‘인성교육진흥법’의 발상과 함의에 대한 비판적 고찰

A Critical Consideration on the Idea and Implication of the 'Character Education Promotion Law'

본 연구는 언론 및 인터넷 매체에 실린 인성교육진흥법에 대한 기사 및 찬반론을 비판적으로 고찰해 보고자 하였으며, 주로 이 법의 발상과 함의에 초점을 맞추어 분석하면서 다음의 결과를 도출하였다. 첫째, 인성교육진흥법의 입법 취지와 찬성론은 주로 인성교육의 당위성만 부각시키고 있을 뿐, 여러 가지 우려를 잠재우진 못한다. 둘째, 비판적인 입장에서 볼 때, 이 법은 인성을 평가한다는 발상 자체의 문제, 인증권한의 독점과 관련된 유착 문제, 법률만능주의적 발상의 문제, 국가가 인성교육에 개입함으로써 빚어지는 국가주의적 인재상(人材像) 혹은 국민상(國民像)의 문제 등을 지니고 있다. 그리고, 이 법이 만들어지고 시행되게 되면 여러 가지 문제점들이 점점 불거질 것으로 전망했다. 첫째, 인성교육이 취지는 좋더라도 혹시라도 인성점수가 대학입시에 반영된다면 사회봉사와 같은 식으로 변질될 수 있다는 점, 둘째, 인성교육 연수를 의무적으로 받아야 하는 모든 교사들과 모든 학생들의 경우, 자괴감을 느끼게 될 수 있다는 점, 셋째, 신자유주의적 교육풍토와 교육을 상품으로 보는 교육관이 점점 인성교육의 사교육 영역을 잠식할 것이며, 특히 인성교육 인증에 있어서 독점적 권한을 지닌 인실련(인성교육범국민실천연합)과 교육부의 유착관계 등은 계속 문제가 될 것이라는 점, 따라서, 점점 비판의 소리가 커지게 될 것이라는 점 등이었다. 그리고, 제언으로서 사회변화에 기여하고자 하는 인권교육-시민교육이 인성교육진흥법 식의 인성교육을 보완해야만 한다는 점과 인성교육진흥법에 따라 구성되는 ‘인성교육진흥위원회’가 역할을 제대로 수행하여야한다는 점 등을 강조했다.

This study critically considers the articles and opinions available in the internet and news media regarding the Character Education Promotion Law and the pros and cons about it while focusing mostly on the idea and implication of the Law, and has come up with the following: First, the purpose of legislation and opinions supporting the Law only tend to highlight the necessity of character education, thus, being not persuasive enough to calm down the concerns regarding the side-effects of law. Second, judging from a critical perspective, the Law has several serious problems, such as the idea of evaluating and grading characters of human beings, the monopoly of certification authority by a single institution enjoying close relationship with the Ministry of Education, the idea of solving all problems by legislation, and the problem of state's involvement in character education possibly aiming to foster people of amenable type. Furthermore, several problems are expected to be shown as the Law comes into effect: First, if the characters of students are evaluated and reflected in college entrance exams, the good purpose of character education will be discolored just as the case with social service. Second, as all teachers and all students are required to take character education, many of them can experience senses of shame. Teachers can feel that what they have taught students for so far fall short of the standard, and students can think that they are required to take character education seriously because they are regarded possibly as a part in the violence in school. Third, as students and their parents become suspicious that the characters of students are graded to be reflected in college entrance exams, private educational markets will be outrageously growing. And the monopoly of certification authority by a single institution having a close tie with the Ministry of Education will continuously bring blame upon itself. All of these will be a signal that character education field is never free from the influence by neoliberalism trend prevailing in Korea. As closing remarks, it was suggested that the character education led by the Law had better be combined with human rights education and civic education so that it can make itself contributable not only to having a better character but also to making this society a better one. It was also emphasized that the ‘Character Education Promotion Committee’ organized according to the Law should play its role and authority well enough to solve the problems mentioned above.