학교선택권의 실질적 보장을 위한 바우처 프로그램의 헌법적 한계 - 미국 각 州 헌법의 태도와 판례를 중심으로- = The Constitutional Limits of Voucher Programs for Substantial School Choices - Focused on the State Constitutions of the U.S. and Precedents -

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this writing is to explore constitutional provisions in the level of state regarding voucher programs which are publicly funded, to determine the constitutionality of them under the respective state constitutions, and to consider the implication of the voucher programs for us.
School voucher programs are initiatives giving parents school choices for their children's education at government's expense for good educational performance. However, the issues relating to the merits of this programs remain controversial as proponents and opponents of school voucher make contradictory conclusions.
In the legal aspects, voucher programs raise various potential issues in the both phases of federal and state constitution. For a long time, the legal circles mainly focused on whether voucher programs harmonized with the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause by subsidizing government money for schools which are religiously affiliated. The U.S. Supreme Court declared voucher programs of Cleveland City constitutional, resolving this issue in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris.
The state constitutional provisions regarding voucher systems are very diverse and provide a number of challenges to legislative acts. Although in the legal arena challenges rooted on the religious provisions were initially anticipated, it has come out into the open by recent cases that challenges in the future would be on provisions irrelevant to religion. For now, the precedents on state constitutional challenges to voucher programs which are publicly funded are not affluent, but the growing tendency of legislative acts for voucher programs and the friendly trends of public opinion signal the increase of challenges in the future courts. And, it should be revealed through future challenges if school voucher programs which are funded publicly are allowed under the state constitution respectively.
we shall need to consider why voucher programs are so controversial in terms of constitutionality. The reason why voucher initiatives, having no end to the controversy over the constitutionality, become more and more prevalent is because they aim to get a very high level of academic achievement. For us to maintain a competitive public education system in the knowledge-based Korean society, it needs to be recognised that parents' fundamental right to school choices is very core element in the fruitful educational system.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 민용성, "학교 교육과정 자율성 확대의 가능성과 한계 -2007년 개정 교육과정 총론 문서의 분석-" 학습자중심교과교육학회 8 (8): 137-158, 2008

2 김지수, "자율형 사립고와 교육의 공공성" 교육비평사 27 : 2010

3 김성열, "고등학교 체제의 다양화․자율화 : 실태와 개선방안" 경남대학교 교육문제연구소 16 : 2006

4 "Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002)"

5 "The Friedman Found. for Educ. Choice, ABC's of School Choice: 2007-2008 (6th ed.)" 2008

6 Frank R. Kemerer, "The Constitutional Dimension of School Vouchers" 3 : 137-, 1998

7 Sean T. McLaughlin, "Some Strings Attached? Federal Private School Vouchers and The Regulation Carousel" 24 : 857-, 2003

8 Patrick J. Wolf, "School Vouchers: What the Research Says About Parental School Choice" 415 : 446-, 2008

9 "Sch. Bd. v. Acad. of Excellence, Inc., 974 So.2d 1186 (Fla. 2008)"

10 Mark Tushnet, "Public and Private Education: Is There A Constitutional Difference" 43 : 1991

11 Yossi Dahan, "Privatization, School, Choice and Educational Equality" 5 : 307-, 2001

12 E. Vance Randall, "Pluralism, Private Schools and Public Policy" 35 : 1994

13 "Owens v. Colorado Congress of Parents, Teachers & Students, 92 P.3d 933 (Colo. 2004)"

14 "Mitchell v. Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 201, 135 P.2d 79 (Wash. 1943)"

15 "Cain v. Horne, 2007 WL 1891530 (Ariz. Super. Ct. June 14, 2007)"

16 "Bush v. Holmes, 919 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2006)"

17 William J. Bushaw, "Americans Speak Out - Are Educators and Policy Makers Listening" 40 (40): 2008