Beyond the Public-Private Dichotomy: A Path Forward for Education in South Korea
In the summer of 2023, the educational discourse in South Korea was predominantly shaped by two terms: "CSAT killer questions" and "private education cartel." As time has progressed, we now approach the final stages of the 2024 university entrance exam cycle. The CSAT results unveiled a singular perfect score, sparking a spectrum of reactions ranging from criticism of the educational authorities’ obsession with eliminating challenging questions and their consequent failure in difficulty adjustment, to predictions of an inevitable increase in private education.
Reflecting on the past eight months, the discourse initiated by concerns over killer questions was quickly amplified by the stigmatization associated with the term "cartel," effectively casting private education in a negative light. This adversarial perspective was well exemplified in a recent column titled "Creating a South Korea Without Private Education," penned by the director of an educational research institute in a metropolitan area. The debate, which initially centered on the presence of killer questions, swiftly transitioned into a generalized condemnation of private education as harmful, devoid of critical reflection.
The critique of private education is not a novel stance. The slogan advocating for a nation devoid of private education, purported to lead to happier children, effortlessly garnered public empathy, and strategies aimed at curbing or reducing skyrocketing private education costs were perennially a top priority in educational policy. Private education was frequently branded as the main culprit causing distress to students and parents alike.
The well-known initiative "A World Without the Concerns of Private Education" gained traction as a powerful entity advocating for the reduction or elimination of private education, exerting significant influence, including in discussions about the national education curriculum. Academic circles have consistently focused on "private education reduction measures" as a staple research topic. Scholars and researchers from diverse backgrounds, including education, administration, policy, and economics, have been dedicated to addressing South Korea's chronic issues with private education and proposing policy alternatives. However, our empirical experiences indicate that these prolonged struggles have not led to the desired outcomes.
At this juncture, the following provocative questions are posed: Can private education costs truly be reduced? Is it possible to create a world devoid of private education? What would fill the void left by the absence of private education? Is the term "private education" appropriate? Can public and private education coexist? To explore these questions, insights from two prominent figures in South Korea's private education sector are sought.
Rewinding to the early 2000s, it's easy to recall two significant figures who have left an indelible mark on the country's educational history. Son Joo-eun, a former lecturer renowned for his unrivaled eloquence and teaching prowess who founded the educational conglomerate Megastudy, and Lee Man-ki, a former public school teacher who became a prominent EBS instructor before being scouted into the private education sector in the mid-90s, have both played pivotal roles.
Remarks by Chairman Son Joo-eun
Son regards the current educational controversies with regret. He clarifies that the significant salaries of top tutors, often referred to as star instructors, are attributed to their large student followings, not to exorbitant tuition fees. He acknowledges the genuine issue posed by "killer questions" within the educational system and expresses agreement with the government's intentions to normalize public education and enhance the fairness of the university admissions system. However, Son points out that the emergence of these killer questions can be traced back to the actions of the educational authorities and the Korean Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation, with private education merely adapting in response.
In late June 2023, Son appeared on a TV show to share his convictions. Central to his message was the assertion that "private education has merely responded." This perspective, which might seem self-evident to some, adeptly identifies the core issue at hand. The entities within the private education sector operate as actors making strategic choices within a strictly free market. Regardless of whether their responses are legal or illegal, or even if legal, whether they are socially acceptable, the fact remains that there is no realistic way to halt such responses. If there is a role and responsibility for the state, it should be confined to ensuring that these responses occur within a legal and socially acceptable framework. The notion that suppressing private education or aspiring to create a nation devoid of it could be a fundamental solution is, at best, a simplistic slogan rather than a viable approach.
Vice President Lee Man-ki's Remark
In a meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Lee Ju-ho, discussions were held about the current issues in education. It's unprecedented, even in informal settings, for a deputy prime minister to convene a meeting with experts from the civil (typically known as 'private education') sector—a practice that, although not publicized, has been occasionally undertaken by the Ministry of Education's staff across various administrations. A priority suggestion from these discussions was a shift in terminology from the negatively connoted "private education" to "civil education." Furthermore, there was an appeal for civil educators to be included alongside teachers in educational policies and systems overseen by the education authorities.
Lee expressed his thoughts in his article last year, reflecting on his dialogue with Deputy Prime Minister Lee Ju-ho. He advocates for the term "civil education" to move away from the negative perceptions associated with private education and the stigmatized image it has cultivated. From a neutral standpoint, not directly involved with private education, the notion of rebranding it as "civil education" appeared refreshing. The existing dichotomy, which sees public education as inherently good and private education as something to be wary of due to its profit motives, along with the stereotype that school teachers sincerely educate while private tutors merely profit from transmitting knowledge, poses a challenge to easily dispel.
Several anecdotes highlight the current state of educational hegemony between public and private sectors: crowded trains heading to Gangnam's tutoring centers for weekend classes, private tutors puzzled by students' lack of engagement in school as opposed to their focused attention in tutoring sessions, and parents preferring teachers who don't assign homework to maximize time for tutoring sessions. These stories serve to illustrate the complex dynamics between public and private education in South Korea.
Returning to the core question: Is it justifiable to frame education within a binary of promoting public education as good and suppressing all other forms of education as bad? Lee argues for a balanced perspective, recognizing civil education as an essential component of the educational ecosystem, offering raw and engaging learning environments where the passion for education among students and parents is palpable.
Despite the drastic term "classroom collapse" emerging around the year 2000, the distress within the realm of public education seems only to deepen. Whether within the formal educational system or not, all individuals interacting in the educational field, hoping for the best outcomes for our students, should consider whether it's time to explore the potential for a complementary and dialectical relationship between public and civil education. This reflection stems from the recognition that the responsibility for nurturing future generations falls on all educators, regardless of their affiliation with public or private sectors.
Comments
Post a Comment