디지털융복합연구 (Journal of Digital Convergence)

  • 제19권12호
  • /
  • Pages.133-143
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 2713-6434(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2713-6442(eISSN)
한국디지털정책학회 (The Society of Digital Policy and Management)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

정치적 제도가 교육정책에 중요한가?: 미국의 차터스쿨 성장으로부터의 시사점

Do Political Institutions Matter to Education Policy?: Lessons from Charter School Growth in the United States

  • Cho, Ki Woong (Dept. of Public Administration, Jeonbuk National University) ;
  • Park, Jongsun (Dept. of Public Administration, Gachon University)
  • 투고 : 2021.11.04
  • 심사 : 2021.12.20
  • 발행 : 2021.12.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

차터스쿨을 통한 혁신 사회 지속가능성에도 불구하고, 차터스쿨은 여전히 복잡한 정치 상황 아래에서 성장과 쇠퇴를 반복하고 있다. 2011경에 일어난 차터스쿨의 성장에도 불구하고, 이를 정치적인 관점에서 연구한 연구는 찾아 보기 힘들다. 따라서 정치제도와 정치시장 분석틀을 사용하여, 본 연구는 미국의 주정부 자료를 바탕으로 정치적 제도와 차터스쿨 성장과의 관계를 회귀분석을 활용하여 분석하였다. 그 결과 주지사의 소속정당은 차터스쿨의 수에 영향을 미치고 있었으며, 민영화지지 단체, 주지사의 소속정당과 1인당 소득은 차터스쿨의 집행 점수에 통계적으로 유의미한 관계를 나타냈다. 또한 주정부 내 교원 노동조합의 등록비율, 주지사의 소속정당과 1인당 소득은 차터스쿨의 보장된 재정지원에 영향을 미치는 중요한 요인으로 작용하였다. 결국, 본 연구의 결과를 통해 정치적 제도가 교육에 중요한 요소임을 확인할 수 있었다.

Complicated political situation still plagues charter schools despite their innovative education. Nevertheless, they experienced growth around 2011, yet only a few studies have explored why they had expanded from the political viewpoints. Therefore, using political institutions and political market framework, this study investigated the relationship between political institutions and charter school growth in the US(United States). To do so, this study conducted multiple regression analyses of school growth measured by the number of schools allowed, implementation points, and guaranteed funding. The findings revealed that only governors' partisanship has a significant influence on the number of schools. Moreover, supportive privatization organizations, governors' partisanship, and per capita income affects implementation points. Meanwhile, regarding guaranteed fiscal funding for the charter schools, the teachers' union enrollment rate, governors' partisanship, and per capita income are crucially influential. Finally, the results confirmed that political institutions are also important for education.

키워드

과제정보

This research was supported by "Research Base Construction Fund Support Program" funded by Jeonbuk National University in 2020.

참고문헌

  1. H. Ahman. (2013). Social sustainability: Society at the intersection of development and maintenance. Local Environment, 18, 1153-1166. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.788480
  2. N. Lassila. (2007). Examining the Determinants of Charter School Expansion and the Relationship of Charter Schools and Distract Performance Using Event History Analysis and Cross-Sectional Modeling. Doctoral dissertation. Florida State University, Tallahassee.
  3. J. Vasquez Heilig & B. Clark. (2018). New insights and directions: Considering the impact of charter school attributes on communities of color. Journal of Transformative Leadership and Policy Studies, 7(1), 3-9.
  4. L. Renzulli & V. Roscigno. Charter school policy, implementation, and diffusion across the United States. Sociology of Education, 78(4), 344-366. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070507800404
  5. Center of Educational Reform. (2011). Charter School Laws across the States: Rankings and Scorecard. Washington DC : CER.
  6. J. Ryan & M. Heise. (2001). The political economy of school choice. University of Virginia School of Law Public Law and Legal Theory Research Papers Series, 1-17.
  7. H. Levin. (2011). The economics of education. Albany Government Law Review, 4, 395-426.
  8. K. Henry. (2019). Heretical discourses in post-katrina charter school applications. American Educational Research Journal, 56(6), 2609-2643. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219853811
  9. M. Kirst. (2007). Politics of charter schools: Competing national advocacy coalitions meet local politics. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(2), 184-203. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560701312939
  10. B. Burgess. (2011). The Diffusion of Charter School Policies Across the United States. Doctoral dissertation, Emory University, Atlanta.
  11. E. Hassel. (1999). The Charter School Challenge. Washington DC : Brookings Institution.
  12. K. Cho, R. Brower & M. Ahmad. (2018). Factors that influence county government expenditures and revenues: A study of florida county governments. Lex-Localis, 16(1), 47-76.
  13. G. O'donel. (1994). Delegative democracy. Journal of Democracy, 5(1), 55-69. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1994.0010
  14. T. Moe. (1994). Integrating politics and organizations: Positive theory and public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4(1), 17-25.
  15. D. Diermeier & K. Krehbiel. (2003). Institutionalism as a methodology. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 15(2), 123-144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951629803015002645
  16. B. Rothstein. (1996). Political institutions: An overview. In R. Goodin and H. Klingemann, (Eds.), A New Handbook of Political Science (pp. 133-166). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  17. E. Ramirez de la Cruz. (2009). Local political institutions and smart growth: An empirical study of the politics of compact development. Urban Affairs Review, 45(2), 218-246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087409334309
  18. L. Alston. (1996). Empirical work in institutional economics: An overview. In L. Alston, T. Eggertsson and D. North, (Eds.), Empirical Studies in Institutional Change (pp. 25-30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  19. R. Feiock & S. Kim. (2021). The political market and sustainability policy. Sustainability, 13(6), 3344. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063344
  20. A. Tavares & N. da Cruz. (2020). Explaining the transparency of local government websites through a political market framework. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), 101249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.08.005
  21. C. Curley, R. Feiock & K. Xu. (2020). Policy analysis of instrument design: How policy design affects policy constituency. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 22(6), 536-557. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2020.1749517
  22. M. Lubell, R. Feiock & E. Ramirez de la Cruz. (2009). Local institutions and the politics of urban growth. American Journal of Political Science, 53(3), 649-665. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00392.x
  23. S. Ghosh. (2009). NGOs as political institutions. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 44(5), 475-495. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021909609340063
  24. M. Lewis-Beck & T. Rice. (1985). Government growth in the United States. Journal of Politics 1985, 47(1), 2-30.
  25. D. Truman. (1951). The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion. New York : Alfred A. Knopf.
  26. R. Cameron. (1978). The expansion of the public economy: A comparative analysis. American Political Science Review, 72(4), 1243-1261. https://doi.org/10.2307/1954537
  27. S. Nicholson-Crotty & J. Nicholson-Crotty. (2004). Interest group influence on managerial priorities in public organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(4), 571-583. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muh037
  28. C. Stoddard & S. Corcoran. (2007). The political economy of school choice: Support for charter schools across states and school districts. Journal of Urban Economics, 62(1), 27-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2006.08.006
  29. P. Sabatier. (2007). Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder : Westview Press.
  30. K. Bulkley. (2005). Understanding the charter school concept in legislation: The cases of Arizona, Michigan and Georgia. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18(4), 527-554. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390500137683
  31. T. Holyoke, J. Henig, H. Brown & N. Lacireno-Paquet. (2009). Policy dynamics and the evolution of state charter school laws. Policy Sciences, 42, 33-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9077-3
  32. M. Mintrom. (2000). Policy Entrepreneurs and School Choice. Washington DC : Georgetown University Press.
  33. N. Lacireno-Paquet & T. Holyoke. (2007). Moving forward or sliding backward? The evolution of charter school policies in Michigan and the District of Columbia. Educational Policy, 21(1), 185-214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904806296903
  34. O. Davis, M. Dempster & A. Wildavsky. (1966). Theory of the budgetary process. American Political Science Review, 60(3), 529-547. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952969
  35. K. Wong & W. Langevin. (2007). Policy expansion of school choice in the American States. Peabody journal of Education, 82(2), 440-472. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560701313085
  36. F. Berry & W. Berry. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review, 84(2), 395-415. https://doi.org/10.2307/1963526
  37. L. Walker. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American States. American Political Science Review, 63(3), 880-899. https://doi.org/10.2307/1954434
  38. National Center for Education Statistics. Number and enrollment of public elementary and secondary schools, by school level, type, and charter and magnet status: Selected years, 1990-91 through 2013-14. https://nces.ed.gov
  39. Natiional Center for Education Statistics. Number and enrollment of public elementary and secondary schools, by school level, type, and charter, magnet, and virtual status: Selected years, 1990-91 through 2018-19. https://nces.ed.gov
  40. B. T. Hirsch, D. A. Macpherson & W. G. Vroman. (2001. July). Estimates of union density by State. Monthly Labor Review, 124(7), 51-55.
  41. Y. Zhang & K. Yang. (2008). What drives charter school diffusion at the local level: Educational needs or political and institutional forces? Policy Studies Journal, 36, 571-591. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2007.00284.x
  42. R. A. Yaffee. Robust regression modeling with STATA lecture notes. www.gvptsites.umd.edu