Schools as ‘Sacred Enclaves’ or ‘Community Hubs’? South Korean Experiences

Abstract

This chapter illustrates the South Korean perception of and policy approaches to schools from the perspective of ‘schools as community hubs’ versus ‘schools as sacred enclaves.’ It historically reviews aspiration to education and the geographical settings for it. High residential density characteristics have created superior environments for independent commutes and interactions between pupils and community members in South Korea. While planning approaches have advocated the role of schools in community building, there have been barriers, among which children’s safety is the most crucial. This chapter juxtaposes these two views by illustrating recent challenges in the removal of school fences and providing an example of community multi-functional buildings on a school site, arguing safety should be a firm pre-condition to leverage school facilities for society-wide community benefits.

Introduction

Schools are essential infrastructure in any city. In Korea, historically, education reflected the central value of society by nurturing aristocrat elites during the Joseon Dynasty (1392–1897). Education has played a pivotal role in modern Korea as well. With the collapse of the feudal class system in the 1890s, opportunities for education had gradually become available for all. Modern education was introduced in that period and the first elementary school—Kyodong Elementary School—was opened in 1894. After independence from Japanese colonial rule (1910–1945), 6-year compulsory education was planned in 1949, but it was implemented with delays because of the Korean War (1950–1953) and the pervasiveness of poverty (Kim, 2020). The 1950s witnessed governmental efforts to implement the 6-year compulsory education. 96.4% of school-aged children enrolled in an elementary school by 1959 although schools were over-crowded without adequate facilities (Nam, n.d.). As part of the 5th Five-Year Economic and Social Development Plan, compulsory education has been extended to nine years in 1985 including 6-year elementary school and 3-year middle school education. In 2021, 98.4% of school-aged children attended elementary school and 99.7%, middle school in South Korea. Currently, more than 70% of high school graduates have chosen tertiary education (KESS, 2021). Education for children has become one of the most important social issues in South Korea and the quality and reputation of schools are highly capitalised in property values in Korea (Park, Tidwell, Yun, & Jin, 2021). In fact, South Korean students are known as highly achieving students worldwide partly due to parental aspirations to quality education.

This chapter reviews two contradictory views on schools—in particular, elementary schools in South Korea (see Fig. 1). The first is the theme of this book—schools as ‘community hubs’ that actively encourage locals to interact with schools, contributing to the social capital of the local and school communities (Danford, 1953). The second is schools as ‘sacred enclaves’ in favour of the safety and autonomy of the school. This view prioritises safety and classroom education activities by minimising possibilities for any crime incidences and traffic accidents in and around schools. This priority can lead to rigid operations of school facilities. The second section describes how education facilities have historically played a role in community building in the Korean context. The third section discusses how school sites have been treated in modern urban management by illustrating safety-oriented approaches and community-oriented approaches. The chapter concludes by envisaging the role of schools for students and communities.

Fig. 1

A map of South Korea

Historical and Geographic Contexts of Educational Aspirations

In Korea, schools have played a central role in their neighbourhoods, beyond just being the venue for educational activities. Even within the past century, schools have functioned as a community centre, a place where residents can gather and communicate about neighbourhood matters. Schools have remained as the spine of many neighbourhoods for both pupils and their parents in planning documents (SMG, 2014).

Schools have been a focus in Korean society where each member aspires to rise in status. Schools have become a major determinant for where one chooses to live. This is because schools and education have long been a ladder of opportunity for moving into a higher class, either by passing the National Examination for Recruitment of Public Officers (958–1894) or through passing the modern version of the exam (1950–present). This national exam had been an obvious way to raise one’s social status in feudal Korean society, where government administration and education focused on norms of the individual constituting a community rather than market-oriented commercial and industrial activities. Additionally, education was also a means of maintaining the status of the ruling groups. Even today, after the Gap-oh Reform that abolished the status system in the 1890s, a variety of national exams have the same meaning to modern Koreans who aspire to live their own successful lives.

Accordingly, from the perspective of administrative bodies that guide the expansion of cities in Korea, schools, especially good schools, have been anchor facilities that ensure the success of urban development projects. In particular, public schools were an effective tool for government-initiated projects that often necessitate prompt implementation in closed decision-making settings.

From the view of the locals, schools have become a critical and reliable means of protecting and increasing the value of real estate property, by generating a large flow of population for both private education and commercial businesses.

Thus, schools in Korea have defined and continue to redefine the infrastructure and growth processes of cities and neighbourhoods. These cultural characteristics and their relationship with cities pose a question of whether schools exist for the sake of education only, the neighbourhood, or the well-being of the society? This question is addressed through the following discussions.

First, contrary to a general understanding, the growth path of Korean cities and neighbourhoods has been significantly guided by intentional development and supportive educational administration promoted by the central and city governments. Among the representative cases in the pre-modern age was the function of Hyanggyo, which used to be a public grammar school in the old neighbourhood. Committed to teaching the knowledge of Confucianism and Neo-Confucianism, Hyanggyo was also the base of local administration run during the Joseon dynasty. If the neighbourhood was first formed around the well on the hillside, the Hyanggyo and the ginkgo trees planted around it symbolised the flourishing neighbourhood centred on the intellectual community.

Later, under the school ordinances for educational reform implemented at the last stage of the Joseon dynasty, followed by the Joseon Education ordinances of the Japanese colonial government, a group of western-styled schools was established by religious groups such as Buddhists and Cheondoists as well as missionary groups such as Catholics and Protestants. The missionary groups secured a large tract of land (such as that where the city wall once stood) or purchased properties around the city wall in Seoul, occasionally together with a charity hospital. Meanwhile, in the 1980s, particularly before and after the Asian and Olympic Games held in Seoul (1986 and 1988, respectively), a group of schools from the old area was relocated by the national and Seoul governments to outlying fields for new development. In this process, two modern city design concepts of the elementary school-centred Neighbourhood Unit (Perry, Heydecker, & Goodrich, 1929) and the Ville Radieuse (or Radiant City) (Le Corbusier, 1935) laid out with Cartesian skyscrapers surrounded by parkland, have been eclectically combined to form a utopian tool in Korea for developing a superblock community called “Danji” where the schools are in the core surrounded by a set of multi-family high-rise residential towers.

Second, Korean planned neighbourhoods are generally consisted of a group of high-density residential blocks, in contrast to European towns where small-scale production and commercial activities have for a long time developed both autonomous and community facilities in the centre of their neighbourhoods. The characteristic of Korean residential neighbourhoods can be attributed to the Euclidean zoning regulation in the United States and the City Planning Act in Japan (1919) that induced necessary separation between incompatible land uses in the residential district. Thus, an issue that arises is, how can the identity of the neighbourhood be symbolised in the built environment?

Many schools, regardless of public or private ownership, have been crucial in bringing in large populations that accompany the formation of community facilities such as stationery and bookstores, cafés, and restaurants. Unfortunately, these commercial uses, rather than schools, have increasingly become the centre of everyday living. Considering the functional roles of commercial establishments, the issue, in many neighbourhoods, is the absence of a central role for public use that would contribute to the sustained development of the locality and a real hub for the community. Until recently, elementary schools had significantly contributed to the formation of social community structures in which parents volunteered to help students get to school safely and extended their efforts to solve community problems such as the sanitation inspection of restaurants and caring for the elderly. However, this school-centred community function often ends when children move onto higher-level schools beyond their local residences.

Third, alternative educational facilities and various life-long educational activities have begun to replace and shake up the traditional function and status of schools in Korea. This situation was confirmed in a field study whereby local residents in Seoul rarely included schools in the cognitive map of their neighbourhood (Han, 2017; Han et al., 2021). Contrary to the traditional belief that children’s education and schools are a key component of the neighbourhood, these results indicate that schools are no longer recognised as the centre of residents’ daily lives (Han, 2017; Han et al., 2021).

Conventional location-based and face-to-face educational activities are rapidly being replaced by video education and ‘untacted’ online-based educational activities due to COVID-19 (Kim, 2021). In addition, a wide range of hobbies and life-long education led by local libraries, community centres as well as businesses and non-profit organisations have been carried out in cafés, restaurants, studios, and even empty spaces inside subway stations. Furthermore, the traditional marketplace, which declined after it lost its competitiveness as a local market, has recently begun to function as a cultural and artistic activity platform in the neighbourhood.

Two Views on Schools

Despite long-lasted aspirations for education and the significance of education facilities in Korean history discussed above, school sites have been under-utilised. There has been a tension between the two perspectives: schools as ‘sacred enclaves’ for students and ‘community hubs’ in South Korean public policy. Although spatial planning has acknowledged the significance of schools as central social infrastructures, anxiety borne of continued awful incidences involving children has been a barrier to uplifting the role of schools in local communities to be discussed below.

Schools in Modern Urban Development

On a city scale, schools are considered fundamental community facilities. Long-term strategic plans detail desirable future spatial structure, social inclusiveness, and infrastructure development. For instance, Seoul Plan 2030 identified five sub-regions and 140 neighbourhoods within Seoul. In that planning document, along with life-time education initiatives, schools play an essential role in sustaining the quality of place as key neighbourhood facilities (SMG, 2014). In particular, the Seoul Plan 2030 stressed the integration of schools with public (education) facilities such as youth centres, community centres, libraries, museums, and media centres to achieve education communities. This strategy supports a shift from school-centred education to the expansion of education along with local communities (SMG, 2014).

On a neighbourhood scale, as discussed above, modern Korean urban planning is highly influenced by Perry’s neighbourhood units that place an elementary school in a central location within the neighbourhood (Perry et al., 1929). For instance, greenfield residential development projects included school sites in accordance with the planned population size. Those schools were planned to be within walking distance of 500 – 800 m from residential areas. For instance, the Yeongdong development project – the most influential greenfield development project in South Korea (Bae & Joo, 2020) – introduced the Apartment District where planning principles for schools were detailed in high-density development areas (SMG, 1976). Since then, apartments have become a primary housing type (Kim & Han, 2012). In that Apartment District plan, 13% of the total planned population (or 13% × 260,000 residents) were expected to be school-aged children, requiring construction of one elementary school per every 15,000 people or 16 schools in total in the entire planned site. By building high-rise apartments, a high number of new families were accommodated on a smaller land area compared to low-density development. By doing so, land for schools was reserved (Son, 2003b). Each elementary school site, to be in the central location of residential blocks in the Apartment District for the sake of safety, was larger than 13,000 m² specified by the government guidelines (SMG, 1976). Middle and high schools had also their own standards for school size. Despite some changes in school environments and guidelines, for instance, the number of students per class in elementary schools decreased from 62 in 1970 to 22 in 2020 (KESS, 2022; Kim & Han, 2002), spatial planning has continued to acknowledge the significance of school sites. In a more recent greenfield development project, Suseo in the southern fringe of Seoul in the 1990s on a land area of 1.35 km² with a planned population of 61.5 thousand residents, saw the planning and construction of 6 elementary schools, 3 middle schools and 4 high schools (SMG, 1996). In that project area, these school sites accounted for 11.5% of the total project area (SMG, 1996).

In Seoul, where approximately 20% of the total population lives, there were 616 elementary school zones within which children could attend in 2019 (Fig. 2). Their average area was approximately 800,000 m², meaning the average size of the school zone was approximately 900 m × 900 m or the radius of 500 m from the elementary school (Korea National University of Education, 2019). The small school zones highly encourage walking to the school, which is a desirable commuting outcome. In fact, the commute time of 99% of Seoul’s elementary school students was less than 30 min in 2016 (Park, Song, & Kim, 2018). Thanks to the application of neighbourhood units and high-density environments, families from the same school are most likely to live in the same neighbourhood within walking distance.

Fig. 2

500 m radius of primary schools in Seoul (Image created by the authors, with spatial data of school zones sourced from Korea National University of Education [2019])

To understand built environment patterns around schools, which provide a hint for the possible school-community interactions, four sample figure-ground maps are presented in Fig. 3. In central Seoul, elementary schools are mixed up with a wide array of buildings including offices, heritage architecture, shops, and government buildings. Those schools, for instance, the Kyodong Elementary School (Fig. 3a), are smaller in size than contemporary schools being built at the outset of the modernisation of Korea. In conventional settlements such as northern Seoul (Fig. 3b), elementary schools are surrounded by residential areas mixed with low- and/or high-rise buildings. These conventional high-density areas do not have sufficient public open spaces, but school sites create valuable open space. In a planned neighbourhood (Fig. 3c), the principle of neighbourhood units was applied from the planning stage. Elementary schools are surrounded by high-rise apartments, and in most cases, footpaths are established for children’s safety. In regional areas, elementary schools are under threat due to prolonged population decrease, a decline in fertility rates, and lower population density. Compared to large cities such as Seoul and Busan, elementary school zones are largely beyond walking distance. For instance, the average area of elementary school zones in provincial-level government areas was 18.7 km², equivalent to 3.8 km × 3.8 km (or a radius of 2.4 km). In this environment (Fig. 3d), more students are likely to commute by motorised vehicles assisted by public transport or parents although elementary schools are largely located in the centre of settlements. The population decline of regional areas has resulted in school closures. In the period 1982–2015, the number of elementary school closures reached 1,037 in total (MoE, 2016). Moreover, one in six elementary schools had less than 60 students in 2016. Most of these were in provincial-level government areas. For instance, more than 40% of elementary schools had less than 60 students in Gangwon, Jeollabuk, Jeollanam, and Gyeongsangbuk Provinces (MoE, 2016).

Fig. 3

Four elementary schools and their neighbourhoods (Image created by the authors)

Cultural Aspects

There have been cultural barriers to leveraging schools to become community hubs. The trade-off between safety for students and communal space for residents is a central issue. Complete enclosure might contribute to safe school environments but concurrently results in the loss of an opportunity to leverage the school facilities for the local community.

The most notable conflict may be found in school fencing policy. Schools (and even universities) were traditionally enclosed with solid walls to protect them from outsiders. Even parents are not allowed to enter inside the school fence without a permit. However, in the recognition of insufficient public space in high-density urban areas, in the 2000s, city managers proposed that school sites be used as an open space for residents (Kwon, 2014). Without school fences, schools became more accessible to the public, which generated contradictory consequences.

On the one hand, schools turned into vibrant places for sporting and community activities. The fences were replaced with trees and plants. In the period 2000–2010, 663 elementary schools, 182 middle schools, and 93 high schools demolished school fences with financial support from the local government (Bae, 2011). Along with this fence removal initiative, the concept of ‘school parks’ was discussed, which included planting on school land, and the instalment of sporting facilities, running tracks, and rest facilities accessible to the local community (Kim, 2012). 825 schools in Seoul benefited from the school parks initiative from 2001 to 2010 at a total expense of KRW14.7 billion (or USD 14.7 million) (Kim, 2012). Conventional high-density areas could obviously benefit from the public access to school sites due to the scarcity of public spaces, trees and shrubs within the neighbourhood.

However, on the other hand, public access means, by definition, anyone can access the school grounds. Growing concerns about children’s safety have arisen. Several tragic incidents were reported in and around schools. For instance, Kim and Lee (2011) detailed three child sexual assaults during school hours within the elementary school sites in the period 2010–2011 that attracted great media attention. With widespread anxiety about children’s safety on school sites, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) emerged as an important design principle, with the removal of school fences being a target for criticism (Kim & Lee, 2011; Lee, 2014). As a result, the fence removal initiative was cancelled in 2011. Those schools that had already removed fences were asked by the government to re-install fences if security concerns remained (MoE, 2012a). This time the new fences were built with see-through materials. Now, most elementary schools are closed to the public, or the playgrounds are open for a limited time (MoE, 2012b), for instance, outside school hours (typically, 6.00 a.m.–7.00 a.m. and (5.00 p.m.–8.00 p.m.) with minor variations, depending on the policy of each school.

The incidents of crime noted above has led to further security measures. In 2011, the Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG) introduced ‘protection officers’ (Kim & Lee, 2011). Two protection officers (or sheriffs) were deployed in all schools including special education schools. 546 protection officers were recruited in Seoul. Their role is to control visitors, monitor CCTVs, and maintain traffic safety in the school environs (SMG, 2020). Safety issues are particularly significant because unaccompanied commutes are common for elementary school students in most major Korean cities.

For safety reasons, School Zones have been implemented since 1995. School Zones are designated within 300–500 m from the main school gate and have a speed limit of up to 30 km/h, street parking regulations, and speed bumps. The School Zone policy was further tightened from 2019 by mandating CCTVs and introducing additional punishments for offenders, after the fatal traffic accident involving a 7-year-old boy in a school zone (Chung, 2020).

Within the school building, there is room for parents to connect to school activities and other parents via the Parents Association, that have been institutionally nurtured since the 1990s (Son, 2021). After discussions about school communities, the school steering committee, including the Parents Association—a shift from a previous association that aimed primarily for financial support—commenced in the mid-1990s (Son, 2021). The overarching legal foundation for education—“Framework Act on Education”—endorses the operation of the Parents Association, stating that parents are allowed to participate in the operation of the school. In fact, a small budget is allocated for the Parents Association (Son, 2021). Parents can volunteer for crossing guards, libraries, excursions, and offering expertise (Park & Lee, 2021). However, the actual participation rate of parents in school activities of their children has remained low and the process is bureaucratic (Kim et al., 2018). Most volunteer parents are mothers, but with the increasingly growing labour market participation of females, parental participation in school activities is becoming increasingly difficult (Son, 2021).

Planning and Institutional Aspects

Schools are institutionally protected from negative externalities such as noise, heavy traffic flows, and entertainment facilities. The Educational Environment Protection Act, enacted in 2016, details prohibited activities within 200 m from the school gate, including activities that generate air and water pollution, septic treatment facilities, waste generating facilities, and noise/vibration generating activities. This act also regulates movie theatres with a restricted rating and other business establishments harmful to youth such as hotels, karaoke, and unhealthy food sales outlets.

Nevertheless, South Korean laws have allowed for mixed-use developments with school facilities in favour of positive externalities. Those mixed facilities that can be co-developed with a school include public facilities for both students and residents such as cultural and sporting facilities, parking lots, and life-long learning facilities. In fact, the mixed-use initiative has resulted in 129 sports facilities, 33 parking facilities, 28 swimming pools, 12 libraries and 22 other community facilities on school sites in Korea by 2009 (Oh, Lee, & Choi, 2009). Those facilities have been funded by public–private partnerships such as the build-lease-transfer (BLT) arrangement (Nam, 2006). One of the recent best practices in this regard can be found in Hwasung, Gyeonggi Province. Within J Elementary School, opened in 2015, on a total land area of 11,000 m² in 2017, a multi-functional building with a total floor area of 10,249 m² on a land area of 2,700 m², was constructed for the students and the local community (Cho, 2017; Lee, 2015). The five-storey multi-functional building, called ‘ieumteo’ (literally meaning linking places), includes childcare facilities, leisure facilities for the elderly, libraries, facilities for seniors, cultural facilities for youth, multi-purpose halls, seminar rooms, and parking lots on two lower ground levels, funded by the Hwasung local government (see Fig. 4). Students can access those facilities as the school is linked to the multi-functional building through a connecting bridge. That building also created a shaded open space that can be used for community activities such as flea markets. The presence of ieumteo has facilitated social and educational opportunities for the community. A wide array of community programs has been offered at the multi-functional building including school holiday programs run by the locals, support programs for community clubs, community festivals, and community development programs.¹ Venue hires including lecture rooms, group exercise rooms, and a cooking lab, are available for the public at affordable rates. Figure 4 shows how this multi-functional building is laid out in relation to J Elementary school and the surrounding neighbourhood. However, by building ieumteo, the school lost land for an open-air playground. Hence, a portion of neighbouring parkland, as large as 5,700 m², has been converted to a playground next to the school (Lee, 2015). The playground, designed to serve school children during school hours and the public after school hours, was funded by a public development agency—LH (Lee, 2015). Along with the successful implementation of this mixed-use development, the Hwasung government further constructed four more ieumteos on (elementary or middle) school sites by 2021. This mixed-use development approach has been institutionalised by the newly enacted act—“The Establishment, Operation and Management of Multi-function School Facilities Act” in 2020.

Fig. 4

Elementary school and ieumteo (Image created by the authors)

However, unlike recent international practices such as Bruckner Tower in Linz, Austria² and Schönhof in Frankfurt, Germany,³ schools cannot be co-built with housing in South Korea. In a very early example of mixed-use development, a plan to co-locate a school and apartments was proposed for Sewoon Plaza in the 1950s. In that project, while the mega-structure was constructed, the school was excluded at a later stage (Son, 2003a). Given the fact that mixed-use development is popular in Korean urban development, restrictions on the co-location of multi-functional school facilities and housing developments illustrates how schools are firmly protected in Korean society. While those controls can contribute to safe school environments, they also limit an opportunity to create further community benefits centred on schools.

Future Directions for ‘Schools as Community Hubs’

There is no doubt that schools must be safe places. While traffic accidents can be mitigated by traffic control and pedestrian-friendly design approaches (such as separated footpaths for pedestrians), the complete constraints on public access to school sites remain as barriers to making schools community hubs. The health threats from COVID-19 resulted in stricter isolation of schools for the same reason. Furthermore, growing patterns of multiculturalism from the influx of immigrants generate concerns about adequate support and equitable education facilities for them (Kim, 2017). Schools can be a place (or multi-cultural community) to learn how to live together with different ethnic groups. However, given the rapidly changing demographic structure and spatial imbalance as manifested in school closures in Korean regional provinces, a shift towards active interactions of schools with local communities will bring about society-wide benefits. Decreasing numbers of students will lower the benefits from the economies of scale in school operations. For instance, schools with fewer students are unable to afford specialised teachers. However, inviting volunteers from the members of the community with expertise for students may be able to fill the growing gap in offering quality education. Further school closures will result in extended commuting distances in regional areas and challenge the nostalgic memories of school life among alumni.

South Korean cities have a sustainable built form that enables walking to school, which is a planning goal for some countries such as the USA and Australia (Bejleri et al., 2011; Pont et al., 2013). The high-density built environment also means schools are closely located to most of the residents. School sites, owned by the government, are public assets. Schools can be re-shaped into learning and interacting places for all. The conventional learning mode, centred on teacher-student relations favouring ‘sacred enclaves’, should be re-considered to reflect the changing requirements for new industries that call for creativity, flexible reasoning, critical thinking, and communication skills. Students will be better trained by actively interacting with a wide range of community members beyond schoolteachers and peers. The example of ieumteo demonstrated the potential for the expansion of school boundaries into the community. However, all these efforts can be progressed with a firm pre-condition of safety for which all available means should be employed.