초록 close

This study was designed to compare and analyze the Act related to health subject and curriculum operating system in Korea and Finland. Based on the research that Finland student had a limited amount of time to interact with parents and there was a potential danger to their mental health and life style behavior, the laws amending the Comprehensive School and Upper Secondary School education Act introduced health (education) as a compulsory subject. The National Core Curriculum for Basic Education was adopted health subject in 2004 and the one for Upper Secondary Schools was adopted it in 2003. They came into forced in 2005. Health learning and literacy are considered as basic rights of children and young people. Health teacher training program have developed. Various health education development studies have been done and the result of the studies have a positive influence on health education improvement. Korean School Health Act was mandated that all students should learn health education, but health subject was not specified in the law. Considering traditional subject and dynamics between subject groups, The Ministry of Education made an official announcement of health (education) as a selective school subject or school discretion time, that is non- compulsory curriculum. It is not the purpose of the law. The Ministry of Education did not place as many teachers as required, and did not take follow-up measures. Health education is making slow progress. Due to education centered on the college entrance exam and conflicts between subject groups, health education just has been taught as a selective subject or school autonomic activity. In curricular operating system, while Finland had an open and flexible system to social needs, Korea had such a closed and rigid system against social needs. This study would make a comparison between two countries the Act related health subject and curricular systems and would suggest ways to change Korean's closed and rigid systems such as changing of legal status, dividing compulsory subject into course based on level/area and securing student's right of choice.


이 연구는 핀란드와 한국의 보건교과에 대한 법률과 운영체제를 비교 분석한다. 핀란드는 학생-학부모 간 소통이 제한되고 학생 건강이 우려되는 상황에서, 사회적 합의를 통해 교육법에 보건교과를 필수로 명시하고, 교사훈련을 거쳐 이를 실행하였다. 이에 보건교육은 학생들의 권리가 되었다. 한국은 핵가족화와 맞벌이, 입시경쟁 등으로 청소년 건강이 문제가 되자, 학교보건법에 모든 학생에 대한 보건교육을 의무화하였지만, 기존 교과의 편제와 교과 간 역학관계로 선택과목과 재량 등 비의무교육과정으로 고시되었다. 법률과 실제 운영 간 괴리가 크고 변화는 제한되었다. 사회적 요구에 대해 핀란드의 교육과정체제가 개방적이고 유연하다면, 한국의 교육과정체제는 폐쇄적이고 경직되어 있다. 연구결과는 보건 등 교과신설의 전망, 교육과정 상 법률의 지위 확보, 필수교과의 코스로의 재편, 학생 선택권 보장 등 한국 교육과정의 변화 방향에 많은 시사점을 주고 있다.