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. 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

6. <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

7. <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

8. <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

9. 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

10. <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

11. <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

12. <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

13. <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

14. 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

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

16. 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

17. Section 2. Rapid Expansion of Education in Korea

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. Middle school equalization policies (1969-1971)
Section 3. Secondary School Equalization Policies
Middle school equalization policies ( )
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. High school equalization policy (1974- 1980)
Section 3. Secondary School Equalization Policies
High school equalization policy ( )
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. 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      

27. 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

28. 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)

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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