최근 이루어지고 있는 교육개혁의 움직임은 새로운 사회변화에서 오는 도전을 교육이 어떻 게 대응할 것이고 이를 위하여 교육체제는 어떻게 조직되어야 하는가의 문제로 요약될 수 있 다. 또한 사회변화의 이데올로기적 성격과 정치경제적 요구는 교육개혁 추진의 강력한 동인이 자 개혁정책과 실제들의 정당성을 제공하는 근거가 되고 있다. 이 연구에서는 1990년대 중반 이후 시장주의적, 관료주의적 이데올로기가 어떻게 우리 나라 교직사회개혁의 이데올로기적 기 저가 되고 있으며, 이들 이데올로기가 교직사회 개혁정책과 실제들과 어떻게 관련되어 있는가 를 분석한다. 또한 개혁이 추진되는 과정에서 어떤 논쟁점들이 나타나고 있는가를 분석한다. 그리고 앞으로 교직사회가 어떠한 모습으로 개혁되어야 하며 이를 위해서는 어떤 노력들이 이 루어져야 하는가에 대한 과제를 제시한다.
By the turn of the 1980s, education reform efforts in many countries had been moving toward the way in which education systems respond to the challenges of new political and economic ideologies, and how the education system could be organized to the meet these changes. Current educational reform policy and practices are rooted in market-oriented and bureaucratic ideologies, which have been rising as new political and economic forces. The purpose of this paper is to identify how the market-oriented and bureaucratic ideologies are related to educational reform movements, to discuss the controversial issues in educational policy and practices under debate in the process of transforming this reform ideology into the teaching profession, and to explore how the teaching system can be restructured to be held more accountable. Since the mid-1990s, educational reform in Korea has been moving towards national standards, national curriculum, and more marketized forms of schooling, in an effort to hold the national education system more accountable. This has resulted in educational policy and teaching practices which are subject to more bureaucratic procedures and control, but also government regulation such as national standards and evaluation, and teacher rewards and sanctions. The negative effects of market and bureaucratic control generate various controversial issues in educational policy and teaching practices. First, there were contradictions in combining the two different ideologies of marketization and bureaucratization into teaching profession reform, and tensions between the conflicting goals of educational accountability and teachers professional development. Secondly, national standards and evaluation, and more accountable forms of teaching have been highly emphasized as a strategy to restructure the national educational system. Finally, as a result, reform policy and practices in the teaching profession have been subjected to more bureaucratic procedures and contr