Education in South Korea: Challenges and Reforms

1. Education in South Korea:Challenges and Reforms Taejong Kim (KDI School of Public Policy and Management)

2. School System in South Korea

3. Per student expenditure: primary and secondary

4. Per student expenditure: Tertiary

5. Labor Economics 2003 Fall Roadmap Intro. eBay’s success Growth Q&A Fourth, Third, Second, Fifth, First, Performance in Korean Education Private tutoring Policy recommendations Rapid expansion of education in S. Korea Secondary school equalization The Structure of the Presentation

6. Section 1. Performance in Korean Education <Table 1> Average Test Scores (Unit: Ranking out of 31) Source: OECD “Knowledge and Skill for Life”, PISA 2000

7. Section 1. Performance in Korean Education <Table 1-1> Distribution of Test Scores: Reading literacy (Unit:percentage) Source: OECD “Knowledge and Skill for Life”, PISA 2000

8. Section 1. Performance in Korean Education <Table 2> Student Engagement (Unit: percentage) Source: OECD “Student Engagement at School”, PISA 2000

9. Section 1. Performance in Korean Education <Table 3> Student participation in educational courses outside school (Unit:percentage) Source: OECD “Knowledge and Skill for Life”, PISA 2000 • Percent of students who have sometimes or regularly attended courses in the language of assessment, courses in other subjects, or extension or additional courses in the last three years • Percent of students who have sometimes or regularly attend courses in the language of assessment, remedial courses in other subjects, training to improve study skills or private tutoring in the last three years

10. Section 1. Performance in Korean Education <Table 4> Teacher Evaluation by Student (Unit: WARM estimator, Ranking out of 27) Source: OECD “Knowledge and Skill for Life”, PISA 2000

11. Section 1. Performance in Korean Education <Table 4> Teacher Evaluation by Principle (Unit: WARM estimator, Ranking out of 27) Source: OECD “Knowledge and Skill for Life”, PISA 2000

12. Section 1. Performance in Korean Education Korea Taiwan Israel Spain Canada U.S.A Average Percent Correct in Math Test 75 68 64 62 60 58 Average Percent Correct in Science Test 66 67 61 62 63 65 Percent of Students Who Read for Fun Almost Every Day 25 29 57 55 48 45 Percentage of Students Who Do Math Exercises by Themselves Every Day 23 47 42 60 48 58 Percentage of Students Who Work with Math Tools at least Once at Week 11 30 21 23 13 19 <Table 5> Test Scores and Other Skills at age 9 (1992) Source: IAEP/ETS. Learning Math. 1992/ IAEP/ETS. Learning Science 1992

13. Section 1. Performance in Korean Education <Table 6> Test Scores and Other Skills at age 13 (1992) Korea Taiwan Israel Spain Canada U.S.A Average Percent Correct in Math Test 73 73 71 64 55 55 Average Percent Correct in Science Test 78 76 74 69 68 67 Percent of Students Who Read for Fun Almost Every Day 11 19 51 40 36 28 Percentage of Students Who Solve Problems in Groups at least Once a Week 28 38 47 31 63 49 Percentage of Students Who Have Positive Attitudes Towards Mathematics 71 79 85 81 89 90 Percentage of Students Who Have Positive Attitudes Towards Sciences 27 51 59 55 78 57 Source: IAEP/ETS. Learning Math. 1992/ IAEP/ETS. Learning Science 1992

14. Section 1. Performance in Korean Education Trade-off : Test Scores vs. Creativeness • Good performance of students in international tests Test scores become relatively lower as age increases • Problems of test-oriented education • Focus on test-skills and rote learning • Fail to nurture other valuable skills such as reading, creative thinking and social interaction

15. Section 1. Performance in Korean Education  B  A c  Two Types of Human Capital Test Skills Inefficiency Distortion Creativeness

16. Section 1. Performance in Korean Education Equity Concerns • Increase in out-of-school private educational expenses • Student’s future career is strongly dependent on the ranking of the university one graduated

17. Section 2. Rapid Expansion of Education in Korea

18. Section 2. Rapid Expansion of Education in Korea Dire Status in 1945 • Enrollment rate -Primary school – 65% -Secondary school – less than 20% -Higher education – about 2% • Severe teacher shortage • Japanese teachers were more than 40% in primary school and 70% in secondary school • Population growth • Korean War made the situation worse

19. Section 2. Rapid Expansion of Education in Korea Rhee – Major commitment Universal primary education by 1951 1. More building 2. More teachers 3. More students 4. Relative high tuition and fee

20. Section 2. Rapid Expansion of Education in Korea Big increase in primary 1965 1945 1.4 Million Enrollment 5 Million E. Rate 60% More than 90% Teachers 20,000 100,000

21. Section 2. Rapid Expansion of Education in Korea Side - Effects • Higher teacher-student ratio • Crowded classroom • Increased demand for secondary schools -Severe competition for secondary school :Private tutoring and stay-over in 6th grade -More new private secondary schools

22. Section 2. Rapid Expansion of Education in Korea Elementary Sch. Middle School High School 1945 69.3 - 25.9 1952 66.5 37.4 27.3 1556 61.2 44.8 38.1 1960 58.6 40.7 27.2 1965 62.4 39.3 30.2 1970 56.9 42.3 29.8 1975 51.8 43.2 31.4 1980 47.5 41.2 33.9 1985 38.3 40.0 31.6 1990 35.6 25.4 25.4 1995 28.2 24.8 22.1 1997 27.3 22.3 22.9 1999 28.6 20.3 22.2 Student-Teacher Ratio

23. Section 3. Secondary School Equalization Policies Park’s Equalization Policies • Concerns over Excessive Competition among Students • Assignment of students by lottery • Equal tuition and fees for all students • Fiscal subsidy to private schools • Eliminate elite schools • Equal curriculum across schools

24. Section 3. Secondary School Equalization Policies Middle school equalization policies (1969-1971) • Stated policy objectives • To promote normal development of children • To normalize primary school education • To discourage private tutoring • To narrow gaps among middle schools • To reduce the burden of middle school entrance exams

25. Section 3. Secondary School Equalization Policies High school equalization policy (1974- 1980) • Stated policy objectives • To normalize school education • To reduce quality difference among secondary schools • To promote vocational school • To promote balanced growth of schools across regions • To reduce private tutoring • To reduce urban concentration

26. Section 3. Secondary School Equalization Policies School System and School Autonomy in Korea Schools under Equalization Policy Schools outside Equalization Policy Special school Public Private Public Private Public Private Student Recruiting       Teacher Principal       Curriculum Textbook       Decision on Tuition      

27. Section 3. Secondary School Equalization Policies Consequences • Rapid expansion in secondary schools • Failure to dampen the rise in private tutoring • Strengthened bureaucratic control • No local initiatives • No competition among schools

28. Section 4. Private Tutoring Total Publicly Paid on Schooling Privately Paid on Schooling Privately Paid on Tutoring 1977 4.6 (100) 2.3 (50.5) 1.6 (34.4) 0.7 (15.1) 1982 4.8 (100) 2.7 (56.5) 1.7 (34.7) 0.4 (8.8) 1985 4.9 (100) 2.6 (53.2) 1.4 (28.5) 0.9 (18.3) 1990 4.7 (100) 2.5 (52.9) 1.0 (20.9) 1.2 (26.2) 1994 5.2 (100) 2.7 (52.1) 0.7 (14.4) 1.8 (33.6) 1998 7.1 (100) 3.4 (47.3) 0.8 (11.8) 2.9 (40.9) Rising Private Tutoring Expense (per GDP)

29. Section 4. Private Tutoring Reasons for rising private tutoring expense 1. Higher income 2. More high school graduates seeking tertiary education 3. Decreased effectiveness of schools because of excessive government control 4. Perceived high rent for better universities

30. Section 4. Private Tutoring Misguided government policy objectives • To reduce private tutoring rather than to increase effectiveness in schools • To use regulation (including college entrance exam rules) to achieve objectives

31. Section 5. Policy Recommendation Conclusions • Absorb demand for private tutoring at primary and secondary levels into public education: • school autonomy • local initiatives • accountability by teachers and schools • Beef up expenditures for other levels of education - college, kindergarten, continuing education