Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 73–94 | Cite as

The track of policies for educational equality and its implications in Korea

  • Seog Hun Jo
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Most countries have taken equality of education as a paramount issue, but policy initiatives have not taken the same patterns across the nations. This paper addressed the features of equality policies and their changes in South Korea through an array of target groups and types of policy measures. According to a contingency approach, Korea relied critically on non-financial instruments characteristic of regulations, when the government was not financially well prepared for equalizing opportunities. It also gave a serious consideration to out-of-school factors besides school characteristics, because the equality policy confined to schools is destined to have only so little meaning. Regulations on the advantaged group were introduced along with preferential treatment for the disadvantaged in pursuit of equality. Now Korea is in transition from outside-in movements to inside-out improvements in the process of ensuring equality, and it means that the alternatives of equality policies have become dramatically narrowed. Recently, the Korean model is facing challenges from courts and constituents who advocate for constitutional rights to free choices of education.

Keywords

Educational policy Comparative education Equality Affirmative action Educational change 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. An, J. W. (2006). Three-not policies in education and competition principle. Issue paper 16. Seoul, Korea: Korea Economic Research Institute.Google Scholar
  2. Bae, S. H., Oh, H. S., Kim, H. C., Lee, C. W., & Oh, B. H. (2010). The impact of after-school programs on educational equality and private tutoring expenses. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(3), 349–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bast, J. L., & Walberg, H. J. (2003). Can parents choose the best schools for their children? Economics of Education Review, 23(4), 431–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berne, R., & Stiefel, L. (1984). The measurement of equity in school finance: Conceptual, methodological, and empirical dimensions. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bierlein, L. A. (1993). Controversial issues in educational policy. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Boyd, W. (1998). Markets, choices and educational change. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (pp. 349–374). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Brighouse, H. (2010). Educational equality and school reform. In H. Graham (Ed.), Educational equality (pp. 15–70). New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  8. Bronfenbrenner, M. (1973). Equality and equity. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 409(1), 9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bulman-Pozen, J. (2006). Grutter at work: A title VII critique of constitutional affirmative action. The Yale Law Journal, 115(6), 1408–1449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burgess, S., McConnell, B., Propper, C., & Wilson, D. (2007). The impact of school choice on sorting by ability and socioeconomic factors in English secondary education. In L. Woessmann & P. E. Peterson (Eds.), Schools and the equal opportunity problem (pp. 273–291). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Burt, M. E., & Park, N. K. (2008). Education inequality in the Republic of Korea: Measurement and causes. In D. B. Holsinger & W. J. Jacob (Eds.), Inequality in education: Comparative and international perspectives (pp. 261–289). Hong Kong: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Calhoun, E., & Joyce, B. (1998). “Inside-out” and “outside-in”: Learning from past and present school improvement paradigms. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (pp. 1286–1298). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Chae, J. E. (2006). Equalization and private tutoring expenditure. Korean Journal of Sociology of Education, 16(2), 163–179.Google Scholar
  14. Checchi, D., & Jappelli, T. (2007). The impact of perceived public-school quality on private-school choice in Italy. In L. Woessmann & P. E. Peterson (Eds.), Schools and the equal opportunity problem (pp. 293–310). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Chung, I. H., & Kim, K. S. (2002). The enforcement process of independent private high school system and the analysis of its effects. The Journal of Educational Administration, 20(2), 259–281.Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, D. K., & Moffitt, S. L. (2009). The ordeal of equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, D.C: US Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education.Google Scholar
  18. Cookson, P. W., Jr. (1994). School choice. New York: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gahng, T. J. (2007). The impact of high school equalization system on private education expenditure. Paper presented at the third education and employment panel conference. Seoul, Korea: Korea Research Institute for Vocational Education and Training.Google Scholar
  20. Galindo-Rueda, F., & Vignoles, A. (2007). The heterogeneous effect of selection in UK secondary schools. In L. Woessmann & P. E. Peterson (Eds.), Schools and the equal opportunity problem (pp. 103–128). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hahn, D. D., & Oh, K. H. (2010). School preference of parents and students and school quality in a school-leveled city: Centered on differences in school characteristics between preferred schools and avoided schools. The Journal of Educational Administration, 28(2), 307–330.Google Scholar
  22. Halpin, D., Dickson, M., Power, S., Whitty, G., & Gewirtz, S. (2004). Area-based approaches to educational regeneration. Policy Analysis, 25(2), 75–85.Google Scholar
  23. Hill, D. (2005). Equality, ideology and education policy. In D. Hill & M. Cole (Eds.), Schooling and equality (pp. 7–34). London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  24. Hong, S. W., & Sung, N. K. (2008). Empirical study on the Korean household expenditure for private tutoring. Applied Economy, 10(3), 183–212.Google Scholar
  25. Im, Y. K., Song, K. C., Shin, S. M., & Ko, J. (1999). The issues and problems of Korean educational policies. Seoul: KEDI.Google Scholar
  26. Im, C. S., Woo, M. S., & Chae, J. E. (2008). Private education demand in Korea: Learning supplement and strategic investment. The Journal of Economics and Finance of Education, 17(2), 1–27.Google Scholar
  27. Jacob, W. J., & Holsinger, D. B. (2008). Inequality in education: A critical analysis. In D. B. Holsinger & W. J. Jacob (Eds.), Inequality in education: Comparative and international perspectives (pp. 1–33). Hong Kong: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Jeon, H. S. (2009). A study on the unconstitutionality of the municipal or provincial ordinances on operation hours of private academics. World Constitutional Law Review, 15(2), 465–500.Google Scholar
  29. Jeon, I. S., Na, I. J., Lee, Y. J., Han, K. O., Jeong, Y. S., Jeong, K. O., et al. (2006). The two year performance of EBS college entrance exam preparation programs and its ideas of development. Seoul: KEDI.Google Scholar
  30. Jeong, K. O. (2007). Policy discourse on the ‘Three-not Policies’. The Journal of Educational Administration, 25(2), 45–69.Google Scholar
  31. Jo, S. H. (2000). Issues on the process of enactment of the basic education act. The Journal of Educational Administration, 18(1), 181–203.Google Scholar
  32. Jo, S. H. (2003). Affirmative action: Substantial equality or reverse discrimination? The Journal of Educational Administration, 21(2), 431–454.Google Scholar
  33. Kang, I. S. (2002). A review on the constitutional compatibility of the high school entrance examination system in the equalization policy. The Journal of Educational Administration, 20(4), 23–54.Google Scholar
  34. Kang, Y. H., Kim, M. S., Lee, Y., Nam, K. G., & Kim, D. C. (2005a). Educational policy for decreasing the social polarization. Seoul: KEDI.Google Scholar
  35. Kang, T. J., & Lee, M. H. (1997). A formulation of policies on the private education. Seoul: Presidential Advisory Committee on Education Reform.Google Scholar
  36. Kang, I. C., & Moon, H. G. (2009). The characteristics of teachers’ behavior for promotion. The Journal of Educational Administration, 27(3), 471–496.Google Scholar
  37. Kang, Y. H., Park, S. Y., Jung, H. C., & Park, J. A. (2007). A study on the effect of special high school policy in Korea. Seoul: KEDI.Google Scholar
  38. Kang, Y. H., Yoon, J. H., Lee, H. S., & Kim, N. K. (2005b). On the relevancy of high school leveling policy. Seoul: KEDI.Google Scholar
  39. KEDI. (2005). Guidebook on the education welfare priority zone. Seoul: KEDI.Google Scholar
  40. Kim, C. K. (2002a). The distortion of equalization policy and the problems of self-supporting private school model. Education Criticism, 8, 34–55.Google Scholar
  41. Kim, Y. C. (2002b). High school equalization policy and school choice. Korean Education Law Research, 6(7), 265–284.Google Scholar
  42. Kim, Y. H. (2003). The possibility and limit of private education. Korean Journal of Sociology of Education, 13(3), 109–132.Google Scholar
  43. Kim, H. J. (2004). Analyzing the structure of variables affecting on private tutoring expense. The Journal of Educational Administration, 22(1), 27–45.Google Scholar
  44. Kim, S. D. (2006a). After-school program, the solution both to private tutoring expenses and educational welfare. Educational Policy Forum, 12(9), 7–10.Google Scholar
  45. Kim, S. S. (2006b). Longitudinal study of high school effect on improvement and equalization of student achievement. Dissertation: Seoul National University.Google Scholar
  46. Kim, J. H. (2009). The effectiveness of regulation for cram schools on demand for private tutoring. The Journal of Educational Administration, 27(4), 465–487.Google Scholar
  47. Kim, H. J., & Choi, S. K. (2004). The impact of high school equalization on private tutoring expense in Korea. The Journal of Korean Education, 31(1), 365–383.Google Scholar
  48. Kim, J. H., Jeong, T. H., Jeong, S. H., & Kim, J. O. (2005). Evaluation report on the pilot operation of independent private schools. Seoul: KEDI.Google Scholar
  49. Kim, J. W., Kim, S. S., Park, I. S., & Kim, D. H. (2009a). The longitudinal effects of the education welfare priority zone. KEDI position paper.Google Scholar
  50. Kim, Y. B., Kim, S. S., Park, H. J., Shin, H. S., Park, J. H., Kim, K. S., et al. (2009b). An analysis of the status of school education: Focusing on differences across schools and locations. Seoul: KEDI.Google Scholar
  51. Kim, S. W., & Lee, J. H. (2010). Private tutoring and demand for education in South Korea. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 58(2), 259–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kim, T. J., Lee, M. H., Lee, Y., & Lee, J. H. (2004). Analysis on the effect of high school equalization policy for the academic achievement. Seoul: International Graduate of Policy, KDI.Google Scholar
  53. Kim, J. W., & Park, I. S. (2007). The impact of the education welfare priority zone. The Journal of Korean Education, 34(4), 131–154.Google Scholar
  54. Kim, S. S., & Song, H. J. (2009). A Longitudinal study on the effect of school dissatisfaction and competition for entering a selective high school on students’ private tutoring time and expense. Korean Journal of Sociology of Education, 19(4), 21–46.Google Scholar
  55. Ko, H. Y., & Lee, D. H. (2002). The restructuring of education for reducing extra-curricular expenses related to university entrance competition. Sociology of Education, 12(1), 1–42.Google Scholar
  56. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation. (2011). The analysis of 2011 Korean SAT. Seoul: Press release.Google Scholar
  57. Korean Council of University Education. (2009a). The snapshot of 2010 early university admission. Seoul: Press release.Google Scholar
  58. Korean Council of University Education. (2009b). The snapshot of 2010 regular university admission. Seoul: Press release.Google Scholar
  59. Lauglo, J. (1996). Forms of decentralization and their implications for education. In J. D. Chapman, W. L. Boyd, R. Lander, & D. Reynolds (Eds.), The reconstruction of education: Quality, equality and control (pp. 18–46). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  60. Lee, Y. G. (2001). The evolvement and evaluation of university entrance system. Korean History of Education, 23(2), 115–146.Google Scholar
  61. Lee, B. H. (2002a). Improvement proposal of high school equalization policy. The Journal of Educational Administration, 20(4), 275–295.Google Scholar
  62. Lee, J. H. (2002b). Reforming secondary school equalization policies in Korea. The Journal of Economics and Finance of Education, 11(1), 237–269.Google Scholar
  63. Lee, D. Y. (2007a). A review on the constitutionality of the so-called ‘three prohibitions policy’ with regard to University Admission. Journal of Constitutional Research, 13(2), 799–827.Google Scholar
  64. Lee, S. J. (2007b). A socio-psychological approach to the cause of shadow education in South Korea. The Journal of Educational Administration, 25(4), 455–484.Google Scholar
  65. Lee, K. J. (2008). Who would benefit from 3 Nots? Paper presented at the Seminar sponsored by the Korean Federation of Teachers’ Association and Korean Society for Educational Evaluation. Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
  66. Lee, J. H., Hong, S. C., & Park, H. K. (2006a). For diversity beyond equalizing policy. Seoul: Hakjisa.Google Scholar
  67. Lee, C. J., & Jang, H. M. (2008). An analysis of the patterns of government policy for shadow education. Asian Journal of Education, 9(4), 173–200.Google Scholar
  68. Lee, C. J., Jung, S. S., & Kim, Y. S. (2006b). The development of education in Korea: Approaches, achievement and new challenges. The Journal of Educational Administration, 24(4), 1–26.Google Scholar
  69. Lee, J. H., & Kim, S. W. (2002). Economic analysis of education policies and private tutoring in South Korea. The Analysis of Korean Economy, 8(2), 1–52.Google Scholar
  70. Lee, M. H., & Kim, J. Y. (2005). The effect of private education on school achievement. Paper presented at the first education and employment panel conference. Seoul, Korea: Korea Research Institute for Vocational Education and Training.Google Scholar
  71. Lee, S. M., Kim, D. Y., Hong, H. J., & Min, B. Y. (2007). A study on the improvement of after-school education’s operating system. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25(3), 289–314.Google Scholar
  72. Lee, I. Y., Kim, B. J., Kim, S. K., & Lee, M. K. (2006c). Fostering plans for autonomous private high schools. The Journal of Educational Administration, 24(4), 211–237.Google Scholar
  73. Lee, C. J., Lee, H. S., & Jang, H. M. (2010). The history of policy responses to shadow education in South Korea: Implications for the next cycle of policy responses. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(1), 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. LeTendre, G. K., Rohlen, T. P., & Zeng, K. (1998). Merit or family background? Problems in research policy initiatives in Japan. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(4), 285–297.Google Scholar
  75. Levin, H. M., & Kelly, C. (1994). Can education do it alone? Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171–178.Google Scholar
  77. Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development. (2004). Questions and answers on the problem of private education. Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
  78. Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development. (2007a). High school equalization system: Its truth and myth. Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
  79. Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development. (2007b). Basic plan of the education welfare priority zone. Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
  80. Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development. (2007c). The practices of shadow education and policy responses. Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
  81. Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development & KEDI. (2005). Guide on the education welfare priority zone. Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development & KEDI, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
  82. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2009). The restructuring of high schools in view of selection process. MEST, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
  83. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2010a). The result of 2009 national academic achievement test and support plan for the academic probation schools. Press release. Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
  84. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2010b). Guideline on the support for no shadow education schools and future plans. Press release. Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
  85. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2010c). Manual for evaluation of impact of high school entrance policy on private education. MEST, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
  86. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, and Korea Educational Broadcasting Institute. (2011). Stable synchronization between Korean SAT and EBS materials for the supplement of public education. Press release. Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
  87. Mori, I., & Baker, D. (2010). The origin of universal shadow education: What the supplementary education phenomenon tells us about the postmodern institution of education. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(1), 36–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Moses, M. S. (2006). Why the affirmative action debate persists: The role of moral disagreement. Educational Policy, 20(4), 567–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Nelson, J. L., Palonsky, S. B., & Carlson, K. (2000). Critical issues in education. Crawfordsville, IN: McGraw-Hill Companies.Google Scholar
  90. Oakley, H. (2003). Affirmative action in the United States: Grutter v. Bollinger 123 S Ct. 2325 (2003). Auckland University Law Review, 9(4), 1377–1385.Google Scholar
  91. Odden, A. (1987). Education reform and services to poor children: Can the two policies be Compatible? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(3), 231–244.Google Scholar
  92. OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: Overcoming social background-equity in learning opportunities and outcomes (Vol. II). Paris: France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Park, J. S. (1997). The expansion of shadow education in Korea and educational equality. Seminar proceeding. The Korean Society of Economics and Finance of Education.Google Scholar
  94. Park, H. J., Lee, K. H., & Kang, S. G. (2005). Look on Korean secondary education through the analysis of the PISA study. Seoul: KEDI.Google Scholar
  95. Park, H. J., Shin, T. S., Ha, Y. J., & Lee, J. H. (2010). Explorative analysis of the change pattern of private education expenditure. Paper presented at the Fourth Korean education longitudinal study conference. Seoul, Korea: KEDI.Google Scholar
  96. Presidential Advisory Committee on Education Reform. (1995). Blue paper on education reform toward new educational system. Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
  97. Pulliam, J. D., & Patten, J. J. V. (2007). History of education in America (9th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.Google Scholar
  98. Russo, C. J. (Ed.). (2008). Encyclopedia of education law (Vol. 1–2). Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
  99. Ryu, B. R., & Kim, S. S. (2006). An analysis of educational gap. Seoul: KEDI.Google Scholar
  100. Seo, N. S. (1997). Policy on the alleviation of fierce shadow education and decrease of private education expenses. Journal of Economics and Finance of Education, Special edition, 361–370.Google Scholar
  101. Sherman, J. D., & Poirier, J. M. (2007). Educational equity and public policy: Comparing results from 16 countries. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.Google Scholar
  102. Sohn, H. K. (2009). The constitutional review of the bills for reducing the burden of private tutoring expenditures proposed in 18th Congress. The Journal of Educational Administration, 27(4), 165–197.Google Scholar
  103. Song, K. C. (1999). Problems and prospects of the grant system for local education. The Journal of Educational Administration, 28(4), 405–421.Google Scholar
  104. Song, K. C. (2010). Issues and tasks on the reorganization of local educational administration system. The Journal of Economics and Finance of Education, 8(1), 167–210.Google Scholar
  105. Song, K. O., & Jung, S. S. (2010). An analysis of influences of students’ perception of school education on demands for private tutoring. The Journal of Educational Administration, 28(3), 275–299.Google Scholar
  106. Statistics Korea. (2011). The facts of 2010 private education expenditure. Seoul: Press release.Google Scholar
  107. Thomas, S. B., Cambron-McCAbe, N. B., & McCarthy, M. M. (2009). Public school law: Teachers’ and students’ rights (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  108. Urban, W. J., & Wagoner, J. L., Jr. (2000). American education (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  109. Vinovskis, M. A. (1998). Overseeing the nation’s report card. National Assessment Governing Board, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  110. Welch, S., & Gruhl, J. (1998). Affirmative action and minority enrollments. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  111. Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Finance equalization and within-school equity: The relationship between education spending and the social distribution of achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(Winter), 269–283.Google Scholar
  112. Wood, R. C., & Thompson, D. (1996). Educational finance law: Constitutional challenges to state aid plans-an analysis of strategies. Topeka: National Organization on Legal Problems of Education.Google Scholar
  113. Zimmer, R. W., & Toma, E. F. (2000). Peer effects in private and public schools across countries. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19(1), 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of EducationGachon UniversitySeongnam, Gyunggi-doRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options