Abstract
This paper analyzed the equity of resources at the elementary school level in Korea using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM). The data included 2,327 Korean public elementary schools in 101 Local Governments within five Local Educational Offices (LEOs). This study found that schools in low property tax per resident areas receive fewer grants, showing a possible, positive relationship between wealth and educational resources. HLM analyses found that schools with higher percentages of free lunch students received more educational resources, indicating vertical equity. However, schools with higher percentages of special students received fewer resources, indicating inequity. These findings suggest recalibrating the school funding formula so that schools with high percentages of special students and with fewer grants from Local Governments could receive more funds from LEOs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Local Education Offices (LEOs) are separate from the upper Local Governments—Metropolitan Cities or Provinces, being responsible for education without authorities to raise taxes. They receive about 70% of revenues from the MOE, 20% from the upper Local Governments, and raise the rest 10% from their own sources.
This study assumes that exchange rate is 1,000 won per dollar. An actual exchange rate was 1,035 for buying one dollar as of December 31 in 2004.
Special students who enroll non-special schools do not have severe disabilities. That is why the percentage of special students was low. Students with severe disability enroll special schools.
Teacher salaries in the public schools in Korea depend mainly on teaching experience or teacher age. Education level like a master’s or a doctoral degree does not affect the salary level in Korea. A higher teacher salary means that there are more experienced teachers at a school.
LEOs hire and assign teachers and staff in public schools on the basis of circulation in about 5 years. LEOs in more rural and remote areas tend to spend more because of higher teacher salaries since they face decreases in the number of students, and increases in the number of more experienced teachers and higher teacher salaries without many opportunities to recruit and place new young teachers.
A positive coefficient of enrollment variable means that schools with more enrollments had higher student teacher ratio.
References
Ban, S. (1998). The assessment of equity in educational finance. The Journal of Educational Administration, 16(1), 199–231.
Berne, R., & Stiefel, L. (1994). Measuring equity at the school level: The finance perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(4), 405–421.
Choi, E. S. (1990). Equity in the distribution of primary and secondary educational resources in Korea: 1977–1987. Unpublished dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Cohen, C., & Johnson, F. (2004). Revenues and expenditures for public elementary and secondary education: School year 2001–02 (NCES 2004-341). U.S. Washington, DC: Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
DeRoche, T. R., Cooper, B. S., & Ouchi, W. G. (2004). When dollars follow students. School Administrator, 61(7), 10–16.
Duncombe, W., Ruggiero, J., & Yinger, J. (1994). Alternative approaches to measuring the cost of education. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 327–356). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Duncombe, W., & Yinger, J. (1998). School finance reform: Aid formulas and equity objectives. National Tax Journal, 51(2), 239–262.
Gronberg, T. J., Jansen, D. W., Taylor, L. L., & Booker, K. (2004). School outcomes and school costs: The cost function approach. Retrieved January 10, 2006, from http://capitolz.tlc. State.tx.us/pdf/Reports/.
Han, Y. (2001). The policies and structures of teacher salaries in Korea: A review. The Journal of Economics and Finance of Education, 10(2), 271–298.
Hanushek, E. A. (1989). The impact of differential expenditures on school performance. Educational Researcher, 18(4), 45–65.
Hanushek, E. A. (1996). School resources and student performance. In G. Burtless (Ed.), Does money matter? The effect of school resources on student achievement and adult success (pp. 43–73). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 141–164.
Hedges, L. V., & Greenwald, R. (1996). Have times changed? The relation between school resources and student performance. In G. Burtless (Ed.), Does money matter? The effect of school resources on student achievement and adult success (pp. 74–92). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Hedges, L. V., Lain, R. D., & Greenwald, R. (1994). Does money matter? A meta-analysis of studies of the effects of differential school inputs on student outcomes. Educational Researcher, 23(3), 5–14.
Hertert, L. (1996). Does equal funding for districts mean equal funding for classroom students: Evidence from California. In L. O. Picus & J. L. Wattenbarger (Eds.), Where does the money go (pp. 71–84). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Iatarola, P., & Stiefel, L. (2003). Intradistrict equity of public education resources and performance. Economics of Education Review, 22, 69–78.
Kang, S. J., Cheon, M. J., & Chang, J. H. (2005). A comparative analyze in discipline problems of general and vocational high school students. Seoul: Korean Education Development Institute.
Kim, Y. C. (1994). The difference of education financial allocations among Seoul city schools and school districts. Unpublished dissertation, Konkuk University, Seoul.
Kim, W. (1996). An analysis of equity in the distribution of local education finance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Sung Kyun Kwan University, Seoul.
Korea Educational Development Institute. (2002). An analysis on school-based budgeting and accounting system. Seoul: Korea Educational Development Institute.
Lee, J., & Joo, C. (2004). A study on the criteria of teachers’ compensation. The Journal of Economics and Finance of Education, 13(1), 229–256.
Miles, K. H., Ware, K., & Roza, M. (2003). Leveling the playing field: Creating funding equity through student-based budgeting. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(2), 114–119.
Minorini, P. A., & Sugarman, S. D. (1999). School finance litigation in the name of educational equity: Its evolution, impact, and future. In H. F. Ladd, R. Chalk, & J. S. Hansen (Eds.), Equity and adequacy in education finance: Issues and perspectives (pp. 34–71). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Assembly. (2005). The minutes of inspection of the administration on the Ministry of Education (2005.10.11). Seoul: National Assembly.
Odden, A. R., & Picus, L. O. (2004). School finance: A policy perspective (4th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Oh, B. H. (2004). An analysis of school finance equity: Focusing on elementary and middle schools in Seoul. Unpublished Master’s dissertation, Seoul National University, Seoul.
Owens, T., & Maiden, J. (1999). A comparison of interschool and interdistrict funding equity in Florida. Journal of Education Finance, 24(4), 503–518.
Picus, L. O. (2001). In search of more productive schools: A guide to resource allocation in education. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). CA: Sage Publications.
Reschovsky, A., & Imazeki, J. (2001). Achieving educational adequacy through school finance reform. Journal of Education Finance, 26(4), 373–396.
Roza, M. (2006). Fund the child: Tackling inequity and antiquity in school finance. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Roza, M., & McCormick, M. (2006). Where the money goes: District allocation practices harming high-poverty schools. School Business Affairs, January 2006, 6–10.
Rubenstein, R. (1998). Resource equity in the Chicago public schools: A school-level approach. Journal of Education Finance, 23(4), 468–489.
Slavin, R. E. (1999). How can funding equity ensure enhanced achievement? Journal of Education Finance, 24(4), 519–528.
Stiefel, L., Rubenstein, R., & Berne, R. (1998). Intra-district equity in four large cities: Data, methods and results. Journal of Education Finance, 23(4), 447–467.
Ucelli, M., Foley, E., Emdon, T., & Bond, C. (2002). First steps to a level playing field: An introduction to student-based budgeting. RI: School Communities that Work: A National Task Force on the Future of Urban Districts: Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University.
Verstegen, D. A., & King, R. A. (1998). The relationship between school spending and student achievement: A review and analysis of 35 years of production function research. Journal of Education Finance, 24(2), 243–262.
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(4), 269–283.
Acknowledgments
This paper is based on my doctoral dissertation. I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Allan R. Odden, for his guidance and support and my dissertation committee, Dr. Carolyn J. Kelley, Dr. Geoffrey Borman, Dr. Eric M. Camburn, and Dr. John Witte, for their willingness to give me feedback on my dissertation. I would also thank the late David Fritzke, my editor and friend.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Woo, M.S. Equity in educational resources at the school level in Korea. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 11, 553–564 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-010-9125-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-010-9125-x