Korean Model of Secondary Education Development: Approaches, outcomes and emerging tasks

Transcription

1 Korean Model of Secondary Education Development: Approaches, outcomes and emerging tasks Chong Jae Lee Professor Seoul National University A paper presented to Seminar on Growth Strategies for Secondary Education in Asia by World Bank Institute, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, September 19-21,

2 Ⅱ. Conceptual Frameworks for the Development of Secondary Education 1. The Transition path of School System 2. Core Functions of School in the System 3. Two dimensions of Access: Quality and Equality 2

3 1. The Transition path of School System Korean School System: Single Track ( ) 3

4 Transition Paths Model P 2 General School High P 4 Tertiary Education Primary School Middle School P 6 P 7 P 1 P 3 Vocational High School P 5 Workplace 4

5 2. Core Functions of Schools Primary Education: Basic Learning Secondary Education Usually no Clear Concept of educational functions formulated: Identity questions Middle School: orientation to Knowledge, Society, Myself High School: Exploration of interest, learning capabilities, vision, career plan. 5

6 3. Two Dimensions of Access Quality: Quality attributes to be reflected in functions and in the definition of core competences Quality conditions: class size, unit cost,etc. Equality: elimination and reduction of Unjustified barriers and constraints exist in access to educational opportunities Unjustifiable distribution of educational opportunity among social class, regions, and schools 6

7 Ⅲ. Development Approaches of Korean Education Major Policies Six-year Compulsory Education plan ( ) Abolition of Entrance Exam to Middle School (1968) High School Equalization Policy (1974) July 30 Educational Reform (1980) Restructuring High School System 7

8 1. Six-year compulsory education plan( ) Context In 1945, the enrollment rate of elementary education was below 50% Three factors of difficulty in Access to educational opportunity The explosive demand for education after Independence (1945) The Inflow of immigration from North Korea Destruction of school facilities during the Korean War (1950~1953)(90% destroyed) 8

9 Policy Measure Six-year compulsory education plan( ): gradual provision of free compulsory education Increase the place to accommodate students Low cost approach Lowering educational standards(large class, Double shift classroom) Relying on private schools to accommodate more students 9

10 Outcome Universalization of primary education year Enrollment Rate Emerging Problem Successive strong educational demand for middle school resulting in the exam hell in elementary school to prepare entrance examination to selective middle schools 10

11 2. Abolition of Entrance Exam to Middle School in 1969 Context Problems of exam hell in elementary school Rapid expansion of educational demand for middle school Policy Measure The abolition of entrance examination to middle school in 1969 Abolish entrance exam to middle schools The door to middle schools was open to everyone by assignment system. Every elementary school graduates are assigned to middle schools 11

12 Egalitarian approach: Achieving uniform equality Lowering educational standards to students class size from 60 to 70 Gradual extension of free compulsory education to middle school from rural areas in 1984 to all area in 2004 Relying on private schools to accommodate more students. 12

13 Outcome the generalization of middle school education Elementary education free from the burden of private tutoring. Emerging Problem Another successive strong demand to high school and excessive competition in the entrance examination to high school. Government had to subsidize private middle schools The rapid growth of middle school students resulted in overcrowded classrooms, oversized schools, a shortage of qualified teachers and educational facilities. 13

14 3. High School Equalization Policy in 1974 Context Severe competition to academic high schools resulted in private tutoring Policy Measure To ease the competition and private tutoring to prepare entrance exams to selective academic high schools, high school equalization policy(hep) formulated in Abolished entrance examination to high schools and replaced it with state-wide qualification exam (more than 90% could pass) Assign those passed the Qualification exam randomly to one of any high school from cluster of high schools. Private high schools are included in high school cluster. As the case of middle schools, government had to subsidize private high school 14

15 Emerging Problem Expansion at the cost of quality (1970s~1990s) Uniform equality at the cost of diversity and excellence (1970s~1990s) 15

16 4. July 30 Educational Reform (1980) Context Excessive competition for the entrance exam Overheated private tutoring Policy Measure: Reformation Acts of 7.30 In order to normalize the high school education as well as to reduce the excessive competition for the entrance exam, Prohibition of private tutoring Expand the admission quota to college and university. The abolition of entrance examination administered by universities and introduce national level state-administered examination. 16

17 Outcome Open door policy implemented Expansion of higher education Emerging Problem Quality problem of higher education State control of National testing for admission system to college & university begun. 17

18 5. Restructuring High School System Context Upper Secondary Education became a battlefield Policy Measures Structural adjustment of high school enrollment ratio between General and Vocational high schools Reduce the enrollment size of general high school from 65% to 50% Failed to attain the policy goals 18

19 Ⅳ. Major Outcomes of Korean Secondary Education Development 1. Quantitative expansion of Secondary Education 2. Quality Dimension of Secondary Education 3. Equality Dimension of Secondary Education 19

20 1. Quantitative expansion of Secondary Education At The cost of quality Low cost approach Bottom-up approach 20

21 Trend of student per faculty ( ) Primary Middle School Academic High School Vocational High School Jr. College University Source: KEDI, Statistical Yearbook of Education 21

22 Academic Achievement: PISA result Ranking of Korean Student Achievement on the PISA 2003 Group Reading Math Science Problem Solving Total Upper 5% Performance in mathematics and the impact of the socio-economic background High achievement Relationship between performance and socio-economic background below OECD average 22

23 3. Equality dimension of Korean Secondary education The Constitution states the Principle of Equality of Educational opportunity rather than equal results of outcomes The most significant variables affecting the euqality of educational opportunity! Socio-economic background variable School quality differences among schools PISA indicates Korea as less effected by SES Egalitarian Policy implementation 23

24 24

25 Ⅴ. Emerging Issues in Korean Secondary. Education 1. School Failure 2. Private Tutoring 3. High School Equalization Policy 4. Vocational High School 25

26 Three Contributing factors to School crisis situation Students disengagement to teaching and learning Low-level of teachers professionalism & commitment and morale to teaching Low-level of trust among students, teachers and parents in the business of education 26

27 Academic Status of High School Students & their Mind Set Students Perspective Learning Perspective Difficult, but trying (34.6%) No Interest (16.6%) Giving-up stage (13.6%) Little Participation in Learning (23.7%) Difficulties (18.5%) No Desire (16.4%) Avoidance (8.8%) Loss of Group Teaching (11.3%) crisis (85.0%) Refusal for guidance (12.8%) Teaching Perspective a little dissatisfied (49.4%) very dissatisfied (20.8%) Degree of Satisfaction 27

28 Distribution of Schools N Functioning School Malfunctioni ng school Learningdeficient Schools Disciplinarydeficient School Middle School (66.4%) 13(10.0%) 27(20.6%) 4(3.1%) General High School (25.2%) 39(37.9%) 26(22.5%) 12(11.7%) Vocational High School (13.3%) 64(61.0%) 27(25.7%) 0(.0%) Total (29.2%) 118(34.8%) 93(27.4%) 29(8.6%) 28

29 2. Private Tutoring Over reliance of private institute Inequity in participations of private education according to classes, incomes and region Exaggerated perception on the effectiveness of private education Intensification of reliance on the system of private education 29

30 Positive Evaluation The outcomes of HEP was judged affirmative, and it was expanded and applied over 20 districts until Since the 3rd era, HEP has been supported by civil organizations and KTU(Korean Teachers & Educational Worker s Union) relieving educational problems like competitive entrance to a few top high schools contribution to equal educational opportunity equalizing educational facilities among regions and schools 30

31 Negative Evaluation - The variance in individual difference increase and the variance among schools decrease Teachers are heavily burdened with heterogeneous student groups - Mismatches between students needs and educational programs Little incentives to improve educational program by schools Parents are determined to prepare their children to the final competition, which in the entrance examination to universities, Trying to find some other ways which lead to private tutoring 31

32 4. Vocational High School Decrease in Applicants: vacancy 12% High Drop-outs: 5%(very high) High Advancement rate of Higher Education:49.8% Mismatch between educational program and social demands 32

33 Ⅵ. New Challenges and Emerging Tasks 1. Human Qualities Required in Knowledge Based Society: emerging demands for core competences High Level Cognitive Process Self-Control, Responsibility, Independency Creativity Self-Directed Learning Capability Voluntary Initiatives Individuality Intrinsic values and Social capital development 33

34 2. Policy Shift Transition Stage in 1990's: Search for New Vision of Educational Ideals, New Priority & New Strategies Policy Shift in the governance of educational system proposed by the Presidential Commission for Educational Reform (PCER) Quality vs. quantity Administrative accountability vs. Performance based accountability Bureaucratic regulation and control vs. Autonomy Governance of school systems: professional control, democratic control, or market control Equality vs. Excellence Provider vs. Consumer orientation 34

35 New policy framework with choice, accountability, and autonomy Performance-Based Accountability: Undefined Performance? Top Down Change Policy-Program Program - National Curriculum - Centralized Mgt. Assignment HEP (Korea) Busing (US) Procedural Administrative Accountability Choice: Charter Schools Korean Model(?) Autonomy: Bottom-Up Change - Program (Magnet) - Personnel - Budget 35

36 3. Old Approach to New Task? Excellence Creativity Individuality New Era for quality Globalized competition Context Moral Foundation External Control Uniform Education Mediocrity Equality Blind Competition (Moral Hazard) 36

37 Concluding Remarks (1) Korean Model of Expanding Access with Low-cost approach Bottom-up approach Egalitarian approach Has recommendable strategic points. 37

38 Concluding Remarks (2) Students moving path or upward to university has to be re-examined. Concept of authentic achievement to be developed Core competences to be defined Development of specialized Elite vocational education institute Selection system to be developed 38