By Cho Jeon-hyeock Contribution Writer The Education Ministry revealed its latest policy, “the reform plans for excellence in education” at a meeting with assistant superintendents of 16 major cities and provinces on Sept. 6, 2007. The ministry declared that it would shelve applications for new special-purpose high schools until it comes up with a fresh reform plan by the end of October after conducting a comprehensive review of the entire excellence in education system. The decision was driven by worries that the elite schools -- introduced to compliment the school equalization policy -- had turned into feeder schools for the country’s top universities and pushing students as young as elementary school kids to private cram schools. Furthermore, the ministry was concerned that each city and provincial government had been embroiled in excessive competition to open new elite schools in their area. In association with the education ministry, the Korea Educational Development Institute (KEDI) stepped forward at a policy debate held on Sept. 12 under the title of “the study on the appropriateness of the special-purpose school system.” The institute urged a complete overhaul of related education policies and went further to suggest that the elite schools be converted into specialized professional schools. The researchers said the special-purpose high schools fell far short of their original goal to make up for the shortcomings of the school equalization system, and that they were more interested in creating a prestigious school and sending their students to top universities, while staying relatively safe from the egalitarian policy. They also said that the elite schools tried to bolster their fame by recruiting students with superior family backgrounds and a strong zeal for study, rather than pursuing excellence in the curriculum and lectures. The institute concluded that as the elite schools give entrance examination questions far ahead of the general middle school level, they provoked strong demand for excessive and expensive private tutoring and caused the real crippling of ninth grade classes, posing a great threat to public education. The government condemned the special-purpose high schools, especially those specialized in foreign language education, as the mastermind behind “the crazy zeal for private education.” Former Education Minister Kim Jin-Pyo declared the foreign language high school system a “failed policy” and restricted students from cross provincial application. His successor Kim Shin-Il raised the level of attack, denouncing foreign language high schools as “a force to undermine our school system.” He forced applicants for a new elite high school to first consult with the Education Ministry in a bid to restrain the authority of entry permission held by the local offices of education. I personally don’t believe that the special-purpose high school system is the best possible education policy, either. However, as long as the egalitarianism dictates the entire education system, providing any form of educational institution of excellence as an alternative is imperative and the elite school system is the choice currently available. The demand for excellence in education is an undeniable reality. If the government suppresses the demand further, then far more students will undoubtedly rush to expensive private English classes or go abroad to study. How will it solve our education problems by repressing elite high schools? Let me ask a question to the top education policy makers. Do you really believe this is the right thing to do? A symptomatic treatment is not a fundamental remedy. It can even put a patient in greater danger. When a problem is difficult and its remedy appears to be very complicated, the fastest and surest cure is to return to the basics and principles. That is the best way to return public education to normal. If the public schools meet the demand of students and parents, the abnormally serious enthusiasm for elite high schools would be a joke. It is a human being’s nature to pursue better things. Furthermore, the parents’ wish to give their child the best possible is even more pressing. Didn’t former Deputy Premier Kim Jin-Pyo send his daughter to a foreign language high school and then to a prestigious college of business administration? I don’t mean to blame the “shameful” conduct by mentioning his name. I simply would like to emphasize that even top policymakers who commanded the incumbent government’s determined battle against the special-purpose high school system could not resist their personal desires as parents to give their children a good education. The government should allow students and parents to choose the education that they really want. They are living in a world of globalization and high-tech information and moreover they are standing in the forefront. The uniform and regimental education system, a legacy of the industrialization age, is well below their standards. Schools and teachers must be allowed to change and live up to the demand of students and parents. This is the only way to revive the school system. Why should young teens trouble themselves so much to go to a foreign language high school when a normal school teaches English to the satisfaction of the students and parents? In fact, there are few other countries that have systems comparable to our centralized education. The education authorities control everything from curriculum, textbooks, number of classes to the size of a classroom and even the teaching aids. Excessive control and the school equalization policy has eliminated the incentives of schools and teachers to improve the system, making schools a government agency and teachers government bureaucrats. This is why the excellent education institutions such as the special-purpose high schools and private education services like cram schools and tutoring are attracting so much interest. It sounds like a cliche but the government should undertake a “liberal-way revolution of education” by guaranteeing schools freedom and autonomy and demanding the corresponding accountability. All that is needed for the government is to support the schools to ensure a minimum level of academic achievements and provide sufficient information about schools and education for students and parents. Based on accurate and detailed information, students and parents would be able to assess schools on their own. If they say the English program at a particular school is terrible, then there would be no other stronger pressure on the school. The school administrators would then try to improve the program for themselves in various ways, like hiring native speakers or reinforcing the training program for their teachers. The latest controversy over specialpurpose high schools originates from the education ministry’s naive belief that regulations will do all. The society has been occasionally roiled due to education problems over the past decades and the Education Ministry was at the epicenter for most of the uproar. Former Education Minister Kim Jin-Pyo once acknowledged, “Entering the education area, I found the scale of regulations unimaginable.” The world has witnessed a new trend of deregulation, characterized as a “lifting of blanket regulations.” In regard to education, the ministry itself is the symbol of blanket regulations. If the recent policy debate had been on the study on the appropriateness of the Education Ministry, it would have contributed more significantly to our education, I believe. ljh@cfe.org Cho Jeon-hyeock is a professor of University of Incheon, and president of the Federation of Liberal Education Movements. This article appears on the Web site of www.cfe.org., the Center for Free Enterprise, an affiliate of the Federation of Korean Industries.