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

How has Korea’s WfD system evolved? Strategy Oversight Delivery Summary: Sustained leadership and government support leading to steady improvement between 1970 and 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 latent > emerging > established > advanced

1. Direction 2. Demand-led 3. Coordination 4. Pathways 5. Funding 6. Standards 7. Relevance 8. Excellence 9. Accountability Strategy Oversight Delivery Close-up: 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 Strategic Framework

1. Direction 2. Demand-led 3. Coordination 4. Pathways 5. Funding 6. Standards 7. Relevance 8. Excellence 9. Accountability Strategy Oversight Close-up: 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 System Oversight

1. Direction 2. Demand-led 3. Coordination 7. Relevance 8. Excellence 9. Accountability 4. Pathways 5. Funding 6. Standards Strategy Service Oversight Close-up: 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 Service Delivery

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