Education in South Korea: Challenges and Reforms Taejong Kim (KDI School of Public Policy and...
-
Upload
carol-anthony -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
3
Transcript of Education in South Korea: Challenges and Reforms Taejong Kim (KDI School of Public Policy and...
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
Intro. Q&A eBay’s
success Growth Labor Economics 2003 FallRoadmap
First, Performance in Korean Education
Second, Rapid expansion of education in S. Korea
Third, Secondary school equalization
Fourth, Private tutoring
Fifth, Policy recommendations
Section 1. Performance in Korean Education
<Table 1> Average Test Scores
Korea Japan U.S U.K FranceGerman
ySweden Canada Italy Mexico
ScientificLiteracy
1 2 14 4 12 20 10 5 23 30
MathLiteracy
2 1 19 8 10 20 15 6 26 30
Readingliteracy
6 8 15 7 14 21 9 2 20 30
(Unit: Ranking out of 31)
Source: OECD “Knowledge and Skill for Life”, PISA 2000
Section 1. Performance in Korean Education
<Table 1-1> Distribution of Test Scores: Reading literacy
Korea Japan U.S U.K FranceGerman
ySweden Canada Italy Mexico
Below level 1 1 3 6 4 4 10 3 2 5 16
At level 1 5 7 12 9 11 13 9 7 14 28
At level 2 19 18 21 20 22 22 20 19 26 30
At level 3 39 33 27 27 31 27 30 28 31 19
At level 4 31 29 21 24 24 19 26 28 19 6
At level 5 6 10 12 16 8 9 11 17 5 1
(Unit:percentage)
Source: OECD “Knowledge and Skill for Life”, PISA 2000
Section 1. Performance in Korean Education
<Table 2> Student Engagement
Korea Japan U.S U.K FranceGerman
ySweden Canada Italy Mexico
Student with Low sense of
belonging
41 38 25 17 30 23 18 21 23 22
Student with Low
Participation
8 4 20 15 15 13 24 26 22 21
(Unit: percentage)
Source: OECD “Student Engagement at School”, PISA 2000
Section 1. Performance in Korean Education
<Table 3> Student participation in educational courses outside school
OECDAverag
eKorea Japan U.S U.K France
Germany
SwedenCanada 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
Participation
[2]32.3 57.5 17.3 28.8 24.4 N.A. 36.2 7.8 31.6 48.0 47.1
(Unit:percentage)
Source: OECD “Knowledge and Skill for Life”, PISA 2000
1) 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
2) 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
Section 1. Performance in Korean Education
<Table 4> Teacher Evaluation by Student
OECDAverag
eKorea Japan U.S U.K France
Germany
SwedenCanada 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
(Unit: WARM estimator, Ranking out of 27)
Source: OECD “Knowledge and Skill for Life”, PISA 2000
Section 1. Performance in Korean Education
<Table 4> Teacher Evaluation by Principle
OECDAverag
eKorea Japan U.S U.K France
Germany
SwedenCanada 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 N.A. 16 5 11 25 3
(Unit: WARM estimator, Ranking out of 27)
Source: OECD “Knowledge and Skill for Life”, PISA 2000
Section 1. Performance in Korean Education
<Table 5> Test Scores and Other Skills at age 9 (1992)
Source: IAEP/ETS. Learning Math. 1992/ IAEP/ETS. Learning Science 1992
191323213011Percentage of Students Who Work with Math Tools at least Once at Week
584860424723Percentage of Students Who Do Math Exercises by Themselves Every Day
454855572925Percent of Students Who Read for Fun Almost Every Day
656362616766Average Percent Correct in Science Test
586062646875Average Percent Correct in Math Test
U.S.ACanadaSpainIsraelTaiwanKorea
Section 1. Performance in Korean Education
<Table 6> Test Scores and Other Skills at age 13 (1992)
Source: IAEP/ETS. Learning Math. 1992/ IAEP/ETS. Learning Science 1992
908981857971Percentage of Students Who Have Positive Attitudes Towards Mathematics
577855595127Percentage of Students Who Have Positive Attitudes Towards Sciences
496331473828Percentage of Students Who Solve Problems in Groups at least Once a Week
283640511911Percent of Students Who Read for Fun Almost Every Day
676869747678Average Percent Correct in Science Test
555564717373Average Percent Correct in Math Test
U.S.ACanadaSpainIsraelTaiwanKorea
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
Section 1. Performance in Korean Education
Two Types of Human Capital
cA
B
Inefficiency
Distortion
Test Skills
Creativeness
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
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Mil
lio
ns
Year
Elementary School Kindergarten Middle School High School Higher Education
Section 2. Rapid Expansion of Education in Korea
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
Section 2. Rapid Expansion of Education in Korea
Rhee – Major commitment
Universal primary education by 19511. More building
2. More teachers
3. More students
4. Relative high tuition and fee
Section 2. Rapid Expansion of Education in Korea
Big increase in primary
19651945
1.4 Million
20,000
60%
5 Million
More than 90%
100,000
Enrollment
E. Rate
Teachers
Section 2. Rapid Expansion of Education in Korea
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
Side - Effects
Student-Teacher Ratio
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
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
Section 3. Secondary School Equalization Policies
Middle school equalization policies (1969-1971)
• Stated policy objectivesTo promote normal development of childrenTo normalize primary school educationTo discourage private tutoringTo narrow gaps among middle schoolsTo reduce the burden of middle school
entrance exams
Section 3. Secondary School Equalization Policies
High school equalization policy (1974- 1980)
• Stated policy objectivesTo normalize school educationTo reduce quality difference among secondary schoolsTo promote vocational schoolTo promote balanced growth of schools across regionsTo reduce private tutoringTo reduce urban concentration
Section 3. Secondary School Equalization Policies
School System and School Autonomy in Korea
Decision on Tuition
Curriculum Textbook
Teacher Principal
Student Recruiting
PrivatePublicPrivatePublicPrivatePublic
Special schoolSchools outside
Equalization PolicySchools under
Equalization Policy
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
Total Publicly Paid
on SchoolingPrivately 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
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
To reduce private tutoring rather than to increase effectiveness in schools
To use regulation (including college entrance exam rules) to achieve objectives
Conclusions
Section 5. Policy Recommendation
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