hankyoreh

A plan by President-elect Lee Myung-bak’s transition team to replace the English-language proficiency section of the college entrance exam with a “rating-based” English-language ability test beginning in 2013 drew a mixed response. Parents sighed at the thought of the additional financial burden, as they can soon expect to spend more money on tutors or private cram schools in order to supplement their children’s education in the areas of listening and speaking, as well as reading and writing. In contrast, private cram schools are said to be happy with the emergence of a new market. While transition team officials say the plan is aimed at reducing the amount of private tutoring and enhancing English-language proficiency, their response to the problem does little to get at the heart of the matter. Why?

At first glance, there is nothing wrong with the goal of introducing an English-language ability test. During last month’s presidential election, Uri Party candidate Chung Dong-young proposed a similar plan. Chung’s idea was to do away with the English-language proficiency section of the university entrance exam and introduce a state-sponsored English-language recognition system. In comparison with Lee’s proposal, the differences are few. The purpose of both proposals is to reduce the cost of private English-language education and narrow the gap in the quality of an educational system that relies heavily on for-profit institutes. In South Korea, about half of the 30 trillion won (US$31.6 billion) spent annually on private education goes to English-language instruction at private cram schools. No one can blame students who take private lessons or go abroad to learn English, because proficiency in English determines which special-purpose high schools and mainstream universities students will be able to attend, as well as their future employment. Efforts by politicians to cut private education expenses and bridge the gap in English-language proficiency are therefore reasonable.

But there is a set of realistic concerns that deserves careful consideration. Although the intention of the policy is great, it could cause confusion and negative side effects unless appropriate conditions are set. For instance, if the rating-based English test has a significant effect on the college entrance exam, students will go through fire and water to earn higher marks.

What’s worse, if universities and special-purpose high schools include English-language essays or interviews as part of their entrance exams, it will just prove to be a boon to private cram schools. The bigger problem is that most middle and high school teachers have difficulty teaching listening and speaking skills. Though the transition team says it will train some 3,000 English teachers a year, it won’t be easy. If public schools fail to fulfill this goal, it will only help to expand the private education market. To make up for the weak points in the plan, the transition team says it will institute an English-immersion program, which would require that high schools teach a variety of subjects in English. However, it is highly likely that such a scheme will cause students to fail to achieve their goals in both regular subjects and English-language proficiency.

There should not be a rush to reform. The government should focus first on hiring talented teachers and forging more cooperative relationships with universities. In Finland, whose citizens have one of the highest levels of English-language proficiency among countries in which English is not the first language, there is neither an English-language recognition system nor an ability test. English-immersion courses are limited to the study of English as a subject. The Finnish government simply makes an effort to employ competent teachers and makes good use of English-language broadcasts.



Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]