By the turn of the 1980s, education reform efforts in many countries had been moving toward the way in which education systems respond to the challenges of new political and economic ideologies, and how the education system could be organized to the meet these changes. Current educational reform policy and practices are rooted in market-oriented and bureaucratic ideologies, which have been rising as new political and economic forces. The purpose of this paper is to identify how the market-oriented and bureaucratic ideologies are related to educational reform movements, to discuss the controversial issues in educational policy and practices under debate in the process of transforming this reform ideology into the teaching profession, and to explore how the teaching system can be restructured to be held more accountable. Since the mid-1990s, educational reform in Korea has been moving towards national standards, national curriculum, and more marketized forms of schooling, in an effort to hold the national education system more accountable. This has resulted in educational policy and teaching practices which are subject to more bureaucratic procedures and control, but also government regulation such as national standards and evaluation, and teacher rewards and sanctions. The negative effects of market and bureaucratic control generate various controversial issues in educational policy and teaching practices. First, there were contradictions in combining the two different ideologies of marketization and bureaucratization into teaching profession reform, and tensions between the conflicting goals of educational accountability and teachers professional development. Secondly, national standards and evaluation, and more accountable forms of teaching have been highly emphasized as a strategy to restructure the national educational system. Finally, as a result, reform policy and practices in the teaching profession have been subjected to more bureaucratic procedures and control, and also to more marketized forms of creating national standards and evaluation, teacher rewards and sanctions, etc. These findings showed that current reform policy and practices have raised questions as to the negative effects of market and bureaucratic control, such as lack of teacher autonomy and stratification of the teaching profession. Finally, it was suggested that reform policy and practices in teaching should be restructured with more educational and social vision, value, needs, and strategy.