National vs school-centered exam system
By Lee Kyung-man
Lee Kyung-man
Korea currently faces a population decline and an aging society; while internationally, it is faced with rapid changes and a new FTA system. Moreover, with the beginning of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, we need to increasingly foster creative talent for our society. There are two ways to lead our education system effectively. The first is school education; the second is the admissions policy. So far, we have undergone trial and error in both.
The current state of Korea's admission policy is as follows: in the 1960s-70s, it was called The Main Exam, which was an important test; in the 1980s, The Achievement Test, a segment type test, was used; in the 1990s, The College Scholastic Ability Test, which was similar to the U.S. SAT, including a writing test that especially evaluated creative ability; in 2007, The Admission Officer System of checking students' abilities beyond those evaluated in previous mechanical systems, was implemented. Nowadays, this system has been improved to better fit the Korean situation; the current system is called The Total Student Admission Program. At any rate, the change of Korean admissions policy over time has been gradual, moving from the previous mechanical systems to forms of creative education.
In education policy also, there have been various changes. In 2015, The Common Curriculum for Liberal Arts and Natural Sciences for convergence education was selected for implementation. To succeed in this policy, one of two exam systems had to be selected _ the national-centered exam system (NCES) and the school-centered exam system (SCES). Their differences are as follows:
1. As a valuation basis for admission, the NCES shows a high level for various exam criteria such as objectivity and safety; however, the SCES requires independent and subjective assessment by the college of students' records.
2. As for students' studying and learning, the NCES mainly requires that students prepare for the test; however, the SCES considers participatory learning in various fields.
3. For students and schools, the NCES requires professional education for exams, but the SCES requires convergence education to develop student talent; it also requires multi-major teachers to provide instruction.
4. As for student records, the NCES includes student GPAs and basic school activities, but the SCES student activity records include detailed processes and results.
5. The NCES will increase the importance of the private education system, making it more prevalent. So, if the state-run Education Broadcasting System’s (EBS) books continue to be used, as they are now, a decline in scholastic ability will be inevitable, and students who take the test again will be assessed as more excellent scholars than general third year high school students. The SCES, however, will make such remedial study useless, because various school activity records will be part of the evaluation, which are exclusively the area of teachers.
6. For school evaluation, the NCES will cause the gap in scholastic ability between special purpose high schools and regular high school to become wider, but a new admissions policy based on the SCES will realign the ranks of schools through new and positive trials.
Thanks to the efforts of the country, the NCES will make all schools and teachers work for the entrance exams. However, the SCES will require all schools to become educational development agencies and all teachers to become active participants. So, schools and teachers will be evaluated; it will not be how educated students are, but how they were educated.
Lee has a Ph.D in Public Policy & Administration and is an English teacher at Daewon Girls’ High School in Seoul.