The actual status of using accreditation of vocational training providers and improvement suggestions

매년 실시되는 직업능력개발훈련기관 평가의 활용 실태를 종합적으로 진단하여 개선 과제를 제시할 필요가 있을 것이다. 이와 같은 필요성에 근거하여, 이 연구에서는 훈련기관 평가를 둘러싼 관련 집단인 지방고용노동관서와 고용센터 관계자, 훈련 수강생 및 훈련기관, 사업체 교육훈련 담당자 등의 평가결과에 대한 인식과 평가결과의 활용 실태에 대해 검토하고, 국내외 평가(평가인증) 사례 및 활용 실태 등을 분석하고자 하였다. 이를 통해 직업능력개발훈련기관 평가의 전반적인 향후 개선 방향을 제시하였으며, 특히 평가를 활용하기 위한 개선 과제를 제시하고자 하였다.All the vocational training providers, which receive financial support from the Ministry of Employment and Labor, should be accredited in accordance with ‘Workers Vocational Skills Development Act’. For this study, surveys were conducted on the systems related to using training provider accreditation, and the actual state of those systems, and groups in charge of the provider evaluation. It analyzed the survey results, evaluation cases in Korea and overseas, and the actual state of using those results. Based on the analysis results, it makes improvement suggestions to use evaluation of vocational training providers. The followings are the results of this study. First, accreditation of training providers was carried out in order to enhance training effectiveness and its quality, and the usage of the results was various: as criteria to make decisions for government support programs, such as application for and approval of government- subsidized training courses, differentiation of training subsidy and oversight and supervision and selection of best training institutes. Also, the results were used to provide trainees with information on training providers or to enhance their training competencies. However, since the final assessment results were not broken down into a differentiated grade system, the results did not have any direct impact on providers, except for the group with the lowest grade. Second, when reviewing evaluation results and the actual state of training for the recent three years together, it revealed some positive effects of accreditation. In general, there were more providers whose grade moved upward than downward in terms of change of evaluation grade. Also, the number of trainees tended to grow as the grade goes up, when comparing the assessment results with the number of trainees of a provider, and higher grade was translated into higher employment rate. Third, concerning interviews with government employees in local employment and labor offices and workers at job center, trainees and providers, and those in charge of training at companies and their questionnaire survey, many of the findings suggested that the interviewees were not fully aware of the accreditation system or using the results. They clearly showed a necessity to provide information on the training provider evaluation system to those in charge of training at companies and trainees and enhance promotion to them. Even training consultants, who work for job centers that provide training consulting to job-seekers, did not know about the evaluation grade of their local training providers, which suggests that it is necessary to provide such information to training consultants in the future. Fourth, Korean and overseas accreditation cases demonstrated that most of training related evaluations were carried out in a form of an evaluation certification or an accreditation and in the case of government-supported training programs, the results were strongly incorporated in the government subsidy programs. On top of this, it is notable that providers which were already accredited can be eliminated from the list of government-backed training courses if their employment rate is lower than a certain level. Based on these findings, the following suggestions were made to make a better use of the accreditation results in five areas: to enhance connection between the evaluation results and support for training, to introduce a differentiated subsidy system based on the assessment results, to provide better access to such results, to introduce a system to mark best practice training providers, and to push for autonomous capacity building by trainers. At the same time, it was the most desirable way to introduce a procedure of accrediting training providers in advance before training begins in order to make the best use of the assessment in the long term.요약 xi 제1장 서 론_1 제1절 연구 필요성 및 목적 3 제2절 연구 내용 및 방법6 제2장 평가 및 평가활용 관련 제도 현황_9 제1절 직업능력개발훈련기관 평가제도 11 제2절 직업능력개발훈련기관 평가활용 제도 19 제3절 요약 및 시사점 24 제3장 평가와 훈련실태의 연계 검토_27 제1절 분석 개요 29 제2절 평가와 평가등급의 변화31 제3절 평가와 과정심사의 연계 38 제4절 평가와 훈련인원41 제5절 평가와 훈련성과47 제6절 훈련생 거주지와 훈련기관 지역 51 제7절 요약 및 시사점 55 제4장 평가활용 관련 의견 및 실태 조사결과 분석_59 제1절 조사 개요 61 제2절 고용센터 및 지방고용노동관서 관계자 대상 63 제3절 직업능력개발훈련 수강생 대상 76 제4절 직업능력개발훈련기관 담당자 대상 95 제5절 사업체 교육훈련 담당자 대상 108 제6절 요약 및 시사점 132 제5장 국내외 평가 및 평가활용 관련 사례 현황_137 제1절 국내 사례 현황 140 제2절 국외 사례 현황 149 제3절 요약 및 시사점 179 제6장 개선 과제_183 제1절 연구 결과의 종합 논의 185 제2절 평가 활용 강화 방안 188 제3절 평가제도 개편: 평가인증제도 검토 195 SUMMARY_199 참고문헌_203 부 록_207 1. 지방고용노동관서 훈련기관 업무담당자 조사지 209 2. 고용센터 훈련상담자 조사지213 3. 직업능력개발훈련 수강생 조사지 216 4. 직업능력개발훈련기관 조사지 221 5. 사업체 교육훈련 담당자 조사지 225 6. 조사결과 부표 23