This blog is written by Pearl J. Chung, Education Specialist for the Korean Ministry of Education, the author of aÂ case studyÂ on accountability and education in the Republic of Korea commissioned for theÂ 2017/8 GEM Report. The blog is part of a series showing that accountability in education is shaped by a countryâ€™s history and political, social, and cultural context.Â
Background: The Republic of Koreaâ€™s education system
In the Republic of Korea, the central education authority has had a major role in the decision-making process setting standards for primary, elementary, and secondary education. At the municipal level, Metropolitan and Provincial offices of education and local offices of education have been managing budgets and school facilities. The government began to grant more autonomy to local offices of education and schools in the 1990s, as it underwent a process of democratization. It now supports the development of a localized curriculum. The Ministry of Education has also decentralized decision-making process with regard to the implementation and organization of the national curriculum. However, some see this as a strategy not to empower schools but to control them. In reality, the central education authority has carried out policies with little input from other stakeholders. In addition, teachers, by law, are to follow the national curriculum and use centrally recognized and/or approved textbooks for teaching and learning.
Accountability is part of the Korean education system, generally used to improve the quality and outcome of education. In particular, key actors in education (e.g. central education authority, local offices of education, superintendents, educators, and students) are held accountable through parliamentary hearings, inspections, and/or evaluations. One of the contentious issues is its outcomes-based accountability system, which links incentives to test results to improve educational outcomes. This blog explores how the notion of outcomes-based accountability has emerged and transitioned in Korea and looks at its current status and implications.
Education reforms to promote outcomes-based accountability
The Republic of Korea started to put more emphasis on accountability in the 1990s. The Presidential Commission on Education Reform (PCER) adopted a comprehensive education reform plan called the Education Reform Proposal (ERP) in 1995, which included a call to improve accountability in education. In the proposal, words often used in economics such as autonomy, competition, diversity, and â€˜consumer needâ€™ were included for the first time.
In 2008, the Lee administration dramatically increased outcomes-based accountability. The â€˜Zero plan for below-basic studentsâ€™ was launched to guarantee zero percent of students with low academic performance and thereby enhancing Koreaâ€™s educational competitiveness.
The major shift centered on the national standardized test. The sampling method was converted from a sample-based (testing 3-5% of nationally representative sample of students) to a census-based test. It allowed the central education authority to assess all students in grades 6, 9, and 11 in five subjects (Korean, social studies, mathematics, science, and English), publicize school performance by proficiency levels (e.g., advanced, proficient, basic, and below-basic), and designate low-performing schools as â€˜Schools for Improvementâ€™.
The â€˜Schools for Improvementâ€™ were given financial support to run academically oriented classes to move students out of the below-basic proficiency level. As part of incentives and sanctions, schools with significant achievement on the national standardized test were lauded as exemplary schools, whereas teachers in low performing schools were excluded from promotions.
The comprehensive effort by the government and schools significantly reduced the percentage of students with below-basic proficiency (Elementary, 2.3% in 2008 to 0.7% in 2012; Middle, 10.2% in 2008 to 3.3% in 2012; High, 8.9% in 2008 to 3.4% in 2012).
On the other hand, scholars and educators found side effects of the outcomes-based accountability system such as neglect of non-tested subjects, teaching students to the test, and deskilling of teachers. Incidences reported that many teachers did not fully understand the policy yet had greater pressure to enhance studentsâ€™ academic performances, which resulted in teaching intensive courses on test-taking skills, fabricating results and, in some cases, intentionally excluding students from taking the test.
Education reforms to scale back outcomes-based accountability
Due to teachersâ€™ push back on the outcomes-based accountability system, the Park administration scaled down outcomes-based accountability through new policies in 2013. The move was also encouraged by studentsâ€™ low happiness in school, heightened competition, and high participation in private tutoring or cram schools leading to social polarization. The changes included abolishing the national standardized test for elementary students and reducing the number of tested subjects to three (Korean, mathematics, English) for grades 9 and 11. The central education authority introduced a more holistic, competency-based education that alleviates studentsâ€™ exam-related stress, and supports them in exploring their talents and aptitudes. It brought new changes in practice; for instance, the â€˜Free Semesterâ€™ was implemented to offer middle school students one semester of experience-based learning without having to worry about exams.
National Standardized Test in Korea (1998-Present)
|Year||Administration||Test sample||Tested grades|
|1998-2003||Kim Dae-jung||Sample-based (0.5%-1%)||6th, 9th, 10th|
|2003-2008||Roh Moo-hyun||Sample-based (1%-3%)||6th, 9th, 10th|
|2008-2013||Lee Myung-bak||Census-based||6th, 9th, 11th|
|2013-2017||Park Geun-hye||Census-based||9th, 11th|
|2017-Present||Moon Jae-in||Sample-based||9th, 11th|
Koreaâ€™s attempts to use accountability as a means to improve education quality, not as an end in itself
The change in the Republic of Koreaâ€™s approach to accountability means shifting gears towards promoting studentsâ€™ holistic growth in an already exam-oriented society, developing studentsâ€™ competencies through student-centered instructions to move away from the traditional pedagogical practices, and encouraging students to find their creative talent in the face of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. In addition, the Republic of Korea appears to be moving in the direction of using accountability as a means to improve education quality, not as an end in itself. The question now remains how accountability will be translated and practiced in schools to produce sustainable Â improvements.
- Involve all education actors who implement education policy, especially teachers, when designing education reform.
- Collaborative cultures could be set up in place of outcome-based accountability in order to reinforce academic success, in particular for students who struggle academically. This would involve using growth-oriented assessment and feedback for teachers and school leaders.
2017/8 GEM Report recommendations
|Global||Republic of Korea|
|Governments must make the right to education justiciable in national law, which is not the case in 45% of countries.||The right to education is not justiciable in national law.|
|Governments should be transparent about the strengths of weaknesses of education systems, opening policy processes to broad and meaningful consultation and publishing a regular education monitoring report.||The Republic of Korea has produced a national education monitoring report since 2010.|
|Governments should develop credible and efficient regulations with associated sanctions for all education providers, public and private, that ensure non-discrimination and the quality of education.|
|Governments should design accountability for schools and teachers that is supportive and formative, and avoids punitive mechanisms.||The Republic of Korea uses test scores to sanction or reward schools.|
|Governments should fulfil their commitment of spending at least 4% of GDP on education or allocating 15% of total government expenditure.||The Republic of Korea has reached one of the two financing targets for education spending 5.1% of GDP (over 4%).|