This study began with an interest in various stimulating metaphors that emerged in the nation''s education policy process. Although various metaphors surrounding education policy have been widely used, studies of policy modelling have failed to see the actual shape of education policy by overlooking this microcosm. The purpose of this study was to identify the patterns and functions of educational policy items based on the reason shown in the policy process of autonomous private high schools. To this end, this study analyzed the policy principles in the formulation, execution, and evaluation stage of autonomous private high school policies (using the policy reasons), what the policy ideas contain, and what the relationship with the policy co-operation are (sharing the policy reasons), what the reasons are, and what the frame they contain (the policy operates) and derived their functions after comprehensively analyzing them.
The policy shown in use is a characteristic of the reason, and firstly, it was frequently used by those who were disadvantageous in terms of the user, namely those who did not have the policy initiative, and were highly dependent on it. Second, conceptual metaphor, policy selling reason and collective selling reason were used a lot in terms of type. Third, in the form side, it appeared in the form of combination, enlargement, and variability over time. Fourth, through the process of symbol manipulation in terms of personality, monolithic, simplified and ideologically used. Fifth, in terms of the timing of use, conflicts related to the subject of assessment, methods, means, etc. were frequently used in the policy formation phase when conflicts between groups spread due to policy-related issues or new policy suggestions, when conflicts over specific policy measures spread or when compliance with and non-compliance with policies were created in the policy implementation stage, when conflicts related to the subject of assessment took place, or when the policy survived. Sixth, in terms of ownership, policy reasons were determined not by who used the oil first, but by how it was framed.
The policy beliefs that emerged from the sharing of policy reasons were largely prescriptive core beliefs, policy core beliefs, and tool beliefs. The normative core beliefs reflected marketism (accompliance) and nationalism (equality), policy core beliefs reflected positions on autonomous private high school policies, and tool beliefs reflected specific means of autonomous private high school policies and methods of re-designation assessment. The characteristics of a policy advocacy coalition formed by the medium of oil policy were first: in terms of policy beliefs, the pro-government coalition was united by policy actors with conservative beliefs, and the opposition alliance was united by policy actors with progressive beliefs. Second, in terms of the proportion of educational policy actors, the pro-government coalition actively engaged in activities related to private schools related to autonomous private high schools, while the opposition coalition actively engaged in activities at the center of the policy advocacy coalition by liberal education superintendents, teachers'' group-oriented interest groups and civic groups. Third, from the integrated strength perspective, the affirmative alliance started from the weak integration and was brought together at a very strong integration level as the adverse phase developed over time, and the opposition alliance started from the weak integration phase and merged to the very strong integration level in the policy implementation phase, then changed to the weak integration phase.
The frame structure formed by the operation of the policy oil was generally a belief frame confrontation based on ease and equity, but as the uncertainty of the policy expanded over time and developed into an ideological confrontation, victim frame, war frame, good and evil frame were added. As a result, the policy process for autonomous private high schools has changed from the belief that it is easy and equitable to the practice of extreme emotional confrontation and destruction over time. These frames eventually impeded rational access through policy learning or policy negotiation, and eventually developed into a way of solving problems through judicial judgment.
Based on this, the policy reasons derived are as follows: First, the reason for the policy was to express the policy beliefs of the educational policy actors and perform the functions of the means to realize them, and these actions affected the policy process. Second, the reason for policy was to strengthen the cohesive power of education policy-makers and to function as a vehicle for the formation of a policy-friendly alliance, and to politically mobilize them in the field of policy competition. Third, the policy reasons performed the instrumental function of reorganizing the power structure of educational policy actors and expanding their political influence in the advocacy group. Fourth, the reason for the policy was to transfer the intended image by highlighting the policy and covering it up. Fifth, the reason for the policy has functioned to expand knowledge of the policy. Finally, the reason for the policy served as a political issue through the formation of public opinion.