영유아기 최상의 교육·보육을 위한 미래 과제: 유보통합의 질적 전환과 재개념화를 중심으로

Abstract

Background and Purpose South Korea represents a singular case in the global landscape of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) policy reform. The country is undertaking a historic institutional transformation—the integration of its long-bifurcated kindergarten and childcare systems—at an unprecedented pace, compressing into approximately three years a process that took Norway three decades and Sweden over ten years. While recent policy efforts have achieved administrative unification under the Ministry of Education, this study identifies a critical problem of "structural misalignment": policy, finance, curriculum, and evaluation continue to operate along disparate institutional trajectories, failing to translate central reform signals into the qualitative improvement of children's daily experiences at the field level. The purpose of this study is to propose a new paradigm—"ECEC Integration 3.0"—that moves beyond administrative mergers toward the establishment of an "Inclusive Basic Education System." This concept redefines ECEC not as a residual welfare service but as a universal right guaranteed by the state, aiming to secure optimal experiences characterized by three foundational dimensions—Being, Relating, and Responding—for every child from birth to school entry.

Methodology This study employed a sequential mixed-methods design comprising four complementary strands: (1) a theoretical framework construction grounded in relational quality theory (Dahlberg et al., 2013), responsive subjectification (Biesta, 2010), and the ethics of care (Tronto, 2013), operationalized into "6 Quality Principles" and "8 Operational Areas"; (2) a macro-level comparative analysis of 14 education-ministry-led integrated ECEC systems across OECD and non-OECD countries, classified into three governance models (Integrated Alignment, Coordinated Dual Structure, and Transitional Alignment); (3) micro-level in-depth case studies of 10 domestically self-generating high-quality institutions, analyzed through the 6 Principles × 8 Areas matrix using document review, focus group interviews, and non-participant observation; and (4) a multi-layered empirical investigation consisting of a needs assessment with cross-validation (t-test, Borich, and Locus for Focus), a two-round Delphi survey with 50 experts (CVR and CV thresholds applied), and a field survey of over 1,000 stakeholders across four groups (directors, teachers, parents, and government officials).

Key Findings and Policy Vision: ECEC Integration 3.0 The study diagnoses that the current integration process confronts four interconnected micro-mechanisms of systemic failure: (a) fragmentation of regulatory rules across the dual legal framework, (b) financial uncertainty that undermines workforce stability and professional continuity, (c) a control-oriented evaluation paradigm that suppresses pedagogical diversity and relational quality, and (d) the intersectionality of vulnerability, whereby marginalized groups—children with disabilities, multicultural families, infants, and those in rural areas—fall through the gaps created by administrative restructuring. Expert consensus confirmed that the binding constraint is not a lack of policy direction but a deficit of coherence: law, finance, workforce, evaluation, data, and communication must operate within a shared quality language to produce tangible change. To overcome these systemic failures, the study proposes "ECEC Integration 3.0," a comprehensive vision for an Inclusive Basic Education System. This vision is operationalized through the "Korean Quality Coordination Model (K-Quality Coordination Model)," consisting of five core institutional mechanisms: Legal Core Frame: Enacting a unified legislative framework that structurally connects children's rights to budgetary allocation rules and personnel standards, replacing the current fragmented dual-law system. National Core Curriculum (0–5): Establishing a seamless, age-continuous curriculum from birth to school entry, centering play, care, and responsive interaction as inseparable pedagogical wholes. Improvement-Oriented Financing: Transitioning from single-year input-based subsidies to multi-year institutional agreements and equity-weighted formula funding that incentivize quality enhancement. Institutionalization of Execution Conditions: Legally guaranteeing non-contact professional time for teachers (observation, documentation, and collaborative reflection) and mandating the permanent placement of support staff to sustain interaction quality. Learning-Oriented Evaluation: Replacing the current rating-based compliance model with a cyclical quality improvement system: "Self-assessment → Peer Review → Improvement Planning → External Support.“

Strategic Roadmap The study presents a phased implementation strategy aligned with institutional readiness: Phase 1 – Foundation of Alignment (Short-term): Establishing standard cost benchmarks, publicly disclosing equity-based funding formulas, and immediately implementing a "Teacher Working Conditions Package" that guarantees professional time, reduces class sizes, and deploys full-time support staff. Phase 2 – Systematization (Mid-term): Enacting the National Core Frame as a binding regulatory instrument, embedding the learning-oriented evaluation system across all institution types, and piloting the 0–5 integrated curriculum. Phase 3 – Completion (Long-term): Finalizing a unified ECEC Code, establishing a data-driven quality feedback cycle connecting field practice to national policy redesign, and solidifying the governance architecture of the Inclusive Basic Education System.

Conclusion This study argues that the success of Korean ECEC integration ultimately depends on a fundamental shift in policy orientation—from "administrative efficiency" to "qualitative alignment." The critical lesson from both international precedents and domestic field analysis is that structural unification is a necessary but insufficient condition for quality transformation. What distinguishes high-performing ECEC systems is not centralization per se, but the coherent resonance of legal, financial, and pedagogical subsystems around a shared philosophy of care and education. By establishing an Inclusive Basic Education System in which every institutional layer speaks the same quality language, Korea can ensure that its integration reform reaches beyond the restructuring of governance to transform what matters most: the lived experience of every child's day.