「韓國教育監」相當於我國地方縣市教育局（處）首長，這個職位是韓國綜理地方教育事務的最高指揮官。韓國自2007年開始由地方普選來選出教育監，目的在實踐地方分權，以強化地方教育的自主性與專業性。本文旨在探討韓國教育監選任制度之沿革與現況及其利弊得失，並據以提出有關的學術研究與實務改進之建議。本研究運用專家訪談法，實地訪談韓國的學者專家共六位，包括忠南大學教育學院教育學系박수정教授、忠北大學韓國地方教育研究所나민주所長、이길재副所長、박선주研究員、韓國教員大學김용教授、韓國忠清北道김병우教育監。根據文獻分析及訪談結果，獲致研究結論：一、韓國教育監選任制度從中央集權轉變為地方自治，更進一步成為地方住民之直接民權展現；二、由地方住民普選產生的韓國教育監直選制度具備地方自治與住民普選之雙重特徵；三、韓國教育監直選制之特色有可反映出住民的代表性及參與地方教育之權利，以及可避免間接選舉可能受制於教育委員們的利益糾葛；四、韓國教育監直選制之缺失有不斷改變選舉方式而造成機會主義者、動員全體住民而勞民傷財、因政治性選舉而喪失教育專業性、一般行政與教育行政之扞格等。最後，本研究建議為：一、教育監與地方自治省市長可搭配競選，以改善現有教育監直選制之缺失；二、宜積極提升住民對於候選人的教育專業條件與政見之共同關注度，以利真正達到選賢與能之目的；三、未來研究可進一步探究韓國教育監選任制度對地方教育實施成效之影響。

Korean superintendents are equivalent to directors of education in Taiwan’s local governments. They are in charge of local education affairs independent of general administration. Since 2007 superintendents have been directly elected by local residents for the purpose of decentralization, which would strengthen the autonomy and professionalism of local education. The purposes of this study are to examine the evolution and the status quo of the electoral system for electing superintendents in Korea and the advantages and disadvantages of the system. The method of expert interview was used and six experts were interviewed: 1. Professor 박수정 of the Department of Education, College of Education, Chungnam National University; Director 나민주, Deputy Director이길재, and Researcher박선주, all affiliated with the Graduate Institute of Local Education, Chungbuk National University; Professor 김용 of the Department of Education, Korea National University of Education; Superintendent김병우교육 of Korean Chungcheongbuk. Findings of this study are summarized as follows. 1. The electoral system for electing superintendents in Korea has evolved from positions appointed by the President of the central government to decentralization where local governance was in place and finally to direct elections voted by local residents. 2. The current electoral system for electing superintendents in Korea has the combined features of local governance and direct elections voted by local residents. 3. The existing electoral system for electing superintendents in Korea has the features of reflecting the representativeness of local residents and their right to participate in local education, as well as avoiding interest entanglement among education board members who vote in indirect elections for superintendents. 4. Defects of the existing electoral system for electing superintendents in Korea include the facts that ways of election keep changing, resulting in opportunist practice, that all citizens need to be roped into the election, wasting both energy and money, that the election turns political, depriving the election of educational professionalism, and that conflicts exist between general administration and educational administration. Based on the findings, three suggestions are offered to relevant authorities in Taiwan for future reference.