hankyoreh

A series of educational policies adopted by the administration of President Lee Myung-bak have caused doubt about its basic educational philosophy. The new administration is attempting to divide students according to academic achievement and abandoning the nation’s basic responsibility by neglecting to recognize education as a universal social institution. This is especially true of the government’s plan for education at South Korea’s international schools, which the government introduced on April 28 as a way to boost the service sector.

Considering the fact that Korea recorded an over US$20.5 billion deficit in the service account in 2007, with a considerable part of that going to study abroad programs, the government should certainly find more ways to encourage people to spend their money domestically. However, an allopathic measure that ignores the underlying cause of the problem will not fundamentally solve the problem.

The biggest reason why Korea is sending an unprecedented number of students to foreign countries has to do with the failure of public education, with its intense focus on entrance examinations and English fever. If the nation could improve the quality of higher education, free middle and high school students from entrance examinations by ensuring equal access to universities and provide an education experience through which all students could display their abilities to the fullest, demand for overseas study would decrease considerably. The situation is the same for English language education. The nation should take an objective look at what level of English is really necessary for students at different grade levels and establish a program within the public education system that can provide it, instead of inciting “English fever” by adopting English immersion programs.

However, one measure suggested by the government calls for an increase in the ratio of local students enrolled in South Korea’s international schools to 30 percent, allowing those institutions to send the profits back to the country of origin. Another would give the same weight to a diploma from an international school as one from a regular public school. Other measures include a reduction in the number of years one must have lived abroad before being allowed to apply for admission to international schools to three, from the current five; the introduction of an English immersion program; and reduced requirements for foreign teachers living in Korea. These measures will only serve to damage universal access to education and deepen social polarization, rather than reducing the demand for study abroad programs.

If the admissions requirements for the country’s international schools are relaxed, more young students who want to enter these schools may instead head to foreign countries to study and the schools will become institutions that are exclusively for the children of rich families. If elementary and secondary schools like Songdo International School, which was established in a free economic zone, are established in other free economic zones, Korea will be providing greater access to its elementary and secondary schools, which could threaten educational ideals. The government should not incite educational polarization by initiating policies with questionable outcomes and should completely revise its policies on international schools.

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