학교폭력 현상 및 정책에 관한 교원들의 인식 연구

Abstract

2012년 전국의 학교들이 학교폭력 문제로 몸살을 앓고 있지만, 한국 사회에서 학교폭력이 본격적으로 논의되기 시작한 것은 20여 년 전이다. 그럼에도 불구하고 여전히 문제가 해결되지 못한 채 되풀이되고 있는 현실은 그간의 대응이 효과적이지 못했음을 반증한다. 그 일차적 원인은 학교폭력 문제에 대한 여론의 관심과 질책이 고조될 때에만 관련 대응이 이루어짐으로써 전시적 효과 이상을 얻지 못했기 때문이기도 하지만, 보다 근본적인 문제는 대책들이 학교폭력의 현실과 원인을 정확하게 반영하지 못함에 따라 학교 현장에 실질적으로 필요한 대응 방안을 제시하지 못해 온 데 있다. 지금까지 대책 수립의 근간이 되어왔던 실태조사는 주로 양적 통계자료를 기반으로 하고 있으며, 이로 인하여 학교폭력의 평균적 경향성 외에 다각적 현상을 대책에 반영하는 데 한계가 있었다. 본 연구는 추세나 통계 수치가 아닌 단위학교와 교실 수준에서 드러나는 학교폭력 현상의 실태와 특징을 파악하고, ｢학교폭력근절종합대책｣('12. 2. 6) 시행의 현주소와 그 성과 및 난점을 구체적으로 검토하고자 한다. 학교폭력 대책의 시행을 일선에서 책임지고 있는 교원들의 경험 및 인식을 분석하기 위하여 설정된 연구문제는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 교원들이 파악하는 2012년 학교폭력 현상의 특징적 현상은 무엇이며 이는 학교폭력에 관한 사회적 인식과 어떠한 공통점 및 차이점을 보이고 있는가? 둘째, ｢학교폭력근절종합대책｣('12. 2. 6) 중 현장에서 실제로 시행되고 있는 주요 정책들은 무엇이고 각 정책별 시행 현황 및 그 효과에 대한 교원들의 평가는 어떠한가? 셋째, 교원들이 ｢학교폭력근절종합대책｣('12. 2. 6)에서 경시되거나 간과되고 있다고 지적하는 학교폭력 발생의 근본적 원인은 무엇이며 이것이 대책에 시사하는 바는 무엇인가? 본 연구의 구성은 다음과 같다. Ⅱ장에서는 연구의 전제가 되는 이론적 배경을 학교폭력의 개념 및 원인, 실태와 대책을 중심으로 검토하고 있다. 먼저 학교폭력의 개념에 대한 다양한 이해를 살펴보고 폭력 발생에 영향을 미치는 요인들을 분석한 연구를 확인하였다. 이어서 학교폭력 실태에 관한 인식을 양적･질적 측면에서 비교하여 살펴본 후 학교폭력 대책의 발전 과정을 개선 요인에 초점을 맞추어 검토하였다. Ⅲ장에서는 연구 방법 및 절차를 구체적으로 설명하고 있으며 Ⅳ장에서는 교원 심층면접을 통해 분석한 연구 결과를 제시하고 있다. 연구 결과는 학교폭력 현상에 관한 교원들의 인식, 종합대책의 시행 현황 및 평가, 학교폭력 발생의 근본적 원인에 관한 교원들의 인식의 세 영역으로 구성되어 있다. 이러한 연구 결과를 바탕으로 Ⅴ장에서는 교원들의 인식이 학교폭력 대책에 갖는 시사점에 관한 논의를 제시하고 있다.;The purpose of this qualitative study is to examine the current anti-school violence measures whether they reflect the actuality of school violence. The teaching staff’s perceptions, experiences and practices associated with the issue were investigated to achieve this goal. In 2012, every school in Korea is suffering from the issue of school violence.127) The nine successive incidents of students committing suicide after being harassed at school during 11 months have brought the problem of school violence to public attention. It has been nearly 20 years, however, since the pan-governmental efforts to resolve the problem began in Korea. One of the major reasons for the school violence still persistent despite years of effort is the sporadic nature of countermeasures. As they were implemented only when school violence related scandals erupted, they have been characterized as window dressing which function as a buffer against the public rebuke. The root cause of poor functioning, however, lies in their low practicality. Statistics-based approach for analyzing the phenomenon has resulted in lack of micro-level observations, and made countermeasures unsuitable to the school context as a consequence. Thus this study first looks into the current status of school violence at the school and classroom level, apart from the statistical incidence rates. On the basis of the accurate observation, it examines implementation and evaluation of the ｢Comprehensive Measures to Stop School Violence｣('12. 2. 6). The three core research questions identified in this study are framed as follows. First, what are the perceptions of the teaching staff towards the actual occurrence of school violence surging in 2012? How are they similar or different to the public's popular impression which is mainly formed by media coverage and as a results of quantitative surveys? Second, which specific measures are being undertaken from the comprehensive measures in schools? What are the assessments of the practice and the effectiveness of those measures from the teaching staff? Third, what do they think about potential causative factors for school violence that have been overlooked? What are their implications for the anti-school violence measures? The primary findings of this study are presented in accordance with three core research questions stated above. To start with, the first part of this paper discusses the three empirical findings from exploring the teaching staff’s perceptions on the actual occurrence of school violence. First of all, while all interviewees were well aware of the widespread public belief that students are exposed to high levels of violence in their schools, most of them did not view violence as a serious problem in their classrooms. It could be inappropriate to interpret this result to describe school violence as a trifling matter, since the perceived level of school violence by teachers tends to be reported lower than that of students. What should be noted from this discrepancy, however, is the possibility of the pervading sense of fear about school violence to be exaggerated. Excessive anxiety can lead to broadened public support for “get-tough” policy and in turn result in putting undue pressure on students. On the other hand, it was reported that the low socio-economic status of the students’ families is associated with higher levels of violence and rates of delinquency. Few interviewees whose schools are located in deprived areas illustrated that they have experienced intense conflicts within their classrooms unlike all the others. They pointed out some conditions such as deficiency in parental support, lack of school resources to conduct promising prevention programs, and the feeling of relative deprivation constructed by the mixture of disparate socio-economic groups as aggravating factors of school violence. Lastly, the dichotomized measure of "protecting victim-punishing offender" was deemed unfit to manage problems as a result of the victim-offender overlap found in all classrooms. In particular, what is called a "bullying game" was introduced as a widely spread new type of violence. It is noteworthy that distinct from the well known characteristics of bullying,128) it was explained to be committed in a short span of time and the victim role is rotated in a peer group. In addition, a common dispute between a potential offender who does not recognize the intention of doing harm and a potential victim who take it offensively was noted. The second part of this paper evaluates the 「Comprehensive Measures to Stop School Violence」 ('12. 2. 6). The interviewees reported the following seven as the primary measures that are actually being undertaken in schools among a wide range of comprehensive measures. 1. Zero-tolerance policy for offenders; 2. Imposing stronger obligation on teachers; 3. Adding reports of violence to student records; 4. Employing more school counselors; 5. Conducting school violence prevention education; 6. Dual homeroom teacher system; 7. Self-governing Council on Countermeasures against School Violence. These measures were categorized into three subgroups of “Get-tough” policies, perfunctorily practiced policies, and maladaptive policies in accordance with common analytic features. First, ‘Zero-tolerance policy for offenders’, ‘Imposing stronger obligation on teachers’, and ‘Adding reports of violence to student records were pointed out as “Get-tough” policies. The interviewees expressed concern that strengthening control over outbreaks of violence can ease the problem in the short term, but may send those violent behaviors underground and eventually deteriorate the situation. Moreover, the schools and classrooms were becoming more restless and vulnerable to violence under the tightened monitoring and regulations on students. Regarding the approach to impose stronger obligation on teachers, it was turned out that it rather has been weakening the sense of responsibility of the teaching staff. The interviewees felt it was unfair to be imposed on harsher legal sanctions without corresponding supports. This perception prompted them to take a defensive stance not wanting to get involved in any risky situation. Similarly, adding reports of violence to student records was significantly criticized that it has nothing to do with stopping school violence and consequently will lead to a double jeopardy as the record lasts for 5 years. Considering that graduating from university is regarded crucial to a successful career in Korean society, an offender record that may play a decisive effect when entering a university could be a deprivation of a second chance for students. Next, the needs for employing more school counselors and conducting school violence prevention education were widely supported by all interviewees. Nevertheless, being carried out in a perfunctory manner, these measures were perceived as ineffectual. For school counselors, labor supply was not keeping up with rising demand for service as one counselor was taking sole charge of a whole school with up to 1,200 students. Besides, a high proportion of contract workers which accounts for nearly 80 percent in total school counselors was pointed out as another negative factor jeopardizing the quality of counseling. According to the interviewees, It was not necessarily a matter of individual competencies of contract counselors, but rather a problem caused by the instability of their employment and limited authority in schools. As for school violence prevention education, which all the schools are obligated to conduct at least once every semester, it was generally perceived as an effective method to give students a broad understanding of violent behavior and its consequences. Especially, the interviewees described the merits of actual police officers being actively involved in this training work which makes it suitable to instantly raise students’ awareness of the issue. In considering the content and quality, however, its educational effect turned out to fluctuate too much depending on the lecture performer's capability and level of commitment. The last two measures, ‘Dual homeroom teacher system’ and the ‘Self-governing Council on Countermeasures against School Violence’, were marked by inadequate adaptation. Although all interviewees reported the current implementation of the dual homeroom teacher system in their schools, the system was said to have no practical application due to limited personnel resources. Moreover, the interviewees pointed out that the homeroom teacher’s job can not be carried out unless sufficient rapport has been built between teachers and students. Likewise, the shortage in human resources was once again addressed as a major factor hindering the operation of the Self-governing Council. The interviewees complained of significant difficulty in meeting the eligibility requirements for council members as they include judges, prosecutors, lawyers or doctors. It was also found that fear of the school staff, especially administrators to be exposed to disreputation and contempt was preventing them from conducting official proceedings. In conclusion, this paper raises more fundamental questions about the critical risk factors that contribute to the occurrence of aggression and school violence. Family and school related variables were highlighted by the interviewees and were claimed to have been overlooked in integrated countermeasures so far. The offending students were undoubtedly perceived as victims of violent and abusive parent-child relations, excessive competition and rampant rankism in educational settings, and hierarchical and coercive structure of schools. Accordingly, pointing an accusing finger only at student nodes was criticized to be incomplete and self-contradictory, considering officially authorized violence against students is prevailing in schools in the name of discipline. The interviewees expressed their concerns about most of the current measures aiming at controlling and changing individual students' attitudes throughout the study. The most significant implication for anti-school violence measures drawn from this study lies in this concern, There is an urgent call to acknowledge structural violence and develop systematic interventions targeting macro level risk factors in addition to interventions at the individual level. Hence, more comprehensive and sustainable strategies for changing familial risk variables as well as school organization and educational settings are needed to cover the root causes of violence, not only the surface of it, from an improved understanding of the extent of school violence and its risk factors.