Republic of Korea

1. SABER: Systems Approach for Better Education ResultsSABER-Workforce Development Republic of Korea Hye-Won Ko and Yoon-Hee Park 29 May 2012 Washington DC THE WORLD BANK

2. Strategy How has Korea’s WfD system evolved? Oversight latent > emerging > established > advanced Summary: Sustained leadership and government support leading to steady improvement between 1970 and 2010. Highlights • Strong alignment between economic development priorities and WfD policy • Strong, consistent strategic leadership, supported by robust planning procedures and focus on facilitating coordination among stakeholders • Little focus on policies to improve service delivery in initial periods Macro context • Effective, government-led development model • Competence of bureaucracy • High social value placed on education • ICT revolution and globalization Delivery 1990 1970 2010

3. Strategic Framework Strategy 1. Direction Close-up: 2. Demand-led 3. Coordination Oversight 4.Pathways 5. Funding What were the biggest changes? • Inclusion of more non-government stakeholders in apex-level dialogue • More regular and special-purpose assessments What moved the scores? • Continuous apex-level coordination of WfD strategy • Data-driven strategy with routine evaluations to assess future skills demand and supply What held back progress? • Commitment to engaging non-government stakeholders in spectrum of strategic activities took time to develop 6. Standards Delivery 7. Relevance 8. Excellence 9. Accountability 1970 1990 2010

4. System Oversight Strategy 1. Direction Close-up: 2.Demand-led 3. Coordination Oversight 4. Pathways 5. Funding What were the biggest changes? • Introduction of a levy system to encourage firms to train employees • Increase in information provided to individuals to inform decision about training • Promotion of lifelong-learning with recognition of prior learning What moved the scores? • Improvement in the scope and quality of competency-based testing • Introduction of regular reviews of budgeting to ensure efficiency in resource allocation • Improvement of articulation arrangements across secondary and post-secondary programs as well as between vocational education and general education What held back progress? • Commitment to use of regular reviews and stakeholder input did not develop until 1990s 6. Standards 7. Relevance Oversight 8. Excellence 9. Accountability 1970 1990 2010

5. Service Delivery Strategy 1. Direction Close-up: 2. Demand-led 3. Coordination Oversight 4. Pathways 5. Funding What were the biggest changes? • More and deeper linkages among training providers, industry and research institutions • Increase in formality, regularity and scope of assessments of provider and system performance What moved the scores? • Increasing use of financial and non-financial incentives for private and public providers to respond to the demand for skills • More intensive use of data in monitoring providers and analyzing system performance What held back progress? • Attention to creating a system that promoted flexibility and quality of delivery weak before 1990 6. Standards Service 7. Relevance 8. Excellence 9. Accountability 1970 1990 2010

6. What have we learned from Korea’s experience? Challenges faced • Individuals’ preference for academic programs • High cost and low efficiency of the current WfD system Lessons learned • Importance of aligning WfD policies with national development priorities • Continuous prioritization of WfD for economic development by apex-level leadership is key • Importance of establishing and enforcing relevant standards for programs, facilities, and instructors