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

School System in South Korea

Per student expenditure: primary and secondary

Per student expenditure: Tertiary

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

<Table 1> Average Test Scores Section 1. Performance in Korean Education <Table 1> Average Test Scores (Unit: Ranking out of 31) Korea Japan U.S U.K France Germany Sweden Canada Italy Mexico Scientific Literacy 1 2 14 4 12 20 10 5 23 30 Math 19 8 15 6 26 Reading literacy 7 21 9 Source: OECD “Knowledge and Skill for Life”, PISA 2000

<Table 1-1> Distribution of Test Scores: Reading literacy Section 1. Performance in Korean Education <Table 1-1> Distribution of Test Scores: Reading literacy (Unit:percentage) Korea Japan U.S U.K France Germany Sweden Canada Italy Mexico Below level 1 1 3 6 4 10 2 5 16 At level 1 7 12 9 11 13 14 28 At level 2 19 18 21 20 22 26 30 At level 3 39 33 27 31 At level 4 29 24 At level 5 8 17 Source: OECD “Knowledge and Skill for Life”, PISA 2000

<Table 2> Student Engagement Section 1. Performance in Korean Education <Table 2> Student Engagement (Unit: percentage) Korea Japan U.S U.K France Germany Sweden Canada Italy Mexico Student with Low sense of belonging 41 38 25 17 30 23 18 21 22 Student with Low Participation 8 4 20 15 13 24 26 Source: OECD “Student Engagement at School”, PISA 2000

Section 1. Performance in Korean Education <Table 3> Student participation in educational courses outside school (Unit:percentage) OECD Average Korea Japan U.S U.K France Germany Sweden Canada Italy Mexico Participation [1] 24.9 63.6 70.7 24.7 20.1 N.A. 10.4 7.8 14.4 5.6 51.4 [2] 32.3 57.5 17.3 28.8 24.4 36.2 31.6 48.0 47.1 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

<Table 4> Teacher Evaluation by Student Section 1. Performance in Korean Education <Table 4> Teacher Evaluation by Student (Unit: WARM estimator, Ranking out of 27) OECD Average Korea Japan U.S U.K France Germany Sweden Canada Italy Mexico Mean 0.00 -0.67 -0.17 0.34 0.50 -0.20 -0.34 0.21 0.31 -0.28 0.07 Ranking - 27 18 4 1 19 24 7 6 21 13 Source: OECD “Knowledge and Skill for Life”, PISA 2000

<Table 4> Teacher Evaluation by Principle Section 1. Performance in Korean Education <Table 4> Teacher Evaluation by Principle (Unit: WARM estimator, Ranking out of 27) OECD Average Korea Japan U.S U.K France Germany Sweden Canada Italy Mexico Mean 0.00 -0.72 0.14 -0.04 0.02 N.A. -0.01 0.34 0.08 -0.69 0.39 Ranking - 26 10 18 13 16 5 11 25 3 Source: OECD “Knowledge and Skill for Life”, PISA 2000

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

<Table 6> Test Scores and Other Skills at age 13 (1992) 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

Trade-off : Test Scores vs. Creativeness 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

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

Increase in out-of-school private educational expenses 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

Section 2. Rapid Expansion of Education in Korea

Dire Status in 1945 Enrollment rate -Primary school – 65% 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

Rhee – Major commitment 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

Big increase in primary 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

Higher teacher-student ratio Crowded classroom 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

Student-Teacher Ratio Section 2. Rapid Expansion of Education in Korea Student-Teacher Ratio   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 1995 28.2 24.8 22.1 1997 22.3 22.9 1999 28.6 20.3 22.2

Park’s Equalization Policies 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

Middle school equalization policies (1969-1971) 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

High school equalization policy (1974- 1980) 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

School System and School Autonomy in Korea 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      

Rapid expansion in secondary schools 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

Rising Private Tutoring Expense (per GDP) Section 4. Private Tutoring Rising Private Tutoring Expense (per GDP)   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)

Reasons for rising private tutoring expense 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

Misguided government policy objectives 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

accountability by teachers and schools 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