Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp.1-24 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21024/pnuedi.28.2.201806.1 * An Interpretative Analysis on the Consolidation of Small Schools in a Rural Area Purpose: The aim of this paper was to interpretively analyze the meanings and values of small schools in rural areas through illuminating experiences and voices of village residents who were immediate stakeholder with regard to consolidation of small schools. Method: This paper employed a qualitative case study to accomplish this purpose and two core categories and four subcategories were derived from thematic analysis, which is based on the pragmatic eclecticism. Results: First, the residents in the rural areas had experienced exhaustive conflicts because of different interests and situations. Second, the research participants had been confronted with closing of schools and extinction of villages due to decline of next generation and local exodus. They had lost indigenous identities and memberships as a local community residents as well. Third, the village people had considered small schools as an institutional social capital to maintain and develop their villages. Fourthly, the small schools were public goods for maintaining communal lives of residents. Finally, the village people remembered small schools as a public good for maintaining and caring community life and regarded them as a social capital to realize community- and life-centered publicness. Conclusion: The results of this paper will be a guideline for improving consolidation policy and impact evaluation of school consolidation in rural area. Key words : rural area, small school, consolidation of small schools, extinction of villages, qualitative case study * ( 2018-1). Corresponding Author: Ju, Dong-Beom. Pukyong National University, Dept. of Lifelong Education&Counseling, 45 Yongsoro, Namgu, Busan, Korea, e-mail: j2009@pknu.ac.kr
.,,,,,. 1920 1970 (school inputs) (Conant, 1967; De Haan, Leuven, & Oosterbeek, 2016; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2009). 1980 (student outcomes) (Berry, 2006).,,,,, (Cooley & Floyd, 2013; Duncombe, Yinger, & Zhang, 2016; Patterson, 2006).,, (Duncombe, Yinger, & Zhang, 2016), (Autti & Hyry-Beihammer, 2014).,,,,,,,,,, (, 2007;,,,,, 2012: 92-94; Bard, Gardner, & Wieland, 2005: 6-12; Cooley & Floyd, 2013: 45-46; LUFS, 2008; Lyson, 2002: 135-137; Spence, 2000).,.,,, (Egelund & Laustsen, 2006; Lyson, 2002; Mathis, 2006)., (, 2016).,,,, (, 2016;,, 2013: 86). 1982
(, 2013;, 2008)., (, 2016)., (, 1998;, 2012;,,,,, 2012;,,, 2010).,, (,, 2017: 72-73;,,,, 2014: 238-241;,, 2015: 11). (Beuchert, Humlum, Nielsen, & Smith, 2016; Cooley & Floyd, 2013; De Haan, Leuven, & Oosterbeek, 2016; Duncombe, Yinger, & Zhang, 2016; Mills, McGee, & Greene, 2013; Pennsylvania School Boards Association, 2009; Streifel, Foldesy, & Holman, 1991; Thorsen, 2017)., (Beuchert, Humlum, Nielsen, & Smith, 2016; Cooley & Floyd, 2013; Duncombe, Yinger, & Zhang, 2016; Mills, McGee, & Greene, 2013; Pennsylvania School Boards Association, 2009; Streifel, Foldesy, & Holman, 1991; Thorsen, 2017),,,,., (top-down) (,, 2015: 11). (, 2014).,, Autti, Hyry-Beihammer(2014) Irwin(2012).,, (Irwin, 2012: 33)., (social capital),, (Autti & Hyry-Beihammer, 2014).,.
,,...,?,?..,,. 1. 2., (, 2012;, 2016)., (2016) ( ),,., (2012),,.,,.,., (1998) ( )., 1980,,,
, (, 1998).,, (2012),., (2014),,.,, (2013).,, (,, 2013). (,, 2013)., (, 2008;, 2008;, 2016)., (, 2015).,.,, (,, 2009: 19-20), (social capital) (, 2016: 2).,,, (Portes, 1998),,,, (Autti & Hyry-Beihammer, 2014; Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 1993). (Putnam, 2000),,, (Autti & Hyry-Beihammer, 2014; Fukuyama, 1995).,, ( ) (, 2016: 30-36; Autti & Hyry- Beihammer, 2014: 4).,.
..,,. ( ), ( ) (5 ).,.,. 73.2km 2 ( 6.7%), 11 30, 2017 12 19 656 1,155 ( 0.4%). (1,155 ) 18 73 (6.3%), 2018 ( ) 2. 1990 1,630, 5 ( 1, 1, 3 ). 1993 2009 (17 ),. 5, 1993 3 1, 1997 3 1, 2002 3 1, 2006 3 1, 2009., (,, ). (2017 ), (37 ).,., (gate keeper) (1 ), 7 (,,,,,, ) 11. 60 ( ),
. 11 7 (4 ), ( 3, 3 ), (1 ) (1 ), ( ) (2 ), (1 ), (1 ), (1 ) ( 13 ). IRB,. < -1>. ( ) ( ) 60 / 1 60 / 3 60 / 1 50 / 1 60 / 2 60 / 50 / 2 60 / 3 1 2 60 / 2, 1 3 50 / 50 / 40 / 40 / 60 / 40 / 40 / (7,, 1 40 1 ), FGI (2, 1 3, 1 1 ), (5, 2 3, 1 1 2 ) (2, 2, 1 40 )..
, FGI,., ( ),. 7 7, FGI 2 2, 5 5, 2, ( 1 )., (2017 12 18 23 ),., (3 ), (8 ), (2 )., (thematic analysis). 1, 2 3 2 (, : ) 4 ( :, :,, )..., (20 ).,,,,,., (4 )
(2018. 01. 31, ), (, )., (, 1 ) (, 1 ).. 1) 입장차이와소모적갈등으로인한학교의상실 : 스스로초래한미래,.,,.,.,,,.,.,,.,.,,,. 20,.,.,,.... ( )?,,,,? ( 1, 2017. 12. 21. ).
2002...,...,,.,. ( 2, 2017. 12. 18. ).,.,,,.,,., 400,,.,,.,.,.,...,..,,?..,. ( 1, 2017. 12. 18. FGI )...,?...?
.,.. (, 2017. 12. 20. ).,,.,.,.,,., (1 1 ).,,,... ( ) 6.25,,....,.. ( 1, 2017. 12. 19. )...,,..,. ( 2, 2017. 12. 18. FGI ). 2) 후세대의이탈로인한학생수감소와마을공동체의쇠락,.
..,. 1950 1970. 1970,., ( ).,.,. 2,.,,..,. 80 14.,.,. ( ),..,., 4.,. (, 2017. 12. 26. ). (52 ).,. 7 20 8 20, 9.,. ( ) 4 50 5,,..,. (, 2017. 12. 26. ).
,.,.,.,.,.,..,. ( 3, 2017. 12. 19. FGI ).?.!,.,... (, 2017. 12. 18. FGI ).,,.,,..,.,..,? ( ).
..,. 400,,.... ( 1, 2017. 12. 19. ).,.,..,,..... ( 3, 2017. 12. 19. FGI ).,.,., (amenity),.,. 1) 마을의지속가능한발전을위한제도적사회자본으로서작은학교. (Krishna, 2000; Warren, 2001).. 1990,..
,. 17,,.,.,,..?.,.. 7.,.. ( ),.,.. (, 2017. 12. 20. ).,,,,,.,,.,.,,,,.,,....,,.,...,
,.,. ( ).,.. ( 3, 2017. 12. 19. FGI )..,...,.. (, 2017. 12. 22. ). 2) 학교기반의네트워크로주민들의사적삶을사회적삶으로전환하기,.,,.,,.,,,.,. 1,.,.,.
....,.... (, 2017. 12. 20. ).,,,.,,.,, ( ).,,.,,.,..?,...?,..,.. ( ).... (, 2017. 12. 20. ).,.,..,
.,,.,,.,,.,....,,,.. ( )?,. ( 1, 2017. 12. 21. )..,.,,,.,,,,,.. (amenity).,,,.
,,,., (,, ),,.,,,.,. 1 1 ( ),..,,,,,,,..,.,, (, 2013),, (,, 2103: 85-86),.,.,.,,.,.,
..,.,.,,.,.,,,.,.,,.,. (2016).. :., (2013).. 229-263., (2013).. 63-89. (1998).. 115-134., (2009). :. (2012). :. (4), 103-122. (2014).. (4), 1-21.
(2015).. (6), 1-22. (2012).. (2), 67-86. (2008). :. (3), 129-151.,,,, (2012). :., (2017). : A. (2), 55-76. (2008).. (4), 55-73. (2007). :.. (2016). :..,,, (2014). :,.,, (2010). :. (2013).. (1), 173-197. (2016). ( ). (1), 129-163., (2015).. (6), 3-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.7859/kief.2015.22.6.003. (2008).. 44-65. Autti, O., & Hyry-Beihammer, E. K. (2014). School closures in rural Finnish communities. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 29(1), 1-17. Bard, J., Gardner, C., & Wieland, R. (2005). Rural school consolidation report: History research summary conclusions and recommendations. National Education Association. Berry, C. (2006). School consolidation and inequality. Brooking Papers on Education Policy, 9, 49-75 Beuchert, L. V., Humlum, M K., Nielsen, H. S., & Smith, N. (2016). The short-term effects of school consolidation on student achievement: Evidence of disruption? Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit Institute for the Study of Labor. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood: 241 258.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120. Conant, J. B. (1967). The comprehensive high school. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company. Cooley, D. A., & Floyd, K. A. (2013). Small rural school district consolidation in Texas: An analysis of its impact on cost and student achievement. Administrative Issues Journal: Education, Practice, and Research, 3(1), 45-63. De Haan, M., Leuven, E., & Oosterbeek, H. (2016). School consolidation and student achievement. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 32(4), 816-839. Duncombe, W. D., Yinger, J., & Zhang, P. (2016). How does school district consolidation affect property values?: A case study of New York. Public Finance Review, 44(1), 52-79. Egelund, N., & Laustsen, H. (2006). School closure: What are the consequences for the local society? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(4), 429-439. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press. Irwin, R. W. (2012). School closures in Ontario: A case of conflicting values? Western Graduate & Postdoctoral Studies. Krishna, A. (2000). Creating and harnessing social capital. In P. Dasgupta & I. Serageldin(eds.) Social Capital: A multifaceted perspective. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2009). A review of empirical evidence about school size effects: A policy perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 464-490. LUFS (2008). The national society for neighbourhood schools in Norway. Om LUFS/Presentation in English. Lyson, T. A. (2002). What does a school mean to a community?: Assessing the social and economic benefits of schools to rural villages in New York. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 17(3), 131-137. Mathis, W. (2006). Anything but research-based state initiatives to consolidate schools and districts. Arlington, VA: Rural School and Community Trust. Mills, J. N., McGee, J. B., & Greene, J. P. (2013). An analysis of the effect of consolidation on student achievement: Evidence from Arkansas. EDRE working paper (No. 2013-02). Patterson, C. (2006). School district consolidation and public school efficiency. Policy Perspective: Texas Public Policy Foundation. Pennsylvania School Boards Association (2009). Merger/consolidation of school districts: Does it save money and improve student achievement? Mechanicsburg, PA: Education Research & Policy Center. Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1-24.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. The American Prospect, 4(13), 35-42. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster. Spence, B. (2000). Long school bus rides: Their effects on school budgets, family life, and students achievement. Rural Education Issue Digest. Streifel, J. S., Foldesy, G., & Holman, D. M. (1991). The financial effects of consolidation. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 7(2), 13-20. Thorsen, H. S. (2017). The effect of school consolidation on student achievement. Discussion Paper, Norwegian School of Economics. Warren, M. R. (2001). Dry bones rattling: Community building to revitalize American democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. : 2018.04.27. / : 2018.05.14. / : 2018.06.20.
:. :,, (2 ) (4 ). :,,.,,.,.,,. :.