Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp.1-16 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21024/pnuedi.26.3.201612.1 * A Study on Good School and School Evaluation Purpose: This study was to examine a good school and to offer the implications of school evaluation. Schools are usually for public education rather than private education Thus, we need to explore which characteristics are essential for a good school. Method: The methods of this study was literature research. Results: According to previous research about a good school, a good school usually has several essential characteristics: reasonable workload for teacher s instructional concentration of mind, event reduction, educational welfare, community sentiment, civic consciousness, democracy education, mutual cooperation, mutual respect, positive expectation, autonomy, creativity, diversity. Conclusion: The implications of school evaluation were offered by four dimensions(direction of evaluation, scale of evaluation, method and application of evaluation). Key words : good school, school evaluation, education policy, public education, schooling *. Corresponding Author: Kim, Dal-Hyo. Dong-A University, Dept. of Education, Nakdong-Daero, 550beon-gil Saha-gu, Busan, Korea. e-mail: kdhyo@dau.ac.kr
..,....,..,.,.,. (, 2001), : (, 2011), (, 2004), (, 2012), (, 2004).,.,,,.....,.,
.,,,...,., (2011),.,,., (2012). (2010),., (2008).,,,,,., Obiakor(2000),.,
.,,. O Hara(2006),,,,. (2001),.,,,., Harmony,,, Ritsumeikan,.,.,,,,,,,.,,,..., (2011)., 2005 2009.,
,, 2005 2009 3 3,,. 20%(- ) 2%( ).,.,.., (2004). (authentic tasks),,,,.,.,,,,. (2010).,,,.,,.,,,.,,..,.,,,,,,
,,,,,,..,.,,.,.,.,.,.,,,. (2015).,,,,,. 2013 2,,.., < -1>.
,,, ( 9 2). ( 9 3). ( 9 5) ( 13 2)., 304, 5.,,, ( 13 3). ( 13 4).?,?.,,,,,,,,,,,,. < -1>,.,..
,.,,,,,,,,,,,,...,,., < -2>. 1.1., 1.2., 1.3. 1.4., 1.5., NEIS 1.6. 1 NEIS 1.7. (2~6) NEIS 1.8., 1.9., 1.10. 1.11. 1 (, ) 1.12.
( ) 1.13., 1.14., 2.1. 2.2. 1, NEIS 2.3. 1 Edufine, NEIS 2.4. 2.5. Edufine 2.6. 2.7., 2.8.,, NEIS 2.9., 2.10., 3.1. 3.2. NEIS 3.3. 3.4. 4~5 3.5., 3.6. 3.7. 3.8., NEIS 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. * : (2015). 2015. < -2>, (,,, ),.,,
.,,,,,,,,,,,,.,.,,.......,,., (2009),.,,.. ( ) < -3>.
,,,,,,,,,., < -3>. < -3>.,..,. < -2>,,.,.. 1),,. - 1) (rapport) 4,,.
(, 33),.,,,. - (, 38),,. - (, 36),.... - (, 53),,,,,,,,,.,...,.,.,.
1. 2.,,..,,..,,.. (/, /).,... (, 2011)..,.,...
(,, ), (,, ), (,, ), (,, ).,. (2010),.,...,.,,.,,.,....
(2004).. (1), 1-25. (2012).. (3), 1-25. (2011). :. (3), 1-35. (2010)... (2010). :. 79-87. (2009).. (2), 329-352. (2001).. (1), 55-75. (2004).. (2), 113-132., (2008).. (2), 41-53. (2015). :. Klieger, A., & Oster-Levinz, A. (2008). In search of the essence of a good school: School characteristics leading to successful PDS collaboration. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 33(4), 40-54. O Hara, H. (2006). Envisioning the good school. Encounter, 19(2), 53-54. Obiakor, F. E. (2000). Redefining good schools: quality and equity in education. Position paper #1. Distinguished visiting professor presentation, University of West Virginia. : 2016.10.26 / : 2016.12.12 / : 2016.12.20
:,...,. : '. :.,,,,,,,,,,,. :,,.