Rights body urges action to curb pressure-filled early English programs

A child gets out of a car at an area in southern Seoul packed with after-school cram school students, in this March 13 photo. Newsis

The National Human Rights Commission of Korea is urging broad measures to curb the country’s pervasive early English education, amid growing criticism of the so-called “7-year-old exam” — entrance tests that preschoolers take to gain admission to elite after-school English-language cram academies.

The move follows a petition from 826 people, mostly parents of elementary-age children, urging the commission to officially recognize that requiring children as young as six to take such exams amounts to child abuse.

In a statement released on Monday, the commission described these practices as “clearly a form of abuse” that can harm children’s health in the long term. It called on the Ministry of Education to take decisive action against “excessively premature education.”

“To enter certain English academies (hagwons), 6-year-old children are required to take English reading tests, memorize sentences and prepare for oral interviews … Such exams are considered a serious infringement on children’s fundamental rights to healthy growth and development,” the commission said. “To eradicate them, the government should step in to thoroughly investigate the realities of extreme private education practices, including the ‘7-year-old exam’ and similar forms of early education targeting young children, and establish firm and effective countermeasures.”

Citing mental health experts such as Kim Bung-nyun, a senior psychiatrist at Seoul National University Hospital, the commission said extreme forms of early advanced private education may overload children, potentially damaging brain structures and leading to mental health problems later in life.

Data suggests that such concerns are well-founded.

According to the latest data available from the Ministry of Education, there are approximately 820 English kindergartens or specialized English cram schools for young children across Korea. Ministry data showed that the number of such institutions had increased sharply, climbing from 474 in 2017.

In the affluent southern Seoul districts of Gangnam, Seocho and Songpa — areas with a high concentration of cram schools — the number of health insurance claims for depression and anxiety disorders among children aged 9 and younger more than tripled in recent years, rising from 1,037 cases in 2020 to 3,309 in 2024.

As many parents continue to feel compelled to participate in the early education push out of fear that their children will be left behind, government intervention seems necessary, said the commission.

These recommendations come as a group of liberal lawmakers, led by Rep. Kang Kyung-sook of the minor left wing Rebuilding Korea Party, pushes for legislation to ban early English education for young children. The bill, proposed last month, would ban all hagwon programs in English or other school subjects for children under 36 months, and restrict instruction for older, pre-elementary children to a maximum of 40 minutes per day.

If passed, the law would apply to all types of education, including tutoring and for-profit private institutions, marking one of the most significant Korean education reforms in recent memory.

In response to the growing criticism, four groups representing private education businesses recently issued guidelines urging members to eliminate admissions testing for young kids.

But not everyone is welcoming these efforts.

Some argue that completely banning the teaching of young children is an unconstitutional government overreach. A petition posted on the site of the National Assembly to protest what is being called the “English kindergarten ban bill” has garnered more than 12,500 signatures.

“The ‘English kindergarten ban bill’ is not a fundamental solution to the problem, but rather a dangerous idea that risks undermining constitutional values and causing social confusion,” the petitioner wrote. “Children’s education should not be subject to bans and controls, but should be supported by reasonable policies and a guarantee of diverse options.”