|
Abstract
|
On March 1, 2020, the revised 「School Violence Prevention and Countermeasures Act」 came into effect. The side effects of zero tolerence have emerged in existing school violence. In the case of school violence, the victims and the victims were divided, and the school became a judge rather than a party. The excessive role was given to the school violence autonomy system, creating an overload condition. The perpetrator is not thinking about how to be responsible, but how to survive. They just learn to deny wrong, reduce it, and justify it.
This paper analyzes the contradictions and problems of school violence prevention methods so far, and seeks directions for the revised school violence prevention methods. To this end, problems are analyzed through the situation of school violence prevention methods and the causes of policy failures are investigated. The School Violence Response Deliberation Committee, which is held by the Education Support Authority, provides the direction for the role to function properly, and the direction for the principal's self-solve system.
The revised School Violence Prevention Act was replaced by the School Violence Countermeasures Committee established by each school as the School Violence Response Deliberation Committee of the Ministry of Education, and in minor cases where the victims and their guardians did not want to hold the School Violence Response Deliberation Committee. If a medical certificate that requires physical or mental treatment has not been issued, ② If there is no property damage, or each has been recovered, ③ If the school violence is not continuous, ④ Retaliation for reporting, making statements, and providing data about school violence If not, it has been revised so that the principal can self-solve. In addition, if the School Violence Response Deliberation Committee receives written apology (No. 1), prohibition of contact, intimidation, and retaliation by victims and reporters or accused students (No. 2), or intramural service (No. 3) Subject to the conditional entry of the School Life Records Department. In school violence policy, punishment is a means, and restorative justice is a goal. Punishment is not the most appropriate way to achieve recovery. This is because the threat of punishment makes serious communication about damage and compensation impossible. Recovery is possible only if we overcome our anger over punishing evil deeds. In order to restore a broken life and restore relationships, it is necessary to elicit reflections and responsible actions on the damage done to others rather than punishment on the assailant. This system of recovery should be sufficiently ensured through the School Safety Deduction Association, as well as the School Violence Prevention Act. In addition, conflict control should be learned through school education.
School Violence Prevention and Management Law became effective since March 1, 2020. Previous zero tolerance principle for school violence resulted in many side effects dividing the aggressor students and victim students. Meanwhile schools just behaved as a decision maker rather than a party directly involved the school violence. As this self-government system for school violence was overloaded with its excessive role, the aggressor students were inclined to think about how to survive rather than how to undertake the responsibility. Moreover, the aggressor students just learned how to deny, minimize, and justify their faults.
This purposes of this study are to analyze the inconsistency and problems of previous School violence Prevention Law, and to seek the ideal direction of Amended School Violence Prevention Law. From this individual analysis of school violence prevention law, we tried to find the reason of this policy failure. We also tried to provide ideal direction for proper role of the deliberation committee for school violence and to suggest a direction for principal-based self-solution system.
Amended School Violence Prevention Law changed the individual autonomous committee of school violence to deliberative committee under the office of the education. Amended law permit the head of the school to solve the problem autonomously in the following four cases; 1) Where a medical report certifying that at least two weeks are needed for physical or mental treatment has not been issues, 2) where there is no property damage or damage has been immediately recovered, 3) Where the school violence is not persistent, 4 ) Where it is not a retaliatory action against a report, statement, provision of data on the previous school violence. It can be a conditional deferral for writing if the deliberative committee request the assailant student for written apology, ban of contacting, threatening, or revenging the victim or applicant, or service in the campus. School violence could be either delinquency or crime. Delinquency should not be considered as crime in school violence. Punishment is one of the many methods and restorative justice is a goal in the policy of school violence prevention. As a threat to punish blocks a serious communication of damage and compensation, punishment is not most appropriate method for recovery. Recovery is solely possible by overcoming our anger against punishing the evil acts. To recover the broken life and relationship, self-reflection and responsible action for the damage to other people rather than punishment should be elicited. This recovery system should fully be guaranteed through both the school violence prevention law and school security mutual aid. Moreover, the school should teach the method of controlling the conflict. School violence could be either delinquency or crime. Delinquency should not be considered as crime in school violence. Punishment is one of the many methods and restorative justice is a goal in the policy of school violence prevention. As a threat to punish blocks a serious communication of damage and compensation, punishment is not most appropriate method for recovery. Recovery is solely possible by overcoming our anger against punishing the evil acts. To recover the broken life and relationship, self-reflection and responsible action for the damage to other people rather than punishment should be elicited. This recovery system should fully be guaranteed through both the school violence prevention law and school security mutual aid. Moreover, the school should teach the method of controlling the conflict. School violence could be either delinquency or crime. Delinquency should not be considered as crime in school violence. Punishment is one of the many methods and restorative justice is a goal in the policy of school violence prevention. As a threat to punish blocks a serious communication of damage and compensation, punishment is not most appropriate method for recovery. Recovery is solely possible by overcoming our anger against punishing the evil acts. To recover the broken life and relationship, self-reflection and responsible action for the damage to other people rather than punishment should be elicited. This recovery system should fully be guaranteed through both the school violence prevention law and school security mutual aid. Moreover, the school should teach the method of controlling the conflict.
2020년 3월 1일부터 개정 「학교폭력예방 및 대책에 관한 법률」이 시행되었다. 기존의 학교폭력에 무관용원칙(zero tolerence)의 부작용이 드러나게 되었다. 학교폭력에서 가해학생과 피해학생을 양분하고, 학교는 당사자가 아닌 판단자 역할을 하게 되었다. 학교폭력자치제도에 과도한 역할을 부여하여 과부하상태를 만들었다. 가해학생은 어떻게 책임질까가 아니라, 어떻게 살아남을까를 궁리하고 있다. 잘못을 부정하고, 잘못을 축소하고 정당화하는 방법을 배울 뿐이다.
본고는 지금까지 학교폭력예방법의 모순과 문제점을 분석하고, 개정 학교폭력예방법이 나아갈 방향을 모색한다. 이를 위해 학교폭력예방법의 상황을 통해 문제점을 분석하고, 정책실패 원인을 살펴본다. 교육지원청에서 이루어지는 학교폭력대책심의위원회가 제대로 역할을 하기 위한 운영방향을 제시하고, 학교장 자체해결제도의 나아갈 방향을 제시한다.
개정 학교폭력예방법은 학교 별로 설치되었던 학교폭력대책자치위원회가 교육지원청의 학교폭력대책심의위원회로 바뀌게 되었고, 피해학생 및 그 보호자가 학교폭력대책심의위원회의 개최를 원하지 아니하는 경미한 경우이면서 ①2주 이상의 신체적·정신적 치료를 요하는 진단서를 발급받지 않은 경우, ②재산상 피해가 없거나 즉 각 복구된 경우, ③학교폭력이 지속적이지 않은 경우, ④학교폭력에 대한 신고, 진술, 자료제공 등에 대한 보복행위가 아닌 경우는 학교장 자체해결을 할 수 있게 개정되었다. 그리고 학교폭력대책심의위원회에서 가해학생에 대해 서면사과(제1호), 피해학생 및 신고·고발 학생의 접촉·협박·보복 금지(제2호), 교내봉사(3호) 조치를 받는 경우, 학교생활기록부 조건부 기재 유보대상이 된다. 학교폭력 정책에서 처벌은 수단이고, 회복(restorative justice)은 목표이다. 처벌이 회복을 달성하기 위해 가장 적절한 방법은 아니다. 처벌의 위협이 피해와 보상에 관한 진지한 소통을 불가능하게 하기 때문이다. 악한 행위를 처벌하는 것에 대한 우리의 분노를 극복하여야만 회복이 가능하다. 깨어진 삶을 회복하고, 관계를 회복하기 위해서는 가해자에게 처벌보다 타인에게 입힌 피해에 대한 반성과 책임 있는 행동을 이끌어 내야 한다. 이러한 회복에 관한 시스템은 학교폭력예방법 뿐만 아니라 학교안전법의 학교안전공제회 등을 통해 충분히 보장되어야 한다. 그리고 갈등의 조절은 학교교육을 통해 배워 나가야 한다.
Language: ko-kr |