Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

High school diversification against educational equality: a critical analysis of neoliberal education reform in South Korea

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Education Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent reforms of high school education in Korea have focused on transforming the uniform and standardized system into a deregulated and diversified system that has an emphasis on school choice and competition. Situating the high school diversification policy in the context of the recent controversy of the neoliberal educational reform, this study argues that school diversification in Korea is deeply impaired and unfulfilled, such as in situations in which the school differentiation and elite high school credentials struggle are reinforced by the peculiar nature of the Korean educational market, namely the hakbul-based society and the development of private educational markets. It suggests that special attention should be drawn to integrate the reform efforts for high school diversification into the ways in which the policy is being configured and delivered within the pursuit of educational equality and social justice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In this study, private education refers to supplementary education paid for by the individual and operated by individuals or groups outside of the public school system. This includes private cram schools (hakwon), private tutoring (gwaoi) and Internet lectures and largely focuses on examination preparation for higher grade/achievement in school or university admission placements (KMOE 2010).

  2. Drawing upon ‘a theory of second-best market’ (Lipsey and Lancaster 1956), especially those that, such as education, produce and distribute public goods, Lubienski applies this in explaining market process in education.

  3. Currently, the government tries to induce the independent private high schools into the autonomous private high school. Some of the independent private high schools were switched into autonomous private schools by 2010.

  4. According to www.antihakbul.org, hakbul can be seen as a pathological phenomenon of the Korean society that divides people and passes down despair and discrimination to their children based not on their abilities and aspirations, but on their elite university credentials.

References

  • Adnett, N., & Davies, P. (2002). Education as positional good: Implications for market-based reforms of state schooling. British Journal of Educational Studies, 50(2), 189–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apple, M. (2001). Comparing neo-liberal projects and inequality in education. Comparative Education, 37(4), 409–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apple, M. (2004). Creating difference: Neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism and the politics of educational reform. Education Policy, 18(12), 12–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, W. (2007). The politics of privatization in American education. Education Policy, 21(1), 7–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P. (2000). The globalization of positional competition? Sociology, 34(4), 633–653.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, K. (2002). The social investment family in crisis: Globalization, family culture, and educational credential struggle. Korean Social Science, 24(1), 1226–7325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chitty, C. (1997). Privatization and marketization. Oxford Review of Education, 23(1), 45–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, S. (2008). Critical examination of Lee Myung-bak government’s educational policy. Gyoyuk Bipyeong, 24, 38–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chubb, J., & Moe, T. (1988). Politics, markets, and the organization of schools. The American Political Science Reviews, 82(4), 1065–1087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chubb, J., & Moe, T. (1990). Politics, markets, and American schools. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, A. (1999). Education and globalization in Europe and East Asia: Convergent and divergent trends. Journal of Education Policy, 14(1), 55–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpin, D. (1991). Grant-maintained schools: Making a difference without being really different. British Journal of Educational Studies, 39(4), 409–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Institute for Management Development (2008). World competitiveness yearbook. Lausanne, Switzerland: International Institute for Management Development. Retrieved from www.wcy/upload/scoreboard.pdf.

  • Joo, K. (2008). Diagnosis on pragmatic education policy of Lee Muyng-bak government. In Proceedings from CMER ‘08: Analysis of education policy of Lee Muyng-bak government. Seoul, Korea: Citizen Movement of Educational Reformation.

  • Kang, J. (2009). Atrocious history of university admission war. Seoul, Korea: Inmulgwa Sasangsa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, Y., Kim, J., & Sung, K. (2000). A study on the independent high school in Korea. Seoul, Korea: Korean Educational Development Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, Y., Yoon, J., Lee, H., & Kim, N. (2005). On the relevancy of high school leveling policy (II). Seoul, Korea: Korean Educational Development Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, Y., Park, S., Jung, H., & Park, J. (2007). A study on the effect of special high school policy in Korea. Seoul, Korea: Korean Educational Development Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M. (2003). Private institute education: Competition and anxiety of the South Korean middle class. Korean Journal of Sociology of Education, 13(3), 43–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. (2008, September 22). Foreign university entrance rate of high school graduates in Korea for recent 3 years (2006–2008). [Press Release].

  • Kim, C. (2009a). A critical study on hegemonic discourse of the educational policy of Lee Muyng-bak’s government: The discourse of the educability of the public schools. Korean Journal of Sociology of Education, 19(1), 81–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H. (2009b). An analysis of intergenerational economic mobility in Korea, Public Policy 2009–03. Seoul, Korea: Korea Development Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2010). Private tutoring and demand for education in South Korea. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 58, 259–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korean Ministry of Education. (1995). Taking lead in the age of globalization and information to establish a new paradigm for educational reform. Seoul, Korea: Korean Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korean Ministry of Education. (2006–2010). Education statistics yearbook. Seoul, Korea: Korean Ministry of Education.

  • Korean Ministry of Education. (2002). Report on the policy for national human resource development. Seoul, Korea: Korean Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korean Ministry of Education. (2008). School autonomy project. Retrieved from www.mest.go.kr/me_kor/inform/2/28/sch/1258449_10574.html.

  • Korean Ministry of Education. (2009a). Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology, one year after war to private education. Kkumnarae, 21(329), 11–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korean Ministry of Education. (2009b). A study on the strategies for restructuring admission policy and system towards advanced high school system. Retrieved from www.mest.go.kr/me_kor.

  • Korean Ministry of Education. (2010). A manual for evaluating an influence of private education towards high school admission. Retrieved from www.mest.go.kr/me_kor.

  • Kwon, Y. (2009, July 16). One and half years after MB government, cram schools increased 120%. [Press Release].

  • Lee, J. (2004). The school equalization policy of Korea: Past failure and proposed measure for reform. Korea Journal, 44(1), 220–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., Hong, S., & Park, H. (2006). Diversification beyond equalization: Practical Korean education policy. Seoul, Korea: Hakjisa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, R., & Lancaster, K. (1956). The general theory of the second best. Review of Economic Studies, 24(1), 11–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubienski, C. (2003). Innovation in education markets: Theory and evidence on the impact of competition and choice in charter schools. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 395–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubienski, C. (2005). Public schools in marketized environments: Shifting incentives and unintended consequences of competition-based educational reforms. American Journal of Education, 111, 464–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubienski, C. (2006). School choice and privatization in education: An alternative analytical framework. Journal for Critical Policy Studies, 4(1), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S. (1999). After globalization: Emerging politics of education. Journal of Education Policy, 14(1), 19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S. (2004). A revised Marxist political economy of national education markets. Policy Future in Education, 2(3&4), 439–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh My News (2009, October 9). ‘Top 1% elite education course’, How much does it cost?

  • Paik, S., Gahng, T., Kim, T., Kim, C., Huh, K., Lee, Y., et al. (1998). Educational development in Korea: A study of investment and development of strategies. Seoul, Korea: Korean Educational Development Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, B. (2008, September 9). Elite university entrance rate of some elite high school graduates in Korea for recent 3 years (2006–2008). [Press Release].

  • Park, S., Woo, C., & Lee, J. (2002). Reforming schools in Korea: Beyond in equalization policy debate. Seoul, Korea: Korean Educational Development Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phang, H. S. (2004). Educational inequality in Korea: Recent trends and persistent structure. Korea Journal, 44(1), 42–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranson, S. (1993). Markets or democracy for education. Oxford Journal of Educational Studies, 41(4), 333–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K., & Meier, K. (1995). Public choice in education: Markets and the demand for quality education. Political Research Quarterly, 48(3), 461–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Korea. (2009). Social trends 2009 in S. Korea. Seoul, Korea: Statistics Korea.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strathdee, R. (2003). The qualifications framework in New Zealand: Reproducing existing inequalities or disrupting the positional conflict for credentials. Journal of Education and Work, 16(2), 148–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sung, Y. (2008). Equalization beyond stratification: Critics on the autonomous private high schools 100 policy. Gyoyuk Bipyeong, 24, 67–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, A., Lopez, A., Scott, J., & Holme, J. (1999). Charter schools as postmodern paradox: Rethinking social stratification in an age of deregulated school choice. Harvard Educational Review, 69(2), 172–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, A., & Pennell, H. (2002). How new is new labour? The quasi-market and English schools 1997–2001. British Journal of Educational Studies, 50(2), 206–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitty, G., & Power, S. (2000). Marketization and privatization in mass education system. International Journal of Educational Development, 20(2), 93–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitty, G., Power, S., & Halpin, D. (1998). Devolution and choice in education: The school, the state, and the market. Bristol: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yim, S., & Lee, Y. (2002). Social polarization and its spacial characteristics: The case of Seoul, South Korea. Journal of the Korean Regional Geography, 8(2), 270–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, J. (2006). State and task of special purpose high school. Seoul, Korea: Korean Educational Development Institute.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Donald Warren and Sylvia Martinez, Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Indiana University at Bloomington for two-year visiting scholar program that provided me with the opportunity to write this paper. Special thanks are due to two anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Honam University, Seobong-dong, Gwangsan-gu, Gwangju, 506-714, South Korea

    Jeongran Oh

Authors
  1. Jeongran Oh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeongran Oh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Oh, J. High school diversification against educational equality: a critical analysis of neoliberal education reform in South Korea. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 12, 381–392 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-011-9147-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-011-9147-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation