of the people concerned in out-of-school care. We will also conduct a statistical test and identify the differences across the groups through the survey. The survey will be completed after carrying out a necessity and demands analysis through a second group interview with 25 people and an open questionnaire. This will be followed by an exploration of the plan for linkage of care through a third group interview with field experts, parents, and children. Through this, it is significant that the children (students) contribute to the development of good care linkage.
First, all care officers of elementary schools felt that care linkage is needed regarding the understanding that they have of the need for linkage between out-of-school care and care within-the school.
The result of the survey showed that everyone responded that linkage of care is required; they also responded in the same manner in the group interview. However, the response that had the greatest difference among the groups was “’linkage of care alleviates the work of elementary school teachers.”’ The mean and standard deviation were found to be 3.14±1.195, while the F value was 23.302, and the significance was 0.000 (P<0.01). The result of a post-test showed that there was a difference in the levels of awareness of the center director, the officer (instructor), and the vice principal; the level of awareness of the care department head was also different from the center director and the officer (instructor). While the center director or the officer (instructor) thought that the work was reduced, the teachers did not think so, thus showing a difference. Work reduction of elementary school teachers was also discussed in the group interview in depth; elementary school teachers were under stress as they were overburdened by the need to provide care. As a countermeasure for this, they demanded the separation of care from education. This will soon be a specialization. Through specialization, one can expect a qualitative improvement in public education as well as care.
In the interview with parents and children, parents pointed at the quality of care given by the officer (instructor). They claimed that they stopped care within the school as they witnessed the officer instructing as he likes and compelling the children to perform unnecessary tasks. The result of one-on-one interviews with four parents and four children respectively showed that two parents and one child perceived the teacher as unfriendly. What is true care, including the essential meaning of care, in the context of supplementary education with respect to care officers (instructor)? Noddings stipulates that care arises when one person has a sincere interest in another person and feels the other person’s pain; even when one cannot perform the act of care, he is devoted to the other person with a sincere heart, a sense of duty and love. The care officer (instructor)’s supplementary education and corresponding contents are suggested.
Second, what do care officers of elementary schools require for the linkage between out-of-school and within-school care? The result of the survey showed that the inconvenience caused by lack of awareness of linkage of care, was significant. “Linkage of care is difficult because there are many children per room” was the most popular response followed by, “current linkage of care is inconvenient due to institutional and legal issues.” In the area of human resources for care, the F value of “the budget required for hiring instructors of excellent programs for linkage of care is limited” was found to be 6.133, while the probability of significance was 0.000 (P<0.01). Thereby, there was a difference between the levels of awareness of the center director and vice principal.
The result of the survey showed that the satisfaction level was also low for the program support status. Particularly noteworthy were the many restrictions on the various kinds of support from the community or the operation of programs related to the students going out of school. The material resources part had a significant result, overall. The recommendations for improvement given to the care officer (instructor) were found to be particularly high. Apart from the system, all survey results regarding support were significant. The response rate for the statement, “Night-time operations should be assumed by out-of-school care” was found to be very high, with 4.35 points out of a total of five.
Thirdly, care persons of elementary schools can divide the plan for activating linkage between out-of-school and within the school care into three broad points. First, linkage of care should be focused on the happiness of children (students). The result of the survey showed that a factor that had a high value in facilitating linkage activities was the awareness of the importance of “sharing of caring” by the members, and the importance of students’ happiness and capacity development. The center of care belongs neither to the parents nor the teachers, but to the children.
Second, a way to overcome the stigma of out-of-school care is needed to activate linkage of care. The stigma of out-of-school care was also reflected in the survey and the issue of stigmatization was picked first in the expert group interview. Conditions for using a local childcare center are too demanding. The standard of 100% median earnings based on income itself gives rise to a stigma. The concept of care does not contain the contents of care by selection. Care implies that those who want to be cared for should naturally be the subject of the care given and care-givers should, of course, take the best care of them. The subject of care should be determined not by the givers but by the seekers. Presenting preconditions upon parents, who are currently in difficult situations, in caring for their children, is evaluated as a policy that is against the ethics of care. Korea is still biased towards formal care. Third is the issue of securing a supporting budget for the linkage of care. The result of the survey showed that demands of the field personnel in terms of the budget to support the linkage of care are regarding improvement in the compensation for inconvenience during linkage of care, human and material resources, the existence of support for the program, and the status of physical support. The inconvenience caused during linkage of care in providing realistic support for large numbers of children per room should be addressed by program diversity or recruitment of qualified instructors, support for personnel expenses or improvement of treatment; for this, it is necessary to secure the budget for the linkage of care.|국문초록

학교 밖 돌봄과 학교 내 돌봄
연계의 유형 및 관계자 인식분석

임미숙
지도교수 : 송경오
조선대학교 일반대학원
교육학과

이 연구의 목적은 학교 밖 돌봄과 학교 내 돌봄 연계의 유형 및 관계자 인식분석을 현장중심으로 문헌연구 후 1차 집단면담 4인과 설문지를 구성하고, 2차 집단면담 25인과 개방형 설문을 통해 필요성과 요구분석을 실시 후 완성된 설문지를 가지고 설문조사 통해 통계적 검증과 집단별 차이 검증을 하고 3차 현장전문가와 학부모·아동의 집단면담을 통해 돌봄 연계 방안을 모색으로 구성하였다. 이를 통해 아동(학생)이 행복 돌봄 연계의 발전에 기여하는데 의의가 있다.
첫째, 초등 돌봄 관계자들은 학교 밖 돌봄과 학교 내 돌봄 연계 필요성에 대해 어떤 인식을 가지고 있는가에 대해 모두 돌봄 연계를 필요하다는 인식이었다.
설문조사 결과 모두 돌봄 연계는 필요하고, 집단면담에서도 물론 연계는 필요하다고 하였다. 그러나 집단 간 가장 차이를 많이 보인 결과는‘돌봄 연계는 초등교사의 업무를 경감시켜준다’로 평균과 표준편차(3.14±1.195)로 나타났으며, F값 23.302, 유의확률.000(P<0.01)이며, 사후검증결과 센터장의 인식과 전담사(강사)의 인식차이가 있었고, 교감, 돌봄부장도 센터장과 전담사(강사)와 차이가 있었다. 센터장이나, 돌봄전담사(강사)는 업무가 경감되었다고 생각하는 반면 교사들은 그렇게 생각하지 않는 차이점을 보였다. 초등교사 업무 경감에 대해서는 집단면담에서도 심도 있게 논의 되었던 봐 돌봄으로 인한 초등 교사들의 업무과중으로 스트레스를 받고 있었다. 이를 위한 대처 방안으로 돌봄과 교육의 분리를 요구한다. 곧 전문화이다. 전문화를 통해 공교육은 물론 돌봄까지 질적인 향상을 기대할 수 있다.
학무모와 아동의 면담에서 학부모들의 의견에 돌봄전담사(강사)의 자질을 지적하였다. 애들을 자기 성향대로 끌고 가려고 강제적으로 다그치는 것을 목격하고 학교 내 돌봄을 그만두었다고 한다. 학부모 4명과 아동4명을 각각 1대1 면담한 결과 학부모2명고 아동1명이 교사가 불친절하다고 인식하고 있었다. 돌봄전담사(강사)에 대한 보수교육에 돌봄의 본질 의미를 포함하여 진정한 돌봄이 무엇인가? 나딩스는 우리가 돌봄의 행동을 할 수 없는 경우일지라도, 진심으로 상대에게 관심을 갖고 고통을 함께 느끼고, 의무감과 사랑을 가지고, 상대에게 진실한 마음으로 헌신할 경우 이를 돌봄으로 규정하고 있다. 돌봄전담사(강사)의 보수교육과 그에 따른 내용에 대해 제안해 본다.
둘째, 초등 돌봄 관계자들은 학교 밖 돌봄과 학교 내 돌봄 연계를 위해 무엇을 요구하는가? 설문조사결과 돌봄 연계의 인식에 관한 불편정도에서 ‘돌봄 연계는 1실당 아동이 많아 힘이 든다’가장 높게 나타났고,‘현재 돌봄 연계는 제도적·법적인 문제로 불편하다’가 다음으로 설문에서도 유의미한 결과를 가져왔다. 돌봄 인적자원 영역에서 ‘돌봄 연계에 우수한 프로그램 강사진 채용을 위해 필요한 재정이 제한적이다’가 설문결과 F값 6.133이고 유의확률.000(P<0.01)으로 센터장의 인식과 교감의 차이가 있었다.
프로그램 지원여부에서도 설문결과 만족도가 낮게 나타났으며 특히 지역사회로부터 다양한 지원이나, 학교 밖 외출과 관련된 프로그램 운영에 제약이 많게 나타났다. 물적자원 부분은 전체가 유의미한 결과를 나타났으며 특히 돌봄전담사(강사)에 대한 처우개선이 높게 나타났다. 시스템외의 지원여부에서도 설문결과 모두 유의미한 결과를 가져왔고, 특히‘야간 운영은 학교 밖 돌봄이 전담해야 한다’가 5점 만점에 4.35점으로 매우 높게 나타났다.
셋째, 초등돌봄 관계자들은 학교 밖 돌봄과 학교 내 돌봄 연계를 활성화하기 위한 방안으로 크게 세 가지로 나눌 수 있다. 첫 번째, 돌봄 연계를 아동(학생) 행복에 초점을 맞춰야 한다. 설문조사 결과 돌봄 연계 실시했던 활동 중 촉진요인으로 높은 수치를 나타낸 ‘학생 행복 및 역량 계발의 중요성에 대한 돌봄 구성원 인식 공유’이다. 돌봄의 중심은 학부모도 선생님도 아닌 아동이다.
두 번째, 돌봄 연계 활성화를 위해서는 학교 밖 돌봄의 낙인감을 극복하는 방안이 필요하다. 설문조사에서도 학교 밖 돌봄의 낙인감이 있는 것으로 나타났고, 전문가 집단면담에서도 낙인감을 가장먼저 꼽았다. 지역아동센터를 이용하기 위한 조건이 너무 까다롭다. 소득을 기준으로 중위소득 100%라는 기준자체가 낙인감을 준다. 돌봄의 개념을 보면 선별해서 돌보라는 내용은 전혀 없다. 돌봄을 받고자 하는 자는 당연히 돌봄의 대상이 되어야 하고 돌보는 자는 당연히 그들에게 최선의 노력을 해서 돌보아야 함이 돌봄의 의미이다. 곧 돌봄의 대상자는 공급자가 정하는 것이 아니라 수요자가 정하는 것이 옳다. 현재 아동을 돌볼 상황이 어려운 학부모에게 조건을 제시하며 안 된다는 것은 돌봄의 윤리에도 어긋난 정책으로 평가된다. 우리나라는 아직도 형식적인 돌봄에 치우쳐 있는 것이다.
세 번째, 돌봄 연계를 위한 예산지원 확보이다. 설문조사 결과 현장 관계자들의 요구가 돌봄 연계 시 불편정도, 인적 물적 자원, 프로그램 지원여부, 물적 지원여부 등의 개선을 위해서는 돌봄 연계 관련 예산지원이다. 돌봄 연계 시 불편 정도 중 1실당 아동 많음, 프로그램 다양성이나 수준급 강사 채용, 전담사 인건비 지원이나 처우개선 등 현실적 지원을 위해서는 돌봄 연계 관련 예산 확보가 이루어져야 할 것이다.
Alternative Title
Analysis of the type of linkage between out-of-school and within-school care and awareness levels of the concerned people
Alternative Author(s)
Lim, mi suk
Affiliation
조선대학교 일반대학원
Department
일반대학원 교육학과
Advisor
송경오
Awarded Date
2017-02
Table Of Contents
목 차


제1장 서론 ··································································01
제1절 연구의 필요성과 목적 ·······································01
제2절 연구 방법 및 구성 ············································03

제2장 이론적 배경 ······················································06
제1절 돌봄과 연계의 개념 및 범위 ······························06
1. 돌봄의 개념 ···························································06
2. 돌봄의 범위 ···························································12
3. 연계의 개념 ···························································14
4. 연계의 범위 ···························································16
제2절 돌봄 연계의 유형 ···············································18
1. 프로그램 및 시설 장소 연계 모형 ···························18
2. 돌봄 위탁 연계 모형 ·············································21
3. 시간대별 연계 모형 ·················································24
4. 한계 ········································································27
제3절 돌봄의 추진과정과 사례 및 한계 ·······················30
1. 학교 밖 돌봄의 추진과정 및 현황 ························30
2. 학교 내 돌봄 정책의 추진 과정 ·····························39
3. 돌봄 위탁연계 사례 ················································46
4. 돌봄의 의의와 한계 ················································50
5. 학교 내 돌봄의 의의와 한계 ··································64

제3장 연구방법 ···························································78
제1절 조사설계 틀 ······················································79
1. 설문항목 도출 과정 ·············································79
2. 설문조사 틀 ··························································87
제2절 설문조사 절차 및 내용 ·····································89
1. 설문조사 및 일정 ···············································90
2. 설문대상자 ···························································91
제3절 설문조사 자료 분석 방법 ···································91
제4절 집단 면담 대상 및 자료 ·····································92
1. 전문가 집단면담 대상 및 자료 ······························92
2. 학부모·아동 집단면담 대상 및 자료 ·····················93

제4장 연구결과 및 해석 ··············································96
제1절 설문조사 결과 ····················································96
1. 인구 사회학적 특성 ·················································96
2. 돌봄에 대한 인식 ····················································97
3. 돌봄 연계에 대한 인식 ·········································100
4. 구성원별 인식 수준 차이 ·····································115
5. 돌봄 연계 촉진요인 및 저해요인 ···························119
제2절 집단면담결과 ······················································121
1. 현장전문가 집단면담 ············································121
2. 학부모·아동 집단면담 ··········································132
제3절 논의 ··································································141
1. 현행 연계모형의 한계 ···········································141
2. 현장전문가 집단 면담 결과에 대한 논의 ················143
3. 학부모·아동 집단면담 결과 분석에 대한 논의 ·········145
4. 관계자 인식 차이에 대한 논의 ······························147

제5장 결론 및 제언 ·····················································150
제1장 결론 ···································································150
제2장 제언 ···································································154

【참고문헌】········································································157

부록 Ⅰ··················································································164
부록 Ⅱ··················································································171
부록 Ⅲ··················································································178
부록 Ⅳ··················································································181
Degree
Doctor
Publisher
조선대학교 일반대학원
Citation
임미숙. (2016). 학교 밖 돌봄과 학교 내 돌봄 연계의 유형 및 관계자 인식분석.
Type
Dissertation
URI
https://oak.chosun.ac.kr/handle/2020.oak/13218
http://chosun.dcollection.net/common/orgView/200000266224
Appears in Collections:
General Graduate School > 4. Theses(Ph.D)
Authorize & License
  • AuthorizeOpen
  • Embargo2017-02-21
Files in This Item:

Items in Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.