Suchergebnisse

본 연구는 연방체제와 연방사회 간 합치(congruence) 여부에 초점을 맞춰 연방주의가 교육복지에서 어떻게 구현되었는지 또는 구현되는데 실패했는지 미국 사례에 조명하고자 한다. 구체적으로 공식적 제도에 근거한 연방국가와 민족-언어에 근거한 다양성이 표출된 사회구조를 가리키는 연방사회가 불합치하면 교육복지에서 어떤 연방주의로구현되는지 시대별로 검토하고자 한다. 이에 본 논문은 우선 연방주의를 건국이념으로채택한 미국이 다른 연방국가와 대조적으로 헌법상 교육 권한의 소재지를 주정부에게명기함에도 불구하고 교육복지에서 연방정부가 소규모이나 점진적으로 권한영역을 확대하는 근거를 살펴보고자 한다. 특히 미국의 교육 및 교육복지는 민족-언어의 동질성이 크지 않음에도 불구하고 대칭적 연방주의로 발전했고, 그 부산물로 헌법에도 명시되지 않은 교육 권한이 제한적이기는 하나 점차 연방정부로 이전하는 양상을 보인다. 따라서 본 논문은 연방주의를 작동시키는 주요 동력으로서 사회적 요인, 보다 정확하게민족-언어적 이질성에 일차적으로 초점을 맞춰 교육 연방주의의 정치 사회학을 연대기적으로 재조명하고자 한다. 그리고 미국 연방주의를 교육복지에 초점을 맞춰 연방제의운용 단면을 살펴보고자 한다. ; In this paper, I propose to explore the political sociological aspect of federalism in education welfare in America. Specifically, I intend to illuminate the misfit between federal system and federal society by providing the historiography of education welfare in U. S. In doing so, I plan to put emphasis on the role of societal factors, or more precisely, the ethno-linguistic patterns, in influencing the workings of the American federal system. Unlike other federal states, U.S. eventually evolved into a symmetrical federalism in education welfare where the federal demarcations were drawn independently of the underlying social structure despite her lack of ethno-linguistic homogeneity. In this paper, I first contrast across 7 federal states and strive to explicate how American federalism stands apart from her counterparts. Then, I look into how the meager federal department of education occasionally but gradually managed to tread on states' right in providing education and education welfare. I conclude by putting the American education welfare in perspective. ; OAIID:oai:osos.snu.ac.kr:snu2013-01/102/0000040203/2 ; SEQ:2 ; PERF_CD:SNU2013-01 ; EVAL_ITEM_CD:102 ; USER_ID:0000040203 ; ADJUST_YN:Y ; EMP_ID:A076716 ; DEPT_CD:216 ; FILENAME:2013세계지역연구논총 31집3호_이옥연.pdf ; DEPT_NM:정치외교학부 ; SCOPUS_YN:N ; CONFIRM:Y

The community-based public oral health program in public health centers was launched in 1993 to promote oral health of the community. This program is considered to be more important after local autonomous government and the passage of national health promotion law. The aims of this study were to evaluate this program and propose adequate guidelines for future public oral health program in public health center. For this study, the mail questionnaire survey was carried out from the 18 public health center. The sample is consist of the 23 dentists and 57 hygienests who work in oral health center of public health center now. Facilities, equipments, manpower and finance of public oral health center, task recognition of dentists and hygienests were investigated. Multiple regression analysis were performed to identify the factors which influence on the outcome of the program. Dependent variable is outcome of program and the independent variables are population size, financing, equipments, motivation of dentist., an extent of work. And also chi-square test were performed to compare the task recognition between dentists and hygienests. The major findings are summarized as follows. 1. Average space of oral health centers are 26.4 �렊 and only 33.3% of the centers have space in the facilities for tooth brushing and mouth rinsing and 45% have no dental unit chair. Oral examination instruments and education equipments are very poor. 2. Program population size (p<0.01), motivation of dentists (p<0.01), finance (p<0.05), an extent of work(P<0.05) and equipment (p<0.05) variables showed statistical significance at the multiple regression analysis, so these variables have an influence on the outcome of the program. 3. The dentists recognized that the priorities of mojor task have to be given to oral examination (57.9%), organizing the health promotion event (57.9% and planning and evaluation of program (57.9%), but hygienests recognized this task are performed in cooperation with the dentists. Recognition of planning and evaluation of program (p<0.01), budget planning (p<0.05), organizing of oral health promotion event (p<0.01) and propagation of program (p<0.05) variables showed statistically significant difference between dentists and hygienests. From the above results, adequate facility, space, basic instruments and education equipments, motivation of dentist, an extent of work and financial supporting are the essential factors to implement the successful public oral health center program. And also required are the job analysis of hyginests and dentists for the reallocation of tasks. ; open