유아교육·보육 질 관리 국제비교 연구 - 기관 평가를 중심으로

Abstract

As the importance of ECEC(early childhood education and care) is recognized, many advanced countries have tried to manage the quality of institutions in ECEC with diverse ways. Among these, evaluating ECEC institution is regarded as both important and effective. Internationally, interests about evaluation for institutions are high and data related to this get cumulative. In this sense, international comparative research for managing the quality ECEC is meaningful. The purpose of study is to compare the current status of evaluating ECEC institutions and get policy implications for enhancing kindergarten evaluation and child care accreditation in Korea. Countries are selected for comparative research are England, Norway, Australia, and New Zealand. For this research, mainly data were collected from each country’s web sites such as Ministry of education and institution involving evaluation of ECEC. Also, visiting the institution such as Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, England’s Ofsted, and New Zealand’s ERO and interviewing 10 government officials and 4 teachers allowed collecting more data and listening to various people’s voices. Based on collected data, 121 professionals, 100 government officials, 400 teachers(200 each kindergarten and child care) were participated in survey identifying the direction of enhancing kindergarten evaluation and child care accreditation. Results can be divided to six categories. First, the purpose of evaluation was almost same across countries but Norway focused on more whether the institution obeys a law. Second, evaluation was based on the laws and England, Australia, and New Zealand had an independent institution for evaluating ECEC institutions. Third, in terms of evaluation process, usually it is as following: notice→self report→on site visiting→sharing draft→final result to the public. Before the final result is offered to the public, teachers and government official can review and claim a revision on draft. Fourth, indicators for evaluation were different across countries. Interestingly, New Zealand had a new perspective for indicators as resources. Fifth, all countries shared the result with public but actually didn’t relate the evaluation result with personal financial incentive or institution’s budget. Sixth, evaluators were trained in England, Australia and New Zealand but Norway didn’t establish a systematic structure for evaluators. Policy suggestions are as follows. Integrating kindergarten evaluation and child care accreditation, establishment of an independent institution for ECEC evaluation, and mandating evaluation for ECEC institutions should be established. In terms of indicators, indicators considering institutions’s various contexts are really needed. Dividing mandatory and optional sectors and focusing more on curriculum parts also were suggested. For evaluators process, more effective communication between evaluators and ECEC institutions and strengthening the role of self-assessment. In the evaluation results, strengthening the process after evaluation, sharing diverse aspect of institutions, and making a connection evaluation timing and evaluation results were suggested.